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.

[Daniel Breton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Electric Mobility Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to pay my respects to the members here today.

My name is Daniel Breton and I am the President and CEO of Electric Mobility Canada.

Founded in 2006, EMC is the national membership-based industry association dedicated exclusively to promoting electric mobility as a means of supporting the Canadian economy while fighting climate change and air pollution.

EMC's wide range of member organizations include manufacturers of light, medium, heavy-duty and off-road vehicles; electricity suppliers; infrastructure providers; research centres; tech companies; mining companies; cities; universities; fleet managers; unions; etc.

Among its 160 members are companies that manufacture off-road electric vehicles here in Canada, such as snowmobiles, personal watercraft, ATVs, pleasure boats, airport vehicles and more.

In October 2022, the economic statement delivered by the Minister of Finance announced a refundable 30% clean technology investment tax credit for zero-emission non-road vehicles. However, Bill C‑32, Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022, did not contain any provision for the tax credit that had been announced.

In November 2023, the economic statement delivered by the Minister of Finance referred to the 2022 economic statement and the legislation concerning the refundable 30% clean technology investment tax credit for zero-emission non-road vehicles, saying that the credit applied to eligible property acquired and available for use on or after March 28, 2023, and before 2035.

Let us now analyze the terminology used in the 2022 statement. It says:

The following types of equipment would be eligible for the credit: ... non-road zero-emission vehicles described in Class 56 (e.g. hydrogen or electric heavy duty equipment used in mining or construction) and charging or refuelling equipment described under subparagraph (d)(xxi) of Class 43.1 or subparagraph (b)(ii) of Class 43.2 that is used primarily for such vehicles.

Regardless of how we may interpret the content of the statement, it is important to understand that this kind of document, just like the announcement of a policy or plan of action or directive, does not have force of law.

Bill C‑59 provides for the addition of section 127.45 to the Income Tax Act. That proposed section contains a new definition of "clean technology property," which refers, under proposed subparagraph (d)(iv), to "a non-road zero-emission vehicle described in Class 56."

It’s important to note that off-road vehicles are a disproportionate source of air pollution. According to ECCC, their combined emissions make up 38%, 15% and 10% of the total emissions of CO, NOx and VOCs respectively. Carbon monoxide and NOx are volatile organic compounds. Emissions come mostly from the household use of gasoline-powered or diesel-powered recreational equipment and lawn and garden equipment and from the operation of agricultural, construction and mining equipment.

Since 2022, however, we have tried without success to get a clear, exhaustive definition of what a non-road zero-emission vehicle is, to the government's mind. After numerous communications with government officials by email, telephone and ordinary mail, we have still not been able to obtain a satisfactory answer.

Since Canada has a growing number of companies that are developing and building these zero-emission off-road vehicles, creating jobs and selling in Canada and abroad a growing variety of them—snowmobiles, watercraft, recreational boats, ATVs, airport vehicles, unregistered vehicles and mining vehicles, all electric and off-road—it’s important to ensure that the definition we propose does include such vehicles so that these Canadian technologies are encouraged that these vehicles and their workers can benefit from the proposed new measures.

What's more, it's vital that the companies purchasing these off-road vehicles be able to obtain this 30% tax credit and that this tax credit be retroactive to March 28, 2023.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Joël Godin]

Thank you, Ms. Anand.

I've come to my final question.

Your government committed to amending the Official Languages Act in 2019. In 2021, it tabled a white paper stating in black and white that there should be a central agency. Again in 2021, it introduced Bill C‑32. In 2022, it introduced a second bill, Bill C‑13, and shut down clause-by-clause consideration in committee so it could move forward as fast as possible.

How can you claim to be listening to the communities when you say that Bill C‑13 won't come into force for two or three years, as you told a Senate committee?

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we all remember the sad incidents at airports in the summer of 2022. People were sleeping on the floor. They were not given food or a place to sleep. They were not getting any answers. We also remember the big snowstorm during last year's holiday season, and especially everything that followed.

Does my colleague think that the contents of Bill C-32 and the other bills passed so far are enough to ensure that these kinds of situations do not happen again?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great enthusiasm that I rise today to speak to Bill C‑52.

From the outset I want to say that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill to have the chance to study it closer in committee and improve it.

We know that the bill is trying to resolve various problems that have arisen at our airports since air traffic has resumed. Obviously that is a good thing, because there has been no shortage of problems at our airports since the end of COVID-19.

This leads me to the first point of my speech, about airport and airline service standards. I believe that the intention here is good. We all remember, for those who managed to get a federal passport to travel, what a mess there was at Canada's airports in the summer of 2022.

As members will recall, the government refused to propose a plan to lift the health measures. Why? Rather than provide predictability to our citizens, our industries and our businesses, the government chose to contribute to polarizing this issue, like the Conservative Party. Each side did that in its own way.

Consequently, when the government lifted the public health restrictions for travelling abroad, people rushed to our airports. That resulted in all the chaos we witnessed, when hundreds of flights were delayed or cancelled and passengers were stuck sleeping on the floor at airports. There were also extremely long wait times at customs, which, incidentally, is a federal responsibility. That is also not to mention the horrendous lineups for boarding.

The Bloc Québécois's intuition before those problems occurred was right. We warned the government that its passenger bill of rights was by no means a panacea, and sadly, the unfortunate things that happened proved that to be true.

It became very clear that certain airlines preferred to make more money by overbooking their flights. They knew that they would be unable to keep their commitments. However, they also knew that it would not be too much of a problem because the complaints would not go anywhere, given the interminable delays at the Canadian Transportation Agency. Because there is no serious punitive mechanism for these airlines, some of them chose to act unscrupulously, and that is shameful.

The second key moment in this saga happened last winter. Members may recall that a snowstorm left many flights grounded. We agree that no one can be blamed for a snowstorm, not even the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We are not holding the government responsible for rain or good weather—especially not good weather, of course. The fact remains, however, that although events beyond our control can affect air transportation services, airlines have a responsibility to their customers that they cannot shirk. They have to provide food to people left waiting for hours, or even hotel rooms and return flights if their customers are stuck in Mexico, for example. Unfortunately, some airlines failed to live up to their responsibilities that time, too.

Further to that point, I want to talk about Cirium and FlightAware, the firms that compiled data for La Presse. They determined that there were more than 2,400 delays and cancellations during the holiday season last year, that is, between December 19, 2022, and January 4, 2023. Their figures show that over 55% of Air Canada's 1,000 flights were delayed. For Sunwing, the figure was two-thirds. Every airline had issues. It was during this period that Sunwing suspended several return flights from Mexico, stranding travellers there for days. People criticized the company's incompetence, and Sunwing was forced to apologize to its customers.

We talk a lot about airlines, but we cannot forget about Via Rail. This rail company was also singled out for blame. Passengers were trapped on board a train for hours. In one case, it was an entire day. That is unacceptable.

Following this second unacceptable event, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities took up the issue. My esteemed colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, whom I commend, proposed several improvements to the passenger bill of rights.

These improvement include the following: shifting the burden of proof to the airlines; changing the grounds on which a carrier is not required to provide compensation; improving the complaints process to reduce delays, finally; making the Canadian Transportation Agency's decisions public to establish a type of jurisprudence, so that anyone forced to go to court several years after the incident will know exactly what the agency is basing its arguments on; and increasing fines for airlines.

These proposals were included in the government's Bill C‑32. Just one thing was left out, namely the need to ensure that airlines treat people with respect and dignity. I believe that is the objective of the service standards, that is, to ensure that airlines treat people like people, for example, and as I said earlier, by providing them with food when the plane is grounded for several hours, as well as a hotel room instead of the floor to sleep. This is a step in the right direction, and we welcome it.

The only concern that I have about this measure is that it does not force the government to set standards for the services it offers itself. We know that some airport delays are caused by the federal government. I spoke about it a few moments ago. The endless wait times at customs and security because Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding are not the responsibility of airlines or airport authorities. The federal government needs to lead by example and set service standards for itself. That is what we are asking it to do today. Once again, what we are seeing in this bill is that the government is setting standards for airports and airlines. That is good, but the government, the royalty that does not negotiate with its subjects, remains above all that, and the problem remains unsolved. The government should have implemented such measures here at the same time in order to set the example.

My second point about this bill has to do with something entirely different and that is the management of airport noise out of respect for the neighbouring community. The bill forces airport operators to establish a noise management committee, which will be responsible for dealing with complaints from the public and giving notice to the public with respect to noise alterations. The committee is made up of one representative from the airport operator, one representative from Nav Canada, one representative from the municipal or local government and one air carrier representative. Under the bill, the committee will meet at least four times a year and allow public participation.

In practical terms, it is hard to say whether the committee will really improve neighbourliness between airports and residents, but it is safe to say that having this committee will facilitate both the process and communication on this issue. As we know, there are numerous problems that arise between airports and neighbouring residents, and they are often brought to the attention of the MPs who represent these citizens. As I was saying, the committee will not solve everything, but it can facilitate communication. That is why we welcome this party's intention. However, we are aware that this remains a serious and deep-rooted problem. Citizens are reaching out to us, especially to our colleagues who represent ridings with airports near densely populated areas. People are saying they cannot stand hearing airplane noise all day long. We need to continue to do more, but this is a good first step.

Another aspect that we welcome is the establishment of greenhouse gas reduction targets for airports and ports. They will not be exempt.

As members know, the bill requires municipalities to develop and adopt a five-year plan on climate change adaptation measures. We are talking about the current and anticipated impacts of climate change on airport operations for airport authorities and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, this is about targets and adaptation in relation to the previous plan. Governments will also have to publish their plans.

This part of the bill aims to force port and airport authorities to come up with a plan to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change. Given the importance of this infrastructure, we welcome the proposal in this area, as well.

However, we did find some problems in several areas of this bill and in many other bills introduced by the government. What is the problem?

Airport obligations are determined by regulations. In other words, they will be determined by the government, who will not have to be accountable to the House, to us legislators. Today, as we debate Bill C‑52, it is impossible for us to determine the effort that will be required from airport authorities. In other words, Bill C‑52 gives the government the power to say that it will impose rules later, that it will determine them alone and it will not be accountable to anyone.

This can likely be explained by haste. They probably want to go too fast and for us not to take the time to do things properly. I will come back to that a bit later in my speech.

This looks good on paper, but since the devil is in the details and those will not be decided until later by regulation, we will remain skeptical about the scope of this measure. As I was saying, this is not the first time the government announces good intentions on the environment, when we know its true nature, namely to continue giving subsidies to the oil companies, authorize Bay du Nord, fund at great cost the expansion of Trans Mountain, and so on. We are not fools.

Let us come back to Bill C‑52. Another part of the bill deals with the collection of information and the handling of complaints regarding airport accessibility for people with disabilities. That is obviously very important. Here again, the intention is highly commendable and it is consistent with the objective of the Accessible Canada Act, which is to eliminate barriers for people with disabilities by 2040. We all saw stories in the news about people with disabilities who were unable to receive the services and support they needed. What is more, quite often, they were not treated with the respect that every person deserves. Every incident like that is one too many and unacceptable. It is imperative that things change, that action is taken. Let us hope that Bill C‑52 helps to improve the situation and that such incidents never happen again.

As I was saying, the problem is that the bill does not indicate what the government intends to do to improve the situation. However, it does indicate that the government will be able to create regulations in that regard. The bill targets a problem that must be resolved to comply with other laws, but it gives the government power to adopt regulations and does not make the government accountable to the House, which is unacceptable.

Again, I will offer some criticism about this approach. Passing legislation that only allows the minister to make the rules bypasses the spirit of the legislative role of Parliament. It does not allow us, the elected members, to properly defend the interests of the constituents we represent.

At some point I would like to officially make this request to the Chair, who is the defender of our rights and privileges in the House. I would like to know whether it is acceptable for the government to operate in this way this often, having everything go through regulations instead of through laws that can be studied thoroughly by us, the legislators. In my opinion, the government is assuming rights that are also those of the House by proceeding in this way. Obviously, when there is a majority vote then it is the House that it is giving these rights to the government. This raises a rather fundamental question. The government is proceeding in this way to go quickly and to hide what will be unpopular. That is an issue that deserves a lot of reflection.

In its current form, Bill C-52 creates a great deal of uncertainty for the industry, which is being told that the government has plans without being informed of how it intends to go about implementing them. Will the industry receive clear information on what will be implemented in the regulations? Will it be able to have a constructive and positive dialogue within the acceptable time frame allowed by the government? The industry has to rely on the government's good faith. This leads to a concentration of powers, which is worrisome, because when power is concentrated in the hands of the minister, this runs contrary to the spirit of the separation of powers necessary for a healthy democracy.

I really wanted to take a moment to point this out. I think it is necessary because we would prefer that the government do its job and legislate through laws rather than regulations. We believe it is necessary, even when one has very noble intentions such as making our airports more accessible and inclusive.

On this point, there is another part of this bill that I want to commend. The bill provides that airport authorities will henceforth be required to produce a report on diversity among their directors and members of senior management.

Once again, the details will be defined by regulation. Based on what Statistics Canada wrote in its report on diversity among directors and senior management, inequities persist among men, women and visible minorities. As we know, the last two groups are under-represented and there are still wage gaps, even when the main reasons for gaps, such as occupation, education, and the number of weeks or number of hours worked, are accounted for in the Statistics Canada study.

We have a duty to address these inequities and we will continue to do so. We applaud the fact that Bill C‑52 includes a part on this subject. However, it does not say what is actually going to be done. It announces an intention in that the matter will be defined by regulation, once again.

In conclusion, there are many, many elements of the bill that I would have liked to discuss, including criticisms about part 3 of the bill and the changes to port fees. Part 3 of the bill amends the Canada Marine Act and provisions regarding the fixing of port fees. A bunch of different taxes are mentioned, like tolls, dues and rates for things like harbour access, berthage and wharfage, not including payments made under a lease or licence agreement. There is a list of principles that port administrations have to observe when fixing fees. Part 3 of the bill also established a framework for complaints regarding these fees.

We have some concerns about these principles, which could benefit from discussions in committee, improvements or clarifications. Proposed paragraph (a), for instance, states that “the fees must be fixed in accordance with an explicit methodology—that includes any conditions affecting the fees—that the authority has established and published”. We wonder if this principle is really necessary and what the reasoning is. There is also paragraph (c), which states that “the fees must not be fixed at levels that, based on reasonable and prudent projections, would generate revenues exceeding the authority’s existing and future financial requirements”. Our concern with this principle is that the wording could hinder development and investments in port infrastructure.

The bill also enables the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations to establish fees to administer the provisions of the bill on fees. The bill does not specify who will be charged these fees because, once again, it will all be determined by regulation. That is how this party governs. It drafts a bill and asks us to vote in favour of it, but everything is determined by regulation so that the government is not accountable to the House. Is it because the members of this party are ill-intentioned and trying to pass things that we do not know about or is it because they are just incompetent? One has to wonder, but this way of doing things is shameful either way.

Obviously, in committee, we will ensure that the principles outlined in the bill do not undermine the competitiveness of Quebec and Canadian ports. We will also take the time to study these principles and their effects. For example, again in relation to this same part, we are not convinced that the complaints process is the best, and we are wondering about the reasoning behind the principles that will determine port fees. I am sure my colleagues will address those aspects in more detail in the speeches that follow.

I want to close by emphasizing that, as usual, the Bloc Québécois will take the time to study the bill in committee to improve it, with our main focus being that this future law must improve the day-to-day lives of Quebeckers. That is what we are always working to accomplish.

Sitting Resumed

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the excellent work she does on veterans affairs.

I really want to answer this. Looking at B.C., I talked about how in the B.C. schools, they could not get any lands. In the bill, there are guarantees that they would be consulted, which is important.

If the member is asking why I am upset with the delay, I have to be very honest and say that today, where I stand, I am happy with the delay. I explained that Bill C-32 had strengths, but Bill C-13 has more strengths. Now, going to committee with the new amendments, it is even better. In 10 years, we will make it perfect, if it is not perfect today.

Motions in Amendment

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that I would have liked to debate the motion moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think that we Conservatives would have agreed to it, because it is consistent with what we presented in committee, in that it is about shortening the review period. Instead of 10 years, as written, we wanted to shorten the period to five years, but the Liberals refused. My colleague in the Bloc Québécois had an even better idea, which was to reduce the review period to three years. When something is urgent, we need time to react. The faster we react, the easier it is to close the gap in order to halt the decline of the French language.

As a fervent defender of French, I am always happy to rise in the House of Commons to defend the language. My goal is obviously to halt the decline of the French language and to protect and promote both official languages.

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the issue, that is, the government's proposed amendments to Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, at report stage, it is important to understand how we got here.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned that funding was doubled, but we lost eight years that could have been spent providing the tools needed to protect French here in Canada. This government has been in power for eight years and, for eight years, it has dragged its feet when it comes to official languages. It gives organizations the illusion that it is doing enough to protect bilingualism in Canada.

Way back in 2018, the Prime Minister pledged to modernize the Official Languages Act, a promise that was repeated in the 2019 and 2021 Liberal platforms. It will probably be repeated again in the next election campaign, the outcome of which remains to be seen.

In 2021, the government tabled a white paper on the reform of the Official Languages Act, titled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. Bill C-32 was tabled by the then minister of official languages, who is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but it later died on the Order Paper when the government decided to call an election.

When she was appointed after the 2021 election, the new Minister of Official Languages promised that she would present a new version of the Official Languages Act in her first 100 days. She almost kept her promise. Bill C-13 was tabled in March 2022 to halt the decline of the French language in Canada and promote our two official languages, English and French.

Why am I focusing on the words “English and French” when talking about bilingualism? It is because the government appointed a Governor General who is bilingual, but who does not speak French. The Governor General is our representative, and has some lovely qualities, but unfortunately, she does not speak French. That is a good representation of how much this government cares about defending the French fact.

If it were as important to the Liberals as they say it is, rather than just an election promise, we would not be here today debating Bill C‑13, since a reform would have been adopted long ago.

In rising in the House today, on April 26, at report stage of Bill C-13, an act for the substantive equality of Canada's official languages, I recall the many times the language minister rose in this chamber.

She stated:

I hope once again that members of the House will work with us because stakeholders across the country want this bill to be passed as quickly as possible and we have a lot of work to do.

She was right. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages tried several times in committee to shut down debate on this bill by limiting the number of witnesses who would appear before the committee and the amount of time that would be spent debating the amendments. The Conservative Party of Canada takes English-French bilingualism very seriously.

We had an incredible opportunity to modernize the Official Languages Act, something that has not been done since 1988. As parliamentarians, this was our chance to take meaningful action to reverse the decline of French, a very real problem in both Canada and Quebec.

We were good sports and reached out to find compromises to move this file forward. We took the time to listen to stakeholder organizations that are feeling the impact of the decline of French every day, and we took the necessary action to give Bill C-13 more teeth, as the minister has said. However, we were unsuccessful because of a lack of will on the part of the government.

At committee stage, the Liberals moved over 50 amendments, many of which were identical but were submitted by different Liberal members. Some Liberal members also monopolized the time for debate and kept the Standing Committee on Official Languages from moving forward. That shows three things: The Liberals are not working as a team, they are inconsistent and they are disorganized.

Now here we are today, April 26, 2023, at report stage, with about 10 government motions on the table, and that is after some were withdrawn. These motions do not amend the substance of the bill. They could easily have been put forward in committee, but the Liberals chose instead to draw out the process for passing the bill.

I heard my colleague talking earlier about moving forward as quickly as possible so that the bill can be passed as soon as possible, as all organizations are calling for. Unfortunately, this was not taken into consideration, which is why, today, we are talking about details that are wasting time and dragging out the debate.

In accordance with the normal legislative process, we will have to vote at report stage. That will be followed by another stage in the House of Commons. We do not know when this will happen, since the government has not revealed its strategy. However, we will have to return to the House, debate and vote. Then the bill will have to be studied by the other place, the Senate. This shows that the Liberal government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says it wants to move fast, but it is disorganized. Amendments were moved today. Amendments were moved in committee. I just want to point out that the Liberals moved 50 amendments.

They drafted a white paper, Bill C-32 and Bill C‑13. They submitted Bill C‑13 to committee and are submitting it again today. What does that show? It shows that the government does not necessarily want to fast-track Bill C‑13. I think that is unfortunate.

I also think it is unfortunate that the Bloc Québécois was unable to move its motion because the Liberals objected. I respect and accept your decision, but the decision was made based on the fact that it could have been debated in committee, yet that also applies to what the government just proposed.

Unfortunately, the act will not have a shorter review period that would allow us to make adjustments when we find out, on the day it takes effect after the bill receives royal assent, that it cannot ensure that concrete action will be taken to halt the decline of the French language in Canada.

I think that this is important, that we should be proud of this bill, proud of our French language and proud of our English language. Bilingualism is something for Canada to be proud of, something that makes us attractive and unique. We owe it to ourselves to respect the organizations that work hard every day to protect our official language minority communities.

With all due respect for my colleague, we in the Conservative Party of Canada will once again reach out and not obstruct the progress of Bill C‑13.

However, I hope the Liberal government does not have any more surprises in store for us that will slow the process down. We should pass the bill as soon as possible so we can move on to something else and give our organizations the tools they need to do what they do every day to protect the French language, halt its decline, and protect and promote English and French. We do not want to pit our two official languages against each other. We are proud of both.

[Pierre Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

You'll recall that in the FES legislation, which I believe was Bill C-32, Parliament passed a rule around dispositions of residential property that were held for under one year. Basically, those would generally be taxed as business income, but there would be certain exceptions for certain life events—death, divorce, a job in a different place and things like that—that would take effect for the 2023 tax year.

What this does is extend that measure to assignment sales, basically when what you've purchased is not the property but the right to the property. Often that's for condo constructions. That's often where that happens.

It's basically the extension of an existing rule to this other type of transaction, also to take effect for property sold in 2023 or after.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Vice-Chair.

Just to put it on the record, on December 8, 2022, Conservatives voted against Bill C-32, which certified the $1.7 billion for supply management. Furthermore, the leader of the official opposition did not commit his full support of Bill C-282.

I'd like to ask my first question of Mr. Slomp.

In your policy briefing on the previous verison of the bill, the National Farmers Union stated that passing the bill was in the national interest. Do you believe that this bill, Bill C-282, will impact the competitiveness of the Canadian agriculture sector on the global market?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today. I also want to say that I don't think it's necessary to pit one sector against another. The agriculture industry should speak with one voice, and that bears repeating.

At the same time, I want to correct some of the false statements made by members on the other side.

I want to reiterate that the government committed to providing $1.7 billion in compensation. I want to thank the Bloc Québécois and the NDP for voting in favour of Bill C‑32. I don't want to thank the Conservative Party, however, for how it voted on the $1.7 billion in compensation. Just to clarify, I want to say that Mr. Lehoux and Mr. Martel voted against the bill. That is very clear, and I think people need to know that.

Canada was nevertheless able to make progress. I know the dairy sector experienced market loss. I meet with the 300 producers in my region, in Saint‑Isidore, and I know it's a problem.

That said, Mr. Lampron or Mr. Weins, supply management is often framed as being very costly to consumers. I know you represent the dairy sector, but two or three weeks ago, news reports coming out of the U.S. indicated that consumers were paying eight dollars for a dozen eggs. It's a country with a free-market system. I was in Florida, in fact, visiting my parents. Here, in Canada, I can get a dozen eggs at Foodland for $3.29, and those eggs are from a local farm, the Laviolette Poultry Farm.

Certain professors whom I won't name always seem to be saying that supply management costs consumers more.

What do you have to say to them?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to start with Mr. Robertson. Any other panellist who wants to can chime in as well.

We've been talking about the critical minerals component, and you'll be aware that Minister Wilkinson launched the critical minerals strategy within the last seven to 10 days. The fall economic statement, or Bill C-32, which we were just voting on a few days ago, talks about an increase in the mineral exploration tax credit, with the rate going from 15% to 30%.

Is that an appropriate baseline for the rate to be set at? Do you think there's room for further improvement to harness exactly what we've been talking about, which is competing with the Chinas of the world in the race for critical minerals? Does this also include capitalizing on not just extracting them but also getting to the point where we're processing, refining and even manufacturing batteries themselves here in Canada?

I'll start with Mr. Robertson, and then if anyone else wants to chime in, they can. Thanks.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question this afternoon. As regards housing and the cost of living across the country, it is very important to bring in measures to help all Canadians.

On the housing front, with the measures put in place by the fall economic statement, some of which will flow through Bill C-32 and the upcoming housing accelerator fund, we will work with all levels of government to ensure that the housing supply is boosted for Canadian families, for first-time buyers and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to recommence speaking to such an important topic, but also on our government's record of assisting Canadians at this period of time.

Our government is well aware that many Canadians are struggling to put food on the table during this period of high inflation. We go to the grocery store and cannot help but feel discouraged to see the price of the food we eat every day continue to rise. Milk, meat, bread, fruit and vegetables all cost more now. Many families across the country are struggling to make ends meet these days because of inflation.

However, it is important to remember that inflation is a global phenomenon, and food inflation is no exception. It is the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and has been exacerbated by Vladimir Putin's illegal and barbaric war in Ukraine. To make things worse, snarled supply chains are affecting people and businesses around the world.

However, there is some room for hope in Canada. While inflation was 8.1% in June, it is now down to 6.9%, lower than what we see in many peer economies. For example, in the United States, it is at 7.7%. The EU is in double digits at 10%, and in the United Kingdom is 11.1 %. Still, inflation at 6.9% in Canada is too high.

I do personally, as an economist, forecast inflation going down in the quarters ahead, which will bring much needed relief to Canadian families.

On the bright side of things, as we are all bracing for a global economic slowdown, I believe there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Indeed, Canada has an unemployment rate near its record low, as more than 500,000 more Canadians are working today than at the beginning the pandemic. We also have the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year and the lowest net debt and deficit-to-GDP ratios in the G7. On top of that, our country maintains its AAA credit rating from all three rating agencies.

However, we understand that a large number of Canadians will continue to struggle. The next few months will be difficult for our friends, families and neighbours because of inflation.

Many Canadians need help to get through the crisis, and our government is there for them. For example, with our affordability plan, we are putting forward a suite of measures totalling $12.1 billion to help Canadians make ends meet and provide for their families.

It is important to note that the measures we are putting forward are not pouring unnecessary fuel on the inflation fire. They only provide targeted, fiscally responsible help to those who need it most.

I would like to remind my colleagues what our affordability plan has to offer. It would enhance the Canada workers benefit and put up to $2,400 more in the pockets of modest-income families. That would assist nearly three million Canadian workers on a yearly basis.

We will cut regulated child care fees by an average of 50% by the end of this year. As I noted in the first two minutes of my speech prior to question period, my family received news that, for little Leia, who is in day care now, the fees have been reduced by 25% and a further 25% will occur by the end of the year. That is great news for not only my family, and we are quite blessed, but also for families who need that assistance and help.

There is a 10% increase in old age security, which we had put in prior to the increase in global inflation. This will be $800 more for over three million seniors aged 75 and up who need it the most.

Regarding dental care, over 35,000 Canadians have signed up for their children under 12. These Canadians have incomes under $90,000 a year and do not have private insurance.

We will make a $500 payment to 1.8 million low-income renters who are struggling with the cost of housing.

There is the doubling of the GST credit for six months, which is providing additional relief to 11 million individuals and families.

Everything is indexed to inflation. As I mentioned earlier this week, when speaking to Bill C-32, then finance minister Paul Martin introduced the indexation of all benefits of all marginal income tax rates to avoid what is called “tax creep” due to inflation. It was very important. It was one of the largest tax cuts ever introduced in Canadian history and provided a boost to incomes. It is great to see that continue.

When we think about the increase in the cost of living, it is due to the cost of groceries, of course, but it is also due to the cost of housing. Our government believes that everyone should have a safe and affordable place to call home. That goal was taken as a given for previous generations, but it is increasingly out of reach for far too many Canadians. Rents continue to climb across the country, pushing people further and further away from where they work.

With Bill C-31, we move forward with a one-time top-up to the Canada housing program. This will provide a tax-free payment of $500 to low-income renters, and 1.8 million Canadians will receive this. This payment will provide direct assistance to those who are most vulnerable to inflation and those experiencing housing difficulties.

These 1.8 million low-income renters include students who are struggling to pay for housing, and they will be eligible for this new assistance. This one-time top-up is part of a broader set of initiatives introduced in budget 2022. It will invest more than $9 billion to help make housing more affordable, including by alleviating the supply shortage, which is one of the main causes of the high cost of housing, particularly in the GTA.

In addition, with Bill C‑32, our government is moving forward with its ambitious package of measures to build more homes and make housing more affordable across the country.

In order to help Canadians afford a down payment faster, Bill C-32 proposes to move forward with a new tax-free home savings account. This account would allow prospective first-time homebuyers to save up to $40,000 tax-free toward buying their first home.

As with the registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP, contributions would be tax deductible and, as with the tax-free savings account, or TFSA, withdrawals would be non-taxable. The tax-free first home savings account is a new tool that will help prospective first-time homebuyers save for a down payment.

We will also enhance the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. The professional fees associated with real estate transactions are another hurdle. That is why we are proposing to double the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. The enhanced credit would provide up to $1,500.

I know my time is winding up, so I will stop there. I look forward to questions and comments from my hon. colleagues from all sides of this hon. place.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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 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.

Carbon Pricing

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are focused like a laser beam on affordability. I hope that in just a few short minutes, members opposite will vote for Bill C-32, which helps affordability.

Do members know what else helps affordability? It is the climate action rebate. It puts more money in people's pockets, and eight out of 10 families will benefit.

Do members know what they will not benefit from? The advice of the Leader of the Opposition to invest in cryptocurrency. There are a few days left in this session. I hope the hon. Leader of the Opposition has the opportunity to apologize. He should.

Taxation

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I still do not understand how the Conservatives from Quebec can be against the actions our government is taking to deal with climate change. I understand that the Conservatives want to ignore climate change, but in an hour, we will be voting on Bill C‑32, which will lower taxes for our SMEs and our entrepreneurs.

Why do the Conservatives systematically vote against tax cuts, including tax cuts for the middle class?

Financial Institutions

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have heard us explain why it was important that we were there for Canadians. If we had to do it again, we would, because Canadians needed us and we were there in their time of need.

What I do not understand is that in an hour's time, we will be voting on Bill C-32 and the Conservatives have consistently voted against the bill. The bill contains an important measure that will further lower the small business tax rate for our entrepreneurs in the country.

If the Conservatives wish to be consistent about their position, why are they voting against a tax cut for small businesses?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member knows through the interventions I have shared in this place that if the governing party were serious about the climate crisis, it would start by taking the Canada recovery dividend that is already in Bill C-32 and apply it to oil and gas companies.

I will move to a different topic. One thing I think we agree on is addressing affordability, particularly for those who need it the most, and that is people with disabilities across the country who are disproportionately living in poverty today. They have been calling out for an emergency response benefit to address the rising cost of living, food and day-to-day life. If all parliamentarians were serious about addressing affordability in this place, they would be directing funding to those living with disabilities.

Could the member share his level of support for addressing poverty for those living with disabilities through an emergency response benefit?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Once again, and I want to emphasize this with regard to positive measures, Bill C-13 goes further than Bill C-32. In addition, non-governmental organizations, as you cited as an example, are mentioned in the new version of the act. That's new. We want to ensure that this bill is passed because we want to continue doing the necessary work.

We still have a lot of work ahead of us to develop the regulations and so on. We are all eager to continue that very important work.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Minister. We've heard that on numerous occasions. Thank you very much.

I want to know if it's you who withdrew the full power granted to the Treasury Board, which was recommended in Ms. Joly's white paper and as provided in Bill C-32.

Did you withdraw that power under Bill C-13?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

First of all, Mr. Godin, as regards my role at the cabinet table, my voice isn't a lesser voice; it carries just as much weight as those of all the other cabinet members.

Bill C-32 was indeed the first take on the modernization of the Official Languages Act. However, I have just introduced the final version of the bill, which contains improvements.

People often ask me if our bill is less rigorous. I was asked that today. However, it's quite the contrary: we've gone to great lengths to ensure that our bill has more teeth.

We've done that, Mr. Godin, because stakeholders across the country have asked us to make amendments to the bill. For example, they wanted us to give the Commissioner of Official Languages more powers and tools to do his job, to clarify the immigration policy and to provide a more precise definition of positive measures.

Since the bill hasn't yet been passed, I hope the committee will work together to pass it as soon as possible.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here today.

We all have the same objective: to work at strengthening bilingualism in Canada, both English and French.

You said in your statement that you had conducted many consultations. I believe that's true because we've seen your itinerary. You have a very busy schedule. So I'm satisfied that you met with the representatives of organizations.

However, I'd like to know something. We've had the white paper, BillC-32 and the consultation that you conducted this past year. Did you hear loud and clear what the representatives of the official language minority communities told you?

I'm going to talk to you right now about the first demand of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the FCFA. It has requested that the Treasury Board be designated as the central agency responsible for implementing Bill C-13. Do you support that request, which I believe is unanimous among all the communities represented by the FCFA?

We can see that there's some confusion. Earlier the Minister of Canadian Heritage didn't seem to be aware of the issue. He gave you all the responsibilities, but your position isn't mentioned in the bill. He has no powers.

Would you be inclined to amend the bill to implement the FCFA's first recommendation?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the ministers for being with us this morning.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, I've often heard francophone columnists and commentators say that Bill C-13 wouldn't go as far as Bill C-32.

I don't get the impression that's true, but I want to give you a chance to state your view of the matter.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages]

Thank you, Ms. Kayabaga.

Those of you who know me, or who recognize my accent, know that I'm an Acadian from New Brunswick. I live in an official language minority community.

I have had the good fortune to live, work and study in French partly as a result of the Official Languages Act. Consequently, it is an important act for me, and I think it has genuinely improved the lives of many of us.

In the past year, I have had the privilege of meeting my counterparts from across the country. In June, for the first time, I attended a meeting of the federal government, the provinces and the territories where we had an opportunity to discuss challenges and priorities. I must say we're eager to continue working closely together with the provinces and territories.

I would like to remind everyone that the work involved in implementing Bill C-13 began four years ago. The earlier Bill C-32 and the present Bill C-13 share the same reform objective: to ensure that the new version of the bill enables us to move forward and to give it more teeth. We were able to introduce a good bill thanks to the conversations we had with our counterparts.

As the new Minister of Official Languages, I was fortunate to meet with stakeholders from across the country last year. I was thus able to get to know them, to forge ties and to learn what they wanted to see in the bill. Bill C-32 definitely contained some good elements, but stakeholders also told us they wanted improvements made to it. That's precisely what we've done with Bill C-13.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[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—

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, 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.

[The Speaker, Liberal, 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 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.

Post-Secondary Education

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for her question and her hard work.

With the increase in the cost of living, our government has been quick to act and provide support to Canadians who need it. We are continuing this support with our fall economic statement and Bill C‑32 by including the elimination of interest on student loans. This will help students and new graduates. We will ensure that Canadians have money in their pockets.

The Conservatives can support us here within the hour by voting in favour of Bill C‑32.

Carbon Pricing

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, all of us, on all sides of the House, are concerned about the affordability challenges of Canadian families, except on this side of the House we are doing something about it. The Conservatives can redeem themselves in just a few short minutes by voting for Bill C-32.

As the hon. member will know, as the price on pollution increases, so does the climate rebate. Unfortunately, the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not support that. He supports investing in cryptocurrency. Canadians are losing their shirts, and that is very unfortunate.

COVID-19 Emergency Response

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing this party is good for is regurgitating what their leader tells them and repeating the word “triple”.

Imagine what would happen if, instead of singing from the same hymn sheet, they took a look at real issues such as tackling global challenges, supporting Canadians, supporting families, supporting seniors and protecting the environment. Then again, in order to do that, they would have to take on some real problems, and they are not capable of doing that.

I urge them to vote for Bill C-32 this afternoon.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Auditor General and her entire team for her important work and for tabling her report in the House yesterday. I want to say that I have the utmost respect for the Auditor General, her role and her independence. As we have said before, we appreciate the fact that she has confirmed that our COVID-19 benefits were effective.

We will not be distracted. Canadians have given us a mandate and we will continue to be there to support them. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and vote in favour of Bill C-32 this afternoon.

The Economy

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we greatly respect the efforts that working men and women are making to build a prosperous Canada. We know that Canadians are going through a difficult time during this global inflationary cycle. That is why, here in Canada, the Bank of Canada is independent. Its role is to reduce inflation to a 2% target rate. As the government, we take action to put money in the pockets of Canadians who need it, when they need it.

That is why it is essential that every member of the House vote in favour of supports for Canadians and help us by voting for Bill C‑32.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party knows, the Bank of Canada is an independent institution that has been tasked, since December of last year, to get inflation back down to 2%.

The bank is doing its job. We are doing our job, which is making sure that we have the fiscal firepower to face what is to come, investing in Canadians and supporting the Canadians who need it the most. That is why we are helping Canadians to buy a new home, advancing the payments for workers' benefits and making sure that student loan interest gets removed forever.

This is the right thing to do. It is the responsible thing to do. It is why we hope that all parties vote with us on Bill C-32 today.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows very well that the Bank of Canada is an independent institution.

It is true that this is a difficult time for Canadians. It is not true that the investments that we made in Canadians have caused inflation. One need only look at the report of the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, which indicates that our investments prevented a period of deflation.

Within the hour, the Leader of the Opposition will have the opportunity to help Canadians by supporting Bill C-32 to implement the support measures set out in the the fall economic statement.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, my speech will have to be curtailed, which is something that should have been thought of before the Liberals came up with Bill C-32.

The fall economic statement, which could have done so much to help people in need, does absolutely nothing to address the real crises that Canadians are facing, like inflation, the cost of living and more taxes. Where it could have stopped new taxes and tax hikes and stopped new spending and wasteful spending, it fails to do so and only adds to the inflationary economy. The people of Saskatchewan cannot afford these out-of-touch policies that take their hard-earned money out of their pockets and put it into government coffers.

Each and every household in this country is feeling the effects of the Liberal incompetence when it comes to managing inflation and the cost of living. This year alone, government revenues have increased to $41.1 billion. Where is that money coming from? It is coming from the single mother who is skipping meals to make sure that her kids have enough to eat each week. It is coming from the families who have to pick between putting gas in their cars or keeping the lights on that month, because they are all paying higher taxes.

These are things the Prime Minister does not worry about and has never had to spare a thought for in his entire life. He is completely out of touch with his inflationary deficits, which are now at half a trillion dollars. It is clear that he has no problem profiting off the backs of Canadians and leaving the issues for future generations to deal with. He does not have their backs. He is profiting off their backs.

As we all know, this is Christmastime and a festive season for many. People are trying to get out, celebrate and help where they can. However, they are concerned, especially when a report that came out yesterday said that the cost of their food is escalating and, in 2023, prices will be 5% to 7% higher. Families will pay $1,065 more for groceries in 2023.

My wife goes out of her way yearly to assist with baking for hospitals, charities and people who have lost loved ones, as well as my family. Yesterday, she was making some cookies and went to buy some supplies. One box of graham cracker crumbs, two small cans of Eagle Brand condensed milk, two oranges, two lemons, a small 125-millilitre bottle of artificial vanilla and two 450-gram sticks of butter, which fit into one bag, was a total cost of $82.54. That is a lot of money for cookies, and next year it is going to be closer to $100.

The Liberals are killing rural communities and are doing it without even batting an eye. Measures like the carbon tax are killing businesses both small and large, including farming operations that have stood the test of time for generations. It is a tragedy to see family farms having to sell off their operations just so they can pay the bills. Many ranchers and farmers are close to walking away from the industry because of these escalating input costs.

As we all know, the Prime Minister has a pattern of promising something and doing the complete opposite. Many years and many billions of dollars ago, he said that he would not exceed $10 billion of debt. How soon people forget. The Prime Minister has now added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. Furthermore, an alarming 40% of all new spending measures, roughly $205 billion, has nothing to do at all with COVID.

Ultimately, it is going to come down to what I call the “heat or keep” principle. In Saskatchewan, winters get brutally cold with temperatures dropping down into the minus forties multiple times during the season. In fact, as I speak today, it is below -30°C. Thanks to measures like the carbon tax for the last few years, people have been wondering if they can afford to heat their homes, a concern that no Canadian should have to grapple with. Now, because of the ever-rising interest rates and inflation, they are wondering if they will be able to keep their homes. The Prime Minister could never begin to imagine the stress that is felt by those who have to decide to heat or keep, but this is what it has come down to.

If we take a look at the numbers, the outlook is grim. Families who are financially on the brink who bought a typical home five years ago with a typical mortgage that is now up for renewal will pay $7,000 more a year. This is completely unsustainable and has the potential to financially devastate many hard-working homeowners who are just trying to live the life that they have earned and deserve. For example, someone with a mortgage of $400,000 amortized over 25 years with a monthly payment of $2,400 is not eligible for the relief that the Liberals are touting as the solution to the problem.

Speaking of the carbon tax, this could be a great opportunity for the government to actually help Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals could make the decision to cancel the tripling of the tax, but they will not.

Another big issue that I have with this economic update is that it fails to adequately address the Inflation Reduction Act that the U.S. passed in August, specifically with respect to investment in emissions reduction technology here in Canada.

The fact is that the Liberals have missed every single emissions reduction target they have set, yet they are still not doing enough to incentivize investment in clean technology. That is shameful. The United States has a 45Q tax credit that is straightforward, easy to understand and provides industry with certainty over things like regulation prices and timelines. By contrast, the measures created by the Liberal government are largely ineffective due to the high level of bureaucracy involved, with a mess of programs and credits layered on top of each other that create confusion and lack clarity.

We have already seen projects worth billions of dollars choose to operate in Texas over Alberta because of the ease of doing business in the U.S. The Liberals are choosing not to listen to industry experts who are prepared to assist and advise on clean tech like carbon capture and storage, or CCUS, because they do not want to be associated with the word “coal”. Is it the industry they are trying to kill, or is it the emissions?

Surely it is the emissions and the fact that CCUS can do it is something that we should be investing in. It is something that this economic statement does not move forward on and assist all Canadians by investing with private money, not public money.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I think that there are far too many problems with Bill C-32 for us to support it. With regard to all the money the government plans to spend, I think the government is just serving up leftovers, because these amounts were already allocated in previous budgets.

I wanted to raise one of my concerns today. The Liberal Party says that it supports supply management but, because of the measure that came into effect on Friday regarding Ukraine, we are now coming under heavy scrutiny from many countries around the world.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, with whom I am fortunate to sit not only on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, but also on the Standing Committee on Official Languages from time to time.

I heard him talk about supply management and how important it is to him. I hope he is convincing his colleagues of the importance of the amounts announced in the fall economic statement. I hope we can count on his support. I hope he will be able to convince all his colleagues, because that is what the dairy farmers have been asking us for.

This bill will provide $1.7 billion for the entire supply-managed sector, and I hope my colleague will stand up in the House and tell us that he will absolutely support this.

My question for him is this: Will he support Bill C-32, yes or no?

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑32, which seeks to implement the government's fall economic statement.

To be clear, let me just say that my pleasure stems not from the content of the bill, but rather from the fact that I get to stand up and be the voice of Canadians and the people of Beauce regarding what should have been included in the bill.

To begin with, I would like to take a moment to denounce the inflation created by the Liberal government itself. With punitive policies like the carbon tax, this government is destroying local businesses while at the same time driving up grocery prices. This out-of-touch government has also imposed an equally disastrous fertilizer tariff on farmers. Even as our country grapples with the worst food inflation in 40 years, the worst since the days of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as I recall, the government is still looking to line its pockets with new taxes. Ours is the only G7 country to have imposed a tariff on fertilizer during the most difficult time in recent years.

Food bank use is growing so quickly that organizations in my riding, such as Moisson Beauce, are struggling to meet demand. In Beauce, a third of new food bank users are children. This government refuses to look in the mirror and admit its shortcomings. The Conservatives have been fighting for months against these taxes and tariffs, but this NDP-Liberal coalition has a hidden agenda, so it refuses to do the right thing. As a country, we should be taking care of the things that we can control. Everything starts in our own backyard. We need to help farmers lower production costs so that, by the time the food they produce gets to store shelves, people can afford to feed their family. Currently, one in five Canadians is skipping meals to stay afloat financially. That is shameful. This needs to change.

In this budget, agriculture is not even a minor priority for this government. We would think that after seven years, the Prime Minister would understand that feeding our population is essential and that it starts at the farm. Farmers have been ignored long enough. It is time to give them the tools they need to grow our economy and produce affordable food for everyone. This is a powerful economic driver for our country, and we have to exploit its full potential. We just need a leader who can open his eyes and see that.

Similarly, I would like to draw members' attention to another failed Liberal plan, the plan to open our Canadian borders to all Ukrainian meat products. The Conservatives are all for supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, but there are much better ways of doing it. On Friday, in a press release, the government authorized import permits for unlimited quantities of chicken from Ukraine, without even conducting an impact analysis to see how that would affect the Canadian markets. To top it all off, the Liberals did not even consult stakeholders before signing this agreement.

Our American counterparts put off accepting Ukrainian meat for food safety reasons, and I cannot blame them. We could provide Ukraine with financial support while helping famine-hit countries closer to it by sending them those products. This is not just about taking care of our country's food system first. It is also a matter of global food safety. The last time the Canadian Food Inspection Agency inspected a chicken factory in Ukraine was in 2019, yet the government expects sanitary conditions to have remained the same in a war-torn country. How can this government be so naive?

Furthermore, given that this government promised to protect supply management, why did it sign this agreement to open up the market after stating over and over that it would make no further concessions with respect to supply management? The Liberal government is playing with fire at a time when we must be extremely vigilant.

Avian flu is becoming more prevalent in North America, and the problem is just as bad in Europe. Countries such as Poland, one of Ukraine's neighbours, have had several cases of avian flu in recent months. How can we have any assurance that imported meat is safe if we have no protective measures in place?

I would now like to move on to another topic, that of immigration in this country.

Canada's immigration system is broken. The Liberal minister rises in this place, makes bold promises and uses the same talking points every day, but nothing is happening in that department.

Every day, my two offices in Beauce receive multiple requests for updates from people who need help and from business owners about the system backlog. According to recent studies, there is a backlog of 2.3 million applications. Whether we are talking about applications for permanent residence, work permits or sponsorship, everything is at a standstill because of the government's poor management. Businesses in my riding are losing contracts and threatening to move abroad because they cannot get the temporary foreign workers they need in time.

Doctors are waiting for work permits and documents when they could be working in local hospitals and helping my constituents. It is shocking. It is not just the immigration system in this country that is broken. Name any department and there is a good chance that it is broken as well. Whether it is Service Canada with pensions, the guaranteed income supplement or the passport fiasco, the list of failures goes on and on.

When my staffers talk to employees on the phone, it is clear that things are disorganized and there does not appear to be any direction from the top. Employees are bouncing from department to department, burning the candle at both ends.

Training has slowed to a crawl, and most officers are too junior to help with complex cases. Some employees are still working from home. When is the government going to get its public servants back in the office and on track to better serve our communities?

The workers cannot be blamed for the government's incompetence. I sincerely respect these officers and the tough job they do, but something has to change. There is only so much they can do with the tools they have been given.

Now I want to touch on some issues that my colleagues have often heard me talk about here in the House. Rural Canadians are being left in the lurch. My riding does not have public transportation. We have to drive to get to work and take our kids to their activities. The people of Beauce are hard-working, as evidenced by our 2.1% unemployment rate, which I believe is among the best in Canada. Unfortunately, the carbon tax is eating up Canadians' paycheques. Cell service and high-speed Internet are not even close to what they should be in 2022, but there is nothing in the budget to fix that problem either.

Now, this government also wants to prohibit my law-abiding constituents from owning certain hunting weapons. Many Canadians make their living in part from hunting. This is one way we feed our families, but the government wants to eliminate that option too.

I could go on and on, but since I am running out of time, I have a message for Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada will continue to be there for them and fight for what Canadians need, which is more money in their pocket at the end of the week and healthy, affordable food on the table for our families this holiday season.

A Conservative government would have made much more tangible changes if we, the Conservatives, had had the opportunity to introduce our own budget. I hope that Canadians are taking note of what this NDP-Liberal government is doing to our country. The time for change is approaching, and I hope that the Liberal government will be held accountable for the disastrous choices it has made.

I will continue to defend the people of Beauce and all Canadians by condemning this inflationary government in the House at every opportunity.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, we will not oppose Bill C‑32, which implements the government's economic statement. Seasons may change, but this government's economic statements remain the same. We are not very excited, because this one is virtually the same as the spring economic statement, which contained nothing in the way of a constructive or reassuring vision for the people of Quebec and Canada.

The Bloc Québécois decries the economic update, which mentions inflation 108 times but does not offer a dime in extra support for recognized initiatives, such as transportation electrification, or for seniors, the unemployed, or families trying to put a roof over their heads. The cornerstone of this government's everything-old-is-new-again approach to solving problems is interference. When it comes to interfering in areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction, none can equal this government.

Let us think about that for a minute. Retirees who contributed their entire working lives to the economic and social development of their communities, who humbly and honestly paid their taxes, as my colleague from Drummond was saying earlier, and who suddenly are 65, or 70 or 74, are being completely ignored by the government. However, the contributions they made while working were used to run the public service, including the seats in this place. Now, we thank them by telling them to go back to work, to do something else, to find a way to earn some income, to go to food banks, because there is no money for them.

All of a sudden, at 75 years of age, they receive a cheque. It is extraordinary. Sometimes magic happens, but we do not know why. We do not know what justifies it and the reason behind it.

In fact, I think that the government does not know its citizens. In any case, it does not know the citizens of Quebec. Does it have any idea what their reality looks like? That is the question. Does the government know Mr. Lucien, who no longer has affordable housing, who has to use the food bank and make tough choices to be able to afford his medication? Does the government know Ms. Mariette, who has to pay for essential home care services to be able to continue living at home because that is what she wants more than anything? She has to turn the heat off at night and eat only one meal a day so that she can continue to live at home. Does the government know Ms. Agathe and Mr. Georges, who did not make much money when they were working? Even so, they worked for 45 years and were honest about paying their taxes. Ms. Agathe is in a wheelchair because she worked as a waitress all her life and no longer has any circulation in her legs. She lives on the outskirts of the city and so she has to take public transportation to get health care. Her husband, who is a little younger than her, retired unexpectedly early because he saw that his wife was unable to get around. Today, they live at home. They have not had any additional income for more than 15 years. They are aged 72 and 65 respectively.

With inflation taking a heavy toll on seniors' meagre incomes, old age security offers little in the way of actual security because fixed costs, rising food prices and gas taxes are not going away.

What really worries me is that seniors have been getting poorer for a very long time. The government has not taken them into account when making decisions for a very long time. I think society agrees on that. We can blame a lot on the pandemic, but the health care issues we are dealing with now have everything to do with the fact that the pandemic amplified indifference, complacency and callousness on the part of both governments—for these decisions were not made by just one government—toward the people who built the Canada and Quebec we know today. By the time people reach old age, they have built their lives and contributed in the hope of benefiting from a decent social safety net. What we are seeing now is people who, if they had more money, would manage to live at home instead of crowding long-term care facilities and hospitals.

There is a whole network of interconnected issues that are the result of the government not paying attention to the seniors who built this society. I find that particularly painful, because I know many of them in my riding. They are upright, reliable and honest people who have really given everything in the hope of receiving a little something. Now the government is telling them that it is not going to happen.

It seems that there is no accountability at the federal level these days. No one is accountable for anything. Things go wrong, but it is nobody's fault. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals are accountable for their past actions. To hear them tell it, each party has done much better than the other and nothing is their fault. It must be that thing called fate, or the evil pandemic, or the global inflationary crisis.

Then there are the excessive oil investments and environmental failures—both of which make people sicker and sicker—but they are nobody's fault. Elderly people and the unemployed find themselves on the street, but it is nobody's fault. Small and medium-sized businesses are closing down because there are no accommodating tax provisions for them, while foreign and oil mega-corporations conveniently squirrel their profits away in tax havens, but that is nobody's fault.

On top of that, people need to be asked more and more to have confidence in politics, so we go on plastering faces on placards during every election campaign, when we have the nerve to tell people we will be forming government and doing great things for them. Yes, the government will do things like interfere and impose its position and its assessment of the reality facing seniors, as if there could suddenly and magically be two categories of seniors. It will also interfere by determining how much money will be paid into the health care system and, more importantly, how the provinces will spend it, when the federal government has no idea what choices the provinces must make in managing health care.

Let me give an example. In Quebec, we want to encourage seniors to remain in their homes. If the government offers money on the condition that we invest only in hospitals and long-term care facilities, is that a good condition for Quebec? The answer is no. That is one reason why we do not want conditions. We want the money that, in principle, is owed to us.

The government likes to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, and so it is interfering in the protection of the French language with a bill that I would describe as odious and that will paralyze all of Quebec's efforts to impose the use of French in federally regulated businesses and to teach French to new Quebeckers. The government is also interfering in the housing sector and property taxes. It watches everything and tries to make its way into every sector.

It is also perpetuating the status quo on employment insurance. We have been waiting for EI reform for years. There are new realities in the labour market such as seasonal work and self-employed workers. With respect to employment, there are support measures for people who suffer from serious illnesses, illnesses that are becoming more prevalent than they were 15 or 20 years ago. I am also thinking of Émilie Sansfaçon, who left behind two children. She came to this place, despite being under treatment and not feeling well, to raise awareness and ask the government to change its position and support seriously ill people looking to heal with dignity.

I will conclude my speech by saying that the independence movement did not come out of nowhere. It is not a delusion. It is not a bubble in the brain of someone who appeared just like that. The independence movement is a movement that advocates free management of its own public funds, a movement that wants to take its own direction.

I think that the Government of Canada is a Titanic right now. It has not noticed, but the hull has been breached. I hope it will realize this fact before meeting the iceberg of opulence, because opulence is fatal in the eyes of our constituents.

In Quebec, our hull is solid and our engines are remarkable. We are successful. Resources are invaluable and almost unlimited. We have unique economic development levers—

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House to speak. Today I am speaking to 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, and the fiscal update.

When I spoke on the government's last fall economic statement and fiscal update in February, I shared how frustrated the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook were feeling about the cost-of-living crisis and the housing crisis. I am sad to report that over the course of the past year, and certainly after hearing the fall economic statement that was delivered earlier, their frustration has only become worse.

Canadians wanted hope, and instead they got increased heating and grocery bills. They wanted a plan for the economy and for the recovery, and instead the PBO and other organizations predicted private sector growth will be sluggish or even worse. Canadians wanted to hear an update that would give them confidence in these uncertain economic times, and instead what the government delivered was an update that failed to address the out-of-control cost-of-living crisis. It actually adds fuel to the inflationary fire. With more government spending and more taxes, Canadians have never felt more pessimistic about their financial future.

When I spoke last winter, the inflation rate was only the worst it had been in 20 years. By the spring it was only the worst it had been in 30 years. Now it is the worst it has been in 40 years. How much more can the government expect Canadians to suffer?

I spoke recently to Mary, a senior in Waterdown, a community in my constituency. She expressed how gravely concerned she was with the rising cost of rent, utilities and groceries, and how they had risen so quickly that she is barely able to manage the basics anymore. Her exact words were, “I just manage to survive, never thought my retirement years would be so sad.”

Those words “my retirement years would be so sad” break my heart, and they should break the heart of all members of this place. Seniors like Mary have worked hard their entire lives, and they deserve to enjoy their retirement years. The reckless policies of the government are robbing them of that.

It is not just seniors that are feeling the pinch; it is also young families. A couple of months ago, at one of the fall fairs in my riding, I spoke to Will, who is a father of a young family in my constituency. His mortgage renewal is coming up in a few months, and he is very concerned. Not only is he seeing his grocery bill double, but he is also seeing the cost of fuel to get to work increase dramatically. He is now seeing his heating bills increase as winter and the cold weather start to set in. In the back of his mind, he has the fact that his mortgage is coming up for renewal. We know there are higher interest rates happening because of the inflationary spending of the government.

Out-of-control government spending has created more dollars chasing fewer goods, causing higher inflation, leading to higher interest rates. We know that tomorrow the Bank of Canada is going to announce the latest in a series of rate increases, the seventh, I believe. This is going to further increase the cost on families like Will's. It is really the cruellest tax of all.

In growing suburban Ontario communities like mine, people like Will are putting on a brave face and are trying to plow through, but they are dealing with these inflationary pressures on food, home heating and they are looking down the road at their mortgage rates as well.

We ran a survey of the people in Flamborough—Glanbrook this past fall. We asked them how the cost of living was impacting them. We already knew the answer from all of these anecdotes. Over 900 people responded and the results really told the story. Ninety-four per cent surveyed said they were feeling the financial pinch, and more than half of those were going to change their habits or hold off spending plans as a result. The pinch, of course, is not limited to people in my riding. Six in 10 Canadians across the country have said that they are feeling the impact of inflation in their daily lives.

A study out of Dalhousie University reports that a quarter of Canadians are cutting back on essentials like food, housing and utilities. We know that when people go to the grocery stores these days, they are cringing at the price of some basic items. Meat is up 7.6%. Dairy is up 10%. Bakery products are up 15%. Vegetables are up 12%. Those are the figures from a couple of months ago. We know they are probably higher today.

Food banks, as has been noted, are seeing a record number of visits, with 1.5 million Canadians visiting food banks. That is a dramatic increase. It is an all-time high. It is a shame. How much more does the Prime Minister expect Canadians to take?

People like Mary and Will cannot afford to pay their mortgage and rent, while our Prime Minister is spending $6,000 a night on hotel rooms in London. Is there a more blatant example of how out of touch the Prime Minister is? How much more can the government expect Canadians to take before they break? They are looking for hope. They are looking for strong and competent leadership.

There is a host of problems and inconsistencies throughout this bill. First of all, I do not see actions lining up with words.

The government talked about the fact that Canadian farmers grow the food that feeds the world. We know we have an abundant food supply here, but we have seen the government attack farmers and slap a fertilizer tariff on them and the carbon tax on the heating and cooling of barns and the drying of grain. The growing of those crops that feed Canada and the world are breaking their operations.

Also, in the statement they said that we have the natural resources to support our allies with energy security, which sounds great, but the Liberals have been ensuring we cannot get these resources out of the ground. Just last week we saw Germany finally give up on us and sign an agreement to import LNG from Qatar instead.

Perhaps the biggest inconsistency of all is the fact the economic update was purported to help make life more affordable for Canadians. How can we make life more affordable for Canadians when we are tripling, tripling, tripling the carbon tax and increasing other taxes as we head into winter? A Conservative motion was put forward to exempt home heating fuel from some of those taxes to bring a bit of relief. That is important to people in my constituency who heat with propane or home heating oil because there is not the natural gas infrastructure in certain parts of the riding and they do not have that option. However, the Liberal and the NDP coalition voted to defeat that motion.

If I can conclude anything from Bill C-32, it might be that the Liberals are true to their form. They will tax and spend believing that will get us out of a cost-of-living crisis. We saw $30 billion more in spending. There is perhaps a grab bag of credits to give the appearance of supporting Canadians. While we certainly support relief through the GST credit, we saw a whole bunch of other money spent. What is happening is the Liberals are taking more money out of one pocket and giving a bit back and pretending it is actually going to help people.

What is happening is Liberals are profiting from inflation. They are increasing taxes on things like home heating and food, and there is the resulting interest rate increases. One of their solutions was for people to cut their Disney+ subscription. Canadians want a better answer than that.

We know the interest on the national debt that has been racked up by the government is going to exceed in the coming years the amount of money that is spent on the Canada health transfer. We have $27 billion in interest payments this year. That is money that should be and could be spent helping farmers, families and seniors rather than gobbling up their bank accounts to pay for more government spending through taxes.

That is why a Conservative government would commit to any new spending being matched by a dollar-for-dollar equivalent in savings, just as households manage their own budgets, rather than just racking up the credit card endlessly. At the end of the day, they are paying for that plus the interest rate increases they are going to see as a result of the inflationary spending.

Instead of creating more cash, Conservatives would create more of what cash buys, more homes, more gas and more food. We certainly have all the resources in Canada to do that. We will make energy more affordable by repealing some of the anti-energy laws and getting Canadian energy out to markets so we can generate jobs and economic activity here. A tax plan is not an environment plan. It is actually a tax plan. We have an opportunity to change that.

We will also make Canada one of the better places—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise again to speak to the economic statement and Bill C‑32. Actually, I am getting a little tired of this. Let me explain. It is not because I do not want to do my job, it is just that I would have preferred to discuss something with a little more content and substance.

There were three clear, repeated demands, the same ones that the Bloc Québécois always brings forward. The government knows what they are. It is not a secret. It is not as though we kept them to ourselves just to throw them in the government's face at the last minute. No, these are the demands we have always made. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said it earlier: This is about increasing health transfers; providing better support for seniors starting at age of 65 and stopping this kind of two-tiered plan that favours seniors aged 75 and over; and respecting the commitment to comprehensively reform employment insurance. This commitment dates back several years, and it is especially important in view of the possible recession on the horizon.

We know what a refuge, a comfort and a safety net employment insurance can be when there are fears of a recession. This is true for workers, of course, but it is also true for businesses and for society as a whole. One can only imagine what would happen if people were to suddenly lose their jobs because their firm or business closed and they were left without any recourse or resources in the meantime.

Today, I want to talk a little bit about the stress and anxiety people feel, the real fear of not getting enough to eat, despite the fact that they have worked all their lives and have taken it for granted that their years of good and loyal service to society would be recognized at retirement. In other words, people believe that their government will not let them down at the stage of their lives when they are most vulnerable. Despite what my colleagues opposite will say, that is exactly what the Liberal government is doing now.

Seniors' associations, and even seniors themselves, come knock on our door begging us to help them. These seniors and associations protest against this system, which they say is discriminatory and enables only those 75 and older to get increases and support cheques during the pandemic. The others, those aged 65 to 74, are hung out to dry. That is what seniors tell us. They say they are being hung out to dry, even though they worked their entire lives. They worked on assembly lines in factories, earning low wages, not making enough money to put something aside for their old age. Then, they find themselves struggling and facing hardship. They are the ones who come to see us, these honest, humble people who have the right to fully enjoy their retirement and their well earned quality of life at 65, not just at 75. What is left for these people?

The government changed the rules halfway through the game, so it is too late for them to pivot and talk to their banker about setting aside a little more of their paycheque. Actually, many of them never actually had money to set aside. Now they have a choice. They can go back to work. The government says there is a labour shortage and jobs available all over the place. Another option is to get help from food banks. Hello, dignity.

I want to share one person's story. Mr. Danis is a constituent of mine. He is 72 or 73 years old. I know he is in that age group because he is concerned about the government discriminating against seniors on the basis of age. Mr. Danis is at the forefront of my mind whenever I talk about seniors. I have lost track of how many times he has called me. He has come to my office when I was not even there. He has called outside of office hours, on weekends. He has contacted me through Facebook messenger. He has done everything in his power to talk to me.

When we finally managed to meet up and have a conversation, I cannot even begin to describe the emotion in his voice. We are talking about a man who worked hard, very hard, his whole life for little income. It is exactly the situation I was describing earlier. Mr. Danis lives in the same house. It is his house. He has lived there for 53 years. His roof is leaking and needs to be replaced. He says that he is going to let it leak because he cannot afford to repair or replace it. He also cannot afford to take out a new mortgage. He is struggling to make ends meet on a small government pension. What is more, that pension has not increased, even with inflation being what it is.

Mr. Danis is a proud and dignified man. He has some health problems and must travel 45 kilometres to a nearby city for treatment he cannot receive in Drummondville, where he lives. Due to the cost of gas, he cannot fill up his tank, and his car is not in good condition. What can we do for these seniors who worked all their lives and cannot even meet their basic needs and take care of their health because their pensions are frozen? These seniors are not old enough to be eligible for the pandemic support cheque.

I will draw a parallel to health transfers, the third very important request that the Bloc has made in years. I will give the example of Hôpital Sainte‑Croix, which is in my riding of Drummond. This hospital is the pride of the region. It was a fine hospital at the time, and the services were exceptional. I want to commend the medical staff and all support staff. All the employees at this hospital are personable, professional and competent. There is no arguing about that.

However, last year, the elevators were in terrible shape. One was not working at all, and the other broke down. Had there been a crisis or a fire, had there been any need to evacuate the hospital, patients on the third floor and up could not have been evacuated. This is a hospital we are talking about. We do not have enough money to maintain hospitals adequately.

We are going to build a new hospital. The Liberals think that, if we have enough money to build a new hospital, we must have tons of money, so there must be no need to increase health transfers. I just do not get it.

The health care funding shortage comes at a human cost too. Triage now means dismissing situations that would have been emergencies 20 years ago.

I am going to talk about seniors again. Mr. Rocheleau is a very nice guy, and I really like him. He is 80 years old, and he has been chairing the Remembrance Day poppy campaign for the past 10 years, but he has been involved with the campaign for 53 years. He waited for hip surgery for two years. Two years could be 25%, 50% or 75% of what an 80-year-old has left in their active life. It is inhumane to make elderly people wait for operations that would guarantee their quality of life for the years they have left. It is absolutely mind-boggling to me.

I have about two minutes left. I want to take this opportunity to talk about the infamous EI reform, which we are waiting for. How many demonstrations are held here on the Hill by workers' groups, unions and just about everyone else calling for EI reform?

One woman in particular came to the Hill a few years ago. I am talking about Émilie Sansfaçon. She came to meet the Prime Minister and members of all parties. Everyone was at her feet, everyone wanted a photo with Émilie. What a fighter, people said. Émilie was fighting cancer, and it may have already been terminal at that point. She is no longer with us. She was asking for 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits so that people like her who have to fight a serious illness can do so with dignity, free from financial worries. Is that not the least we could do for them?

A government member will probably stand up in a few minutes to boast about what the government did for health and everything it did to save lives during the pandemic. That is what the government keeps telling us over and over again. If it really wants to look good with its spending, maybe it could spend in the right places.

Everyone agrees that 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits is not enough. It is a good step forward, but when a person is battling cancer or other types of serious illnesses, 26 weeks is not even half of what they need. This measure would not have cost much, and it would have gone a long way.

I commend Louis Sansfaçon, Émilie's father, who continues to fight on behalf of his daughter. I promise him that one day, there will be 50 weeks of sickness benefits, and that the Bloc Québécois will be there to keep fighting for the government to spend taxpayers' money, money that it has been entrusted with, on the things taxpayers need most.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is an absolute privilege to see everyone here and to be able to discuss Bill C‑32, which implements the measures outlined in the fall economic update.

I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of the bill. I am very pleased with the way the Minister of Finance has struck a balance between providing important programs for very low-income Canadians in a targeted way while remaining fiscally responsible.

Today, most of my comments will be on important issues for the future, particularly in the context of a potential global recession in 2023. Indeed, the global economic situation is a bit bleak right now, and I think it is very important to create additional opportunities for the future while finding ways to not spend government funds.

I am going to cover three areas. I hope that as we get close to the end of the time I will get a signal so I can try to allocate my time accordingly.

As we try to make the transition to a low-carbon economy, the first thing that I think is really important for all of us as parliamentarians to give some thought to is the amount of energy generation that is going to be required in the country. Estimates suggest that we are going to have to double the generation of electricity in Canada in the next 15 to 20 years. That represents about 130 Site C dams, which is a major hydroelectric project in British Columbia.

I have said it before in this House and I will say it again that the government is focused on it, but I think we as parliamentarians need to be focused on the question of how we actually create that generation capacity. I have been a strong proponent, a strong voice, for small modular reactors. Whether or not it is the hydrogen opportunity that exists or whether it is looking at the hydroelectric opportunities, we need to be thinking about how we are going to generate that electricity in a zero emission way to be able to work towards our goals by 2050.

Whether it is major energy projects or it is things such as critical minerals, we need to be mindful of how we could help drive forward and expedite major projects that are going to be important to our transition towards a low-carbon economy. The two areas would be electricity and critical minerals. We have seen our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry do tremendous work on lining up a supply chain in Canada around the automobile industry. I know this is going to matter for everyone in the country, but particularly for those in Quebec and Ontario, where we do have a very strong auto tradition. That is going to be the future.

We also need to consider the critical minerals that are associated with those vehicles, with that transition on an energy front and on an environmental front, but also on the security side as well. China controls 90% of the global rare earth minerals in the world. Canada is playing a role and can play an even bigger role, but I think we need to give some thought as to how we are going to allow major mining projects and major energy transition projects to happen in the country in an expedited manner. That is something we need to see in the days ahead. Our various cabinet ministers who would be on this file are thinking about that, but as parliamentarians we need to be providing solutions and giving some thoughts on that as well.

I have mentioned presumptive approval for Health Canada. Health Canada regulates a whole bunch of different things, from hockey helmet specifications to carbonated drinks to feed additives, crop protection products and vaccines. It is quite an extensive list when we see the swath of what Health Canada regulates.

I would like to see us look at ways we can change the approval process of certain elements. As the chair of the agriculture committee, my reflection over the last year or so has been that there are ways we can rely on other jurisdictions. What I am suggesting here in the House today is that we look at things such as agriculture-related products and try to find a way to make sure that our farmers have the same tools that other jurisdictions might have and make sure we are competitive. We would do that by looking at other jurisdictions whose regulatory processes we trust.

I cannot speak for all my colleagues, but I would suggest, by and large, that we respect that as the regulatory process goes forward in United States it is done in a reasonable manner. The European Union, for example, would be another jurisdiction that we respect and believe the process it is undertaking is valid. There is Australia, New Zealand and Japan, as well. Everyone would have their examples, but there are jurisdictions that we think would mirror the process that we have in Canada. What if we had a process where, if an applicant arrived in Canada with a particular product, and I will stick to agriculture for now, that already had approval from the United States, the European Union and maybe Australia, let us say it was three out of six jurisdictions whose regulatory processes we trusted, we would give that product a presumptive approval.

I think it is very important to find other solutions to speed up regulatory processes in Canada so we can make sure our farmers, our processors and our businesses have the tools they need to be competitive.

That would ensure they are actually in hand and are there. It is something I lay before the House. It is something that does not cost any money, but I think is extremely important and could be a really good sign for our stakeholders in the country without putting our Canadian consumers or Canadian values at risk, because we would be relying on existing processes that we trust. We would still be doing the process in Canada, but providing a presumptive approval until such time that Health Canada either found there was a reason to suspend the approval or it went through the entire process and was approved. It would of course reduce that delay time.

One of the two other areas I want to cover is the offshore wind opportunity in Atlantic Canada. There is a global race right now on being able to develop zero-emission hydrogen products. That is important for the future. We have seen the Prime Minister sign an accord with the German chancellor on being able to deliver Canadian hydrogen by 2025. We need legislation to make sure that the offshore petroleum boards in Atlantic Canada can service the regulator on actually developing offshore wind to drive the hydrogen market. It is a multi-billion dollar opportunity in Canada. There are other jurisdictions around the world that have the same potential, but we need to make sure that legislation is in place. It is something that I look forward to working with all my colleagues on, indeed on the government side, to make sure that is in place. There is a requirement with the Nova Scotia legislature as well.

The last thing I want to talk about is the Atlantic loop. I held a press conference last week where I took the opportunity to provide some comments regarding my frustration with the provincial government in Nova Scotia, particularly around the question of affordability and some of the measures it could take in Nova Scotia to be able to join us on the federal side with respect to some of the measures we are putting in place. What is concerning is the premier's comments around what is a really important energy transition project, the Atlantic loop. I will be calling on our government to make sure there is federal leadership at the table to have the Atlantic loop in place, but at the same time, it is not helpful when the Premier of Nova Scotia is sending mixed signals on the best path forward.

I respect the fact that the provincial government is trying to help support affordability by limiting the increases around power rates in the province, but in the process Bill 212 in the Nova Scotia legislature has downgraded Nova Scotia Power's credit rating and is estimated to cause an almost 2% increase in electricity rates to make up for the fact that any future borrowed money, including for projects like the Atlantic loop, are going to have to come from ratepayers themselves. The Atlantic loop is something that I will be encouraging my government colleagues to be supporting to show federal leadership. It is something that matters to the region.

I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to represent the people of London—Fanshawe and to speak to Bill C-32 today.

There are a lot of issues that have been raised in this bill that we have been talking about for a long time. We have been fighting for Londoners, of course, but fighting for a fairer economy and bringing that voice into this place.

There are a lot of pieces of this bill that we think are a good start and reasons we support this bill, but as usual there is a lot lacking. As a New Democrat, I work, I push and I continue to fight for so much more for the people of London—Fanshawe. One of the key points is that we are supporting the removal of the federal portion of interest on student loans. That could make a real difference for students.

I was formerly the post-secondary critic for the NDP in this place, and we fought for so much more. We called for the cancellation of up to $20,000 of federal debt per student and a break from that repayment. We made it retroactive. We talked about going even further. Ultimately, the government is making money off the backs of our future, off those who will contribute to our economy in so many ways through the education system, and that is very short-sighted. We could go so much further, but it is a good start.

On the windfall tax, we support some of these measures, but the government could do much more if it had the political courage to go further. Big banks, big box stores and oil and gas companies have made record profits from COVID.

If we had raised that proposed 15% and made it permanent, we would see an extra $4.3 billion in the federal coffers. We could reinvest that in people and in social programs that establish the solidity that people need. The equity that people can get from social programs is the role of government, not to play catch-up to big corporations that are at the very top.

We have concerns with this bill, because it does not go far enough. As New Democrats, we were fighting in the last Parliament to deliver supports under the CERB and the wage subsidy to handle and to deal with what people were facing with COVID-19. When the government provided those supports and said it had people's backs, people needed that and they believed it.

Now we see the government clawing that back. It is clawing back the benefits that people applied for in good faith. There are people I know, who come to my constituency office, and do not know where to turn. They count on the government to provide fairness and support, and they are not seeing that.

I was here a few weeks ago with my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona. I am always awed by his ability to give a speech in this place, off the cuff. He has so much knowledge within.

Something he was talking about really stuck with me. It was the need for respect and the call for the respect that people deserve. They work so hard, play by the rules, do everything they are supposed to and do everything the government asks of them. They are paying their fair share in taxes, yet when they need the government to help them, it is not there. They become frustrated and angry. They do not know where to turn.

It is that need to show respect that is a piece of the tax fairness we talk about. The government has to find the right balance to show that respect to Canadians. It has to have the courage to ask those who make the most in this world to redistribute those excess profits and to not take advantage of people who are just trying to get by and who are just trying to feed their families. They need to pay their fair share.

I am so happy to see that my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has championed this issue and has received unanimous support to investigate the greedflation from grocery stores that we talk about, at the agriculture committee. However, it is clear that the $1 million a day that Loblaws makes in profits, because it is taking advantage of people, is driving inflation. It has to be a part of that fair taxation.

According to the new study released by the Centre for Future Work, 15 profitable industries, including the grocery sector, are driving inflation in Canada. The combined profits of these 15 sectors are up by a whopping 89%. Nobody's salaries are up by 89%. People feel that, and they see that unfairness. They are asking for solutions from the government.

The windfall tax that we have been calling for on excess profit could go so far in systems that are now in crisis. That is because of underfunding and government cuts and because of downloading of responsibilities from the federal to the provincial government and from the provincial to municipal governments.

We are seeing that in our health care system. In my hometown of London, Ontario, hospitals have seen a surge, like so many across this country, especially in the children's hospital. Patients are waiting up to 20 hours for service.

I cannot imagine being a parent and watching my child suffer. It is one thing for parents to take that on themselves and try to deal with it, but they have to watch their child go through that, to suffer in a hallway, to wait and then to be told to go home. Surgeries are being cancelled in London, because they cannot deal with the influx of patients. People take their kid home and they are suffering. I cannot imagine what that has done to families.

Now people in London are, in an innovative way, trying to deal with those long wait times in emergency rooms. London Health Sciences Centre is trying to change how it structures its emergency room policies. It is trying to create a separate emergency room system for those dealing with mental health crises and addiction crises. It is trying to make something work.

The Doug Ford Conservative provincial government said that it is not going to fund it, and that the city needs to take the burden of that cost. It is $300 million on a city in Ontario that cannot carry a deficit, and it has to somehow figure out how to service the people in our municipality and not overburden the taxpayers.

One of the things regarding inflation that we have heard is that the government is at fault and it is overspending. Conservatives have a very simplistic view that it is just about taxes. We know that is not true. The Conservatives will not accept the fact that, even though there are studies about it now, including the one that I just referenced, this could potentially be about greed.

I will come back to the point that the member for Elmwood—Transcona was making about respect. Instead of continuing to protect big corporations, if we could implement true tax reform to make these companies that are making massive excess profits pay their fair share and to hold those wealthy friends accountable, then that would be respect. That would be showing the Canadian public that we are willing to do the work, and that we have the courage to stand up to ensure they have that fairness and they see that fairness.

One of the problems that I also see is regarding the Bank of Canada and its continuous pursuit to hit that 2% target, yet in that lies the potential of a recession. If it hits that 2% target, it could risk 850,000 jobs. There are already people desperately trying to make ends meet, and now they have to worry about losing their job and figuring that out.

London has such a proud manufacturing history. There are McCormick, Dr. Oetker, Labatt, Indiva in my riding and Environize. There is a place called the Cakery. There are so many places and I wish—

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin my remarks with a short aside about Sainte‑Adèle, a municipality in my riding. On Friday, a terrible fire destroyed the Hôtel Mont Gabriel, which is a Laurentides—Labelle institution. The hotel has been perched on the summit of Mont Gabriel since 1936. I have a personal attachment to it because, in the 1960s, my father worked at Mont Gabriel to pay for his education. I want the staff and the general manager, Martin Lavallée, to know that I am with them as they confront this calamity, which has struck just days before Christmas.

Today, I am here to speak about Bill C‑32 at report stage. This bill seeks to implement the government's economic statement. Unfortunately, as we can see, it basically amounts to some minor legislative amendments. Quite frankly, I really feel that this is an attempt to implement the budget that was tabled a few months ago. I would like to elaborate on the economic reality that Quebeckers are facing. Bill C‑32 is backward-looking. It mentions inflation 108 times, but how much attention does the issue really get? The content of this bill is not anchored in the future or in the present.

I am trying to find ways to get us through these difficult times. Some examples of the challenges we face are skyrocketing grocery bills and the inability to fill our tanks with gas while we wait to buy an electric vehicle to get to work, because in the regions, a car is essential. Unfortunately, public transportation is not available everywhere. Donations to media food drives are also down because people are struggling.

The government has identified the cause of the higher cost of living, but it has done nothing about it. It has announced that there are difficult days ahead, which we obviously are aware of, without providing a way to get through them. Still, even though the measures in Bill C‑32 are not perfect, because there are shortcomings, we can say that we are relatively satisfied with the measures presented.

However, the government should have given more consideration to the Bloc Québécois's requests. They are simple and clear, and we know that they will be effective. We have proof. These measures can directly help Quebeckers. Our three requests were to increase health transfers, provide adequate support for those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform the EI system.

The Liberal government ignored our offer of help and rejected our proposals. This is a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers. I know Quebeckers are watching, and I want them to know that we will not give up. I must admit that there are some positive elements, however, and I will mention them today.

As we know, property flipping is really driving up prices on the housing market and making it very difficult to buy a home, particularly for first-time buyers. I commend the federal government on its initiative to tax gains from property flips. I hope that will help curb real estate speculation and make it easier for people to buy a home.

Another related measure that I welcome is the creation of the tax-free first home savings account. I talked about it with my older daughter and her friends, and they say that it will definitely help them.

That measure was in the spring budget. Things have changed, and we had to adjust.

Bill C-32 is not perfect. However, we are happy to see the provision that amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to eliminate the accrual of interest on student loans as of April 1, 2023, and the provision that seeks to phase out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. Obviously, we welcome that.

The pandemic made it clear just how much desperately the Quebec health care system needs help. As we speak, the three emergency rooms in the Laurentides—Labelle area are alarmingly overcrowded. I have to say it. The occupancy rate in the small municipality of Rivière‑Rouge is 80%. It is 167% in Sainte‑Agathe‑des‑Monts and 240% in Mont‑Laurier. The holidays have not even begun yet. The numbers speak for themselves. We need those transfers, and we will not give up.

In my riding, the holidays also herald the arrival of vacationers and, potentially, higher demand on our emergency services. It seems the government is trying to divide and conquer. It has been aware of this request, which has been made repeatedly, for quite some time. I get the impression it is trying to wear us down, but at what cost? Unfortunately, there may be accidents on ski hills this winter. Where are people supposed to go? There is no more room.

To take care of our people, we need our money to be transferred to our province and the other provinces. Quebec's health care system needs the means to care for Quebeckers. My sense is that the federal government is more interested in politicking. Enough is enough. I am not looking forward to rising in the House again this winter with updated occupancy rates.

Unfortunately, when Canada's health ministers met in Vancouver in November, the Liberal Party's attitude was just as condescending and disdainful as ever when it comes to provincial jurisdiction. I do not appreciate that at all. ER doctors are telling us that ERs are at a breaking point. The federal government has our money, but it is not doing anything.

The Bloc Québécois is defending the united position of Quebec and the provinces, and we are asking that the health transfers be increased from 22% to 35%. Unfortunately, taking care of people does not seem to be the Liberals' number one priority. In health care, the results are not there when it comes to ensuring the dignity of seniors with sufficient quality of life and financial support.

At the start of the pandemic, I had the opportunity to ask the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Poloz, some questions. He appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, which was studying the COVID-19 emergency measures. When we spoke about EI as an economic stabilizer, he mentioned that it was important. We took action. In the current context, I am wondering why we cannot use what worked in the past to deal with what we are going through now. There are proposals on the table, and we will vote in favour of this update even though there are a number of things missing.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C-32, the government's fall economic statement.

With inflation at record highs, interest rates rising and tax hikes on the way, Canadians are paying more attention to the government's spending now more than ever. They expect their government to be fiscally responsible with their tax dollars, and Canadians expect their government to make outcome-based investments and things that matter to them.

Unfortunately, since the Liberals took office in 2015, rural Canadians have been neglected by the government. I wish the government had spoken to rural Canadians and listened to their priorities and concerns before introducing the fall economic statement. Clearly, it failed to listen to rural Canadians.

Missing from the fiscal update is a plan to address rural crime. Rural crime is a pressing issue for Canadians who live in rural and remote regions. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has been silent on this issue.

Statistics Canada has reported that the crime rate in rural Canada has increased at a much higher rate than in urban Canada. The data shows that rural crime rates are 30% higher than in urban communities. Rural Canadians are vulnerable, and criminals are deliberately preying on the individuals and families in rural areas, knowing that the RCMP response times are highly delayed.

I spoke with a woman who lives just outside of the small community of Ethelbert, Manitoba last summer. She told me how her home was broken into multiple times in one year. Her home was invaded, her personal belongings were stolen and her safety was threatened. It took hours for the RCMP to respond, not because the police officers did not care but because they were so busy dealing with other responses.

Like many rural Canadians, the dream of living in a peaceful and tranquil region of our nation has turned into a reality of fear for one's safety. This is just one story, but I can assure members that nearly every Canadian who lives in rural Canada has, or heard, a similar one.

However, now the Liberals want to use the very limited policing services in rural Canada to implement their politically driven buyback program to confiscate legally acquired firearms. Even the provinces and territories are speaking out against this. New Brunswick, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Yukon oppose this wasteful use of police resources.

The provincial minister of public safety in New Brunswick said:

New Brunswick’s bottom line is this: RCMP resources are spread thin as it is...We have made it clear to the Government of Canada that we cannot condone any use of those limited resources, at all, in their planned buyback program.

The Liberals would rather use RCMP resources to enforce a firearm ban, which will do nothing to address rural crime, than use RCMP resources to protect the vulnerable families that live in rural Canada.

I should remind Canadians that violent crime has increased by 32% since the Prime Minister took office, and gang-related homicides have increased by 92%. Clearly, the Liberals' plan is not working. The Prime Minister has no plan to address the 30% higher crime rate in rural Canada, and that is very concerning.

The fiscal update did include new measures to support the victims of hurricane Fiona, and while I applaud the support, I want to raise an issue that was not addressed.

I was recently in P.E.I., meeting with Atlantic Canadians who feel neglected by their federal government, particularly the rural Canadians who feel their government is ignoring their needs.

Access to reliable, high-speed Internet and cellular service is critically important to rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast. When hurricane Fiona hit Atlantic Canada, cellular towers were down for days. The inadequate backup capacity on cellular infrastructure meant that Atlantic Canadians could not make a phone call in times of need.

Thousands of Atlantic Canadians waited weeks before they could reliably make a call on their cellphone. Imagine a single mother who does not know if she can contact local emergency services after a storm. Imagine seniors knowing they may not be able to call their loved ones in times of trouble.

While some cellular towers had backup generators, many did not have sufficient capacity and others had no redundancy at all. I found this very troubling. However, what I found even more troubling was the fact that this issue was raised by Atlantic Canadians to the Liberal government less than three years earlier after hurricane Dorian.

Atlantic Canadians called on the Liberals to address cellular redundancy in Canada, but their request fell on deaf ears. The Prime Minister failed to address cellular backup capacity in disaster-prone areas, and Canadians once again felt the impact of his neglect to this issue.

Even after the premier of Nova Scotia wrote to the Liberals urging them to address this issue, nothing was mentioned in the fall economic statement. Canadians deserve access to reliable cellular service.

If we want to connect Canadians with high-speed, reliable internet and cellular services, we need to increase competition in Canada. The only way to get lower prices and better service is to increase competition, enabling more innovation and choice.

Canada has among the highest, if not the highest, wireless prices in the world, according to a report by Rewheel/research. The minimum monthly price for a 4G smartphone plan that includes at least 20 gigabytes of data is higher in Canada than in Greece, New Zealand, South Africa, Norway, Germany, China, the United States, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Australia, Spain, the United Kingdom, India, Brazil and Italy, and the list goes on and on.

The Liberals think they can solve the problems with big government spending, but a lot of solutions emerge when we remove the government gatekeepers.

I think of Starlink, for example, a private company that provides internet through low earth orbit satellites. This is a company that is not reliant on government funding, that entered the Canadian market on its own, and has probably connected more rural and remote Canadians in one year than the government has since it took office. That is the power of innovation. That is the power of competition.

We should be encouraging private sector growth and innovation, not discouraging it.

Before I conclude, I want to point out one more thing. I noticed that there was a heading in the fall economic statement entitled “A Fair Tax System”. This reminded me of an encounter I had with a local taxi driver this year.

I was heading to the airport at four in the morning. A taxi driver had picked me up from my hotel and he told me he would only work for another two hours. I asked him why. He said that if he worked too much overtime, the increase in his tax rate would not make it worth his time. He would be working to put more money in the government’s coffers than in his own pocket. We should let that sink in.

Our tax system is discouraging Canadians from working. The government is discouraging seniors who want to top up their pensions. It is discouraging students who want to work for their tuition. It is discouraging parents who want to work a little extra to pay for Christmas presents. This is heartless and in no way a fair tax system. We should always be rewarding those Canadians who want to work.

Canadians are concerned with the rising cost of living. They are concerned with the irresponsible government spending. They are concerned with the neglect displayed by the government. They are concerned with what the future holds. I will continue to stand up for these Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has any comment on this as we debate Bill C-32. I understand his point that other members have spoken. It was almost getting to be like The Twelve Days of Christmas with how many members have spoken. I expected it to move into music. I ended up being the one Green who spoke.

There are other thoughts and comments that we would like to make, but we do not want to prolong debate unnecessarily.

The fundamental point is that we have rules and procedures in this place. We have time allocated for debate. If that is truncated on a routine basis continually, what does that mean for the future of this place as a place that is the heart of democracy, where debate takes place and where we do not truncate and bring down the bâillon every time?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's review of the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, he categorized $14.2 billion as unannounced spending. I am just wondering if, before we go to actually vote on this bill, the member would tell us what the details of that spending are.

The House resumed 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.

The Economy

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and hon. colleague from Vancouver Granville for his hard work on the file and his dedication to his residents.

We are always here to support Canadians, and the measures we have in place put more money in the pockets of Canadians. In the fall economic statement, we propose to eliminate student loan interest, to make housing more affordable and to increase the Canada workers benefit. The Conservatives can do the right thing and see their hearts grow not one, not two, but three sizes, and vote for Bill C-32 and to support Canadians.

Taxation

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, our approach is based on compassion, responsibility and fiscal prudence.

If we look at the facts, millions of mothers who received CERB did not create inflation, and neither did the thousands of businesses that took wage subsidies.

If the Conservatives truly, from the bottom of their hearts, want to help Canadians get through these difficult times, they can do the right thing and vote for Bill C‑32, which will benefit Canadians.

Report Stage

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville for her speech. Members will see that the spirit of my speech is somewhat similar to hers. Perhaps it is because we wear the same colours in the House.

As a human being, as a woman and in good conscience, I cannot help but bring up the three points raised by my colleague. These are the Bloc Québécois's demands. In short, the government has come up with an update that leaves us wanting more. We always expect more from the government, but in this case we were expecting at least a little something. These measures were already announced but not implemented last spring or, as has been said several times, are simply minor legislative adjustments. Basically, this is an update, but it is not something that required vision. It is not something that requires that attention be paid to what is going on around us right now.

We go to our ridings and we know what is happening. People stop us to talk about bread, butter and health. This bill is not really something that will go down in history. It is very unremarkable. The Bloc Québécois will be voting for the bill not because we are particularly enthusiastic about it, but simply because we cannot oppose a bill that does so little. The legislative adjustments needed to be done. That is the first thing I wanted to raise.

I talked about the Bloc Québécois's three priorities, which we mentioned several times recently, just before the update. I am here to represent the Bloc Québécois, but I would also like to talk about my riding. I sometimes feel like the government does not realize that, for residents in my region, the north shore, the issues of health transfers, EI reform and old age security for seniors aged 65 to 75 are intrinsically linked. First, there is the issue of money, and then the issue of health. I represent an ageing population of 100,000 people who live in an area where jobs are precarious, even for seniors. Sometimes, there are very good jobs in the mining industry. However, work in forestry, fishing or tourism is really seasonal. The workers are not seasonal, the industry is. Also, the region is vast. My riding spans two time zones. That says it all.

Residents are struggling with these issues, but the government does not seem to notice. It does not even mention them in its economic statement, even though the opposition keeps raising the issue of inflation and the amount of groceries people can afford keeps shrinking from week to week. In short, these issues went totally unmentioned, yet they are crucial for my constituents. For them, it is a matter of being able to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. I believe I have said this in the past. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, these are basic needs. People need to be healthy, they need to eat, and they need shelter. That is what we are talking about.

I would also like to come back to the issue of old age security. I talked about conscience at the beginning of my speech. I honestly cannot imagine what the government was thinking when it decided to divide retirees who have the same needs into two groups, seemingly arbitrarily. I think they all need three meals a day, whether they are 62 or 73. The government divided them in two and is doing nothing to change that. It is not doing the right thing. It is not saying that it was in fact a huge mistake, that it did not realize this would be a problem, but it could do that now, which would do it credit.

Instead, the government is leaving things that way out of pride. My constituents cannot live on pride, unfortunately.

I also wanted to come back to EI reform. My colleague mentioned the winter gap, which makes winters a time of great hardship for seasonal workers. I am referring to the seasonal gap, the period when workers in seasonal industries are left in limbo. This is happening at a time when people, including many of my constituents, are no longer employed in the seasonal industry and live in an area where there are not 28 other jobs available. It is not necessarily consistent over time.

It is not a labour shortage, it is simply that there are no jobs. These people have no income. However, industries and communities need workers, and the workers themselves need to work, of course. These people are not even getting any help.

As an aside, I read an interview recently with the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine concerning EI. I must say that I was stunned, and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville was probably stunned as well, to read that she wanted EI reform. However, it was not to honour the Liberal government's promise from 2015, but to address the labour shortage.

Right now, six in 10 people are not eligible for EI, and precarious workers and seasonal workers, which include women, students and youth, are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the year. In addition, our villages are experiencing an exodus. Now the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who is sort of my neighbour on the other side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, comes along saying that EI will fix the labour shortage.

We have been hearing it for 20 years. There has even been talk of it since 1996 and the Axworthy reform. There are reforms going on. What we are being told is that it will be more generous and fix the holes in the safety net. However, the Minister of National Revenue and member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine says that the criteria will simply be made even more restrictive, that people will be forced to travel 200 kilometres or 300 kilometres from home, rent an apartment and leave their family in order to work. At least, it seems it will be that way in my riding.

I would love to see the minister visit the fishing villages on the Lower North Shore. Fishers from Newfoundland came to settle in Quebec, and they now live there in communities of 200 or 300 people, where the economy is based on the processing industry in the village, on fishing. I would love to watch her to tell them that they will end up having to go work in Sept-Îles and Baie Comeau, 700 kilometres away, because hotels need workers in the winter.

That is not going to work, and it is frankly ridiculous. More than that, to me, it is an insult to my constituents, to the workers in my riding who contribute to the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy just as much as other workers. I have a lot to say about this topic, because I am deeply concerned about it. I am not even hearing good news. Not only is the government not talking about it, but worse still, we are getting bad news. That is really what the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine is saying. She is a bearer of bad news.

Finally, I would like to talk about health transfers. I mentioned how big my riding is. Imagine having to travel four, five or six hours from home for dialysis. Dialysis is not a yearly treatment. It is administered several times a week. That means choices have to be made, choices that are heartbreaking, because services are not available. They are not necessarily available in the cities, either. We have seen what is happening in the hospitals, which are overflowing right now. As we have seen, the Red Cross was called in to help out at CHEO. What is happening right now is very serious.

The provinces want health transfers. This is essential. We have talked about health care, and it is once again beyond me why the government is so determined not to meet people's needs. This is what the premiers of Quebec and the provinces are asking for.

As I have said before, this is about lack of vision and will. I believe I have talked about this in other legislative assemblies, but this trend is worsening. It is becoming increasingly apparent; there is no denying it. The government has no desire to undertake anything and would rather do the bare minimum. It avoids making waves. It takes shortcuts. Then it takes measures nobody is keen on and tries to ram them through.

The Bloc Québécois will reluctantly vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though we think it completely lacks substance.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are experiencing a state of emergency. From indigenous communities to Quebec, it is no secret that violence against women is increasing in Canada. This is a critical issue, especially as everyone in the House just this morning marked the importance of understanding that action is greater than words. Women have passed away in the last few weeks in Winnipeg, and today we are marking the tragic memory of many women in Quebec who have passed away due to misogyny and violence against women.

I know the member has spoken passionately in the past about ensuring that we create equity, opportunity and resources for women, including women who are survivors of domestic violence and women who are survivors of many more kinds of tragedies.

The fall economic statement bill, Bill C-32, fails to acknowledge the fact that women are experiencing this national emergency. Could the member speak about the importance of ensuring that the government provides real resources to tackle misogyny in Canada?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to join in today's commemoration of the 14 women killed at École Polytechnique on December 6, 1989. The first shots were fired at exactly 5:10 p.m. We must remember, but above all, we must say, “Not one more woman”. We can truly make a difference by taking action together. I want to acknowledge all the shelter workers who are helping women flee violence. They can count on our support.

I will be speaking about the economic statement, Bill C-32, even though closure was once again invoked on the economic statement just a few hours ago. That is one time too many, because closure should be the exception in the House. It should only be used in genuine emergencies that require us to stop debate, for democratic reasons, for instance. That is not the case here, and it was not the case for many other bills. With the NDP's complicity, the government has once again missed an opportunity to take the time to make the debate fully relevant. That is what I hope to do with my speech.

The Bloc has already announced that it will be supporting the economic statement. The NDP is going to support it, and the Liberal Party wants to speed up debate. However, I hope the government will listen to our concerns about the economic statement. I hope it will listen and realize that it is never too late to act.

The Bloc Québécois asked for three things in the economic statement and Bill C‑32.

First, we asked the government to support health workers and sick patients by increasing health transfers. The government said no.

Second, we asked the government to provide proper support to our seniors aged 65 and older, most of whom are women. Seniors are being hit hard by the current economic conditions. They need appropriate support, which means ensuring that the increase to old age security starts at age 65. Seniors must not be discriminated against. That request was also denied.

Third, we asked for an urgent reform of EI, which is a federal program, a support program, a social safety net. At least, that was what it was supposed to be when it was created. It is the best economic stabilizer in difficult economic times. Again, we got no response, just radio silence.

The government rejected those proposals. We can only see this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers and Canadians cope with the difficult times they are already experiencing or may face in the coming months.

As the Minister of Finance said many times in her speech on the economic statement, a crisis is coming and we need to be vigilant. I would say that we need to be bold. As I was saying, EI is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession, and a recession may be just around the corner. Times like these may offer the best opportunity to reform the program. Perhaps we should avoid waiting until we are in the midst of a crisis. EI is also a tool for social justice that protects workers from the ups and downs of the market economy.

While a growing number of analysts are concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as 2023, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer.

On June 6, we asked the Minister of Employment a question here in the House about when we could expect the EI reform to happen. The minister responded as follows, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to modernize employment insurance. Quickly, when we got into the pandemic, we recognized that the EI system had not kept up with the way Canadians work. That is exactly why we are working to improve the system in terms of adequacy, in terms of access and in terms of the individuals who pay in and who do not yet have access.

What we do know, however, is that the system, which has not been reformed in 15 years, is so broken that six out of 10 workers who lose their job are not entitled to EI. It is shameful.

The government has been promising to reform the EI system for seven years. It made that promise in its 2015, 2019 and 2021 campaign platforms, but nothing has been done and time is short. We definitely need to avoid a scenario where we are forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits. During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost more and are less effective. However, the government's financial forecasts prove that it does not anticipate accepting more workers' claims.

With respect to the 26 weeks of sick leave announced recently, this was a measure included in Bill C-30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago. The minister finally announced the measure, which will take effect on December 18 and only for new claimants. That is too little too late. We again decry the government’s lack of ambition. It is happy with a half-measure, and one that should have been in place last July.

According to the Canadian Cancer Society, 1 in 24 people have been diagnosed with cancer in Canada over the last 25 years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that claimants with a serious illness need an average of at least 41 weeks of benefits to recover. Therefore, even with an increase to 26 weeks, the government is leaving claimants with a deficit of 15 weeks without income. They will not be able to recover with dignity.

It is insulting, quite frankly, especially since a motion was adopted and two bills have been introduced here in the House in that regard. The Bloc Québécois introduced the Émilie Sansfaçon bill to increase EI sickness benefits from 15 to 50 weeks, and the official opposition party introduced a bill to increase sickness benefits to 52 weeks. Although a motion was adopted in the House, some parliamentarians still refuse to listen. The government has deliberately chosen to ignore the very well researched and careful advice of parliamentarians, experts and witnesses we have heard from.

As for EI reform, we are still waiting for the minister to come forward with a proposal for comprehensive reform. The temporary measures that were in place but were abolished in September would have been a good basis for reform. We still do not understand why the government eliminated them, only to go back to the status quo and the outdated system we have now.

This is despite the fact that the minister's mandate letter is quite clear. It says, and I quote:

...by Summer 2022, bring forward and begin implementing a plan to modernize the EI system for the 21st century, building a stronger and more inclusive system that covers all workers, including workers in seasonal employment and persons employed by digital platforms, ensuring the system is simpler and more responsive for workers and employers.

Let us just say we are a long way off. Ever heard of the winter gap?

I see that my time is up.

The House resumed from December 5 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.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are in the midst of consultations on budget 2023. I know that my colleague who is responsible for EI is currently looking at a new version, at modernizing EI. I invite my colleague to submit his proposals to the minister responsible and to me because it is time to modernize our EI system. For today, we need to vote on Bill C-32.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that I am very uneasy about the gag order that is being imposed.

It is a little late to propose amendments to Bill C‑32, but a budget will be tabled soon enough. Can my colleague commit to making sure that there is real EI reform? I think it is time. We must use the months ahead to take appropriate action to rebuild our social safety net. Six out of 10 people do not have access to EI, and that includes people who pay into it.

Can my colleague commit to that?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, what is important in Bill C-32, the fall economic statement, is the fact that we have put money down on our deficit to have the lowest deficit in the G7. We are investing billions of dollars to make sure that we have a clean tech sector, a hydrogen sector and good labour provisions to make sure there are good-paying jobs.

We are talking about making sure that people can buy their first homes, eliminating the interest on student loans and apprentice debts, and making sure that small businesses in the member's riding, in my riding and ridings across this country can grow and have their taxes reduced, so we do not see them pack up and go to another country.

This is an important piece of legislation. The Conservatives are objecting to the short title of the bill. That is a very clear signal that it is time for us to move to the vote.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by telling my colleague from Shefford just how deeply I was touched by her observations this morning. I thank her for her comments.

Regarding Bill C‑32, we need to focus on democracy and meeting Canadians' needs when it comes to building the economy, putting Canada in a very strong fiscal position and providing support to Canadians who need it.

We have already had 27 hours of debate and 140 speeches on Bill C‑32. We will be spending more time on it and hearing more speeches about it today and throughout the week. Implementing the support measures in this bill is essential to the economy, to our fiscal position and to Canadians.

With that, we are here because we are ready to vote.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I respect the NDP members and thank them for supporting this bill.

My colleague is absolutely right. This bill will help growing companies lower their tax bill. We will eliminate interest on student and apprentice loans. We will also help Canadians buy their first home. We are going to make significant investments in the economy akin to those in the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act.

It is time to take action. The game plan is consistent across the continent. That is why we need to take action and vote in favour of Bill C‑32.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to remind everyone that, in this minority government, the NDP is acting responsibly and forcing the Liberal government to do things that matter to people, such as introducing dental care and increasing the GST credit.

Bill C‑32 is not perfect, but it contains concrete measures that will help students, first-time homebuyers and our small and medium-sized businesses. In addition, this bill will make big Canadian banks pay a little more of their fair share—not enough, in our opinion, but it is a step in the right direction. We think it is important to pass this bill so we can help Quebeckers and Canadians as quickly as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to speak because I am a bit amazed by everything I am hearing from both sides of the House.

I do not understand the idea of imposing closure on Bill C-32. In every speech we made, we said that the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-32. I also heard the NDP say that it supported the bill. The government therefore has everything it needs to move Bill C-32 forward, properly and in a reasonable manner. It also has the option of having us sit later to accelerate the process. Why would it impose closure? I really do not understand.

I would also like to say that I completely disagree with the allegation made by my colleague in the NDP that the Bloc Québécois is obstructing proceedings. That is not true. That is misinformation. On the contrary, we have given our support to many bills. We work seriously and thoroughly on the bills. Members can say anything they want in the House, but they should not say things that make no sense. As whip, I can say that Bloc members are thorough, that they work hard, that they contribute and that they do not obstruct proceedings to block the legislative agenda. In fact, the opposite is true.

With respect to Bill C-32, I will say it again and tell the minister that we support it. The government has the support of a majority to move Bill C-32 forward properly. Why impose closure? I am sorry to say that I truly feel that closure is an abuse of power when used to pass a bill that the government already has majority support for. Compared with other minority governments, this government has managed to have a record number of bills passed. More bills have been passed under this minority government than under previous ones.

I do not know what they are complaining about. It seems that the Liberals are worn out, that they are basically fed up with managing our institution, Parliament, our debates. It is true that it takes a certain amount of effort. They need to listen, negotiate and be open. I really feel that this government is worn out.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Canadians are suffering right now. There is no question that people are having to use what little they have in their savings accounts just to make ends meet.

Since New Democrats have been elected to this place, we have always been steadfast in our mission of ensuring that we continue to deliver the promises we made to Canadians. Many of those promises are included in this fall economic statement and within Bill C-32. It is imperative that we get these supports to Canadians now.

This House is a place where traditions of debate live. Yes, that is an important thing, but in our condition of democracy today, what we are seeing is the Bloc Québécois do what it has done traditionally, which is to blame, blame, blame everybody else, and then we have the other block party, the Conservative block, which blocks everything else.

We really need to get this legislation passed. We need to get the support to Canadians. We are here to support Canadians, and that is what this bill does.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, quite frankly there are small businesses in the member's riding, in my riding and in the ridings of the Conservatives, the Bloc, the Greens and the New Democrats that want to keep growing and want to make sure they are going to get some tax relief when they do.

There are families looking forward to saving money so they can put it into a new savings account for their first home, but they cannot do that unless we vote and pass this law on to the next stage, unless we get to vote on Bill C-32.

We are talking about making sure that hydrogen investments, clean-tech investments and the good labour agreements we need to build the economy for the future get passed into law. We are talking about billions of dollars of investment into our country. That is what is at stake. That is why we need to get to a vote.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the support measures in Bill C-32 will help Quebeckers and Canadians across the country. It is time that the government rolled out these support measures. We need to act and vote, because Canadians are counting on the measures in Bill C-32. These measures include strengthening our economy and positioning ourselves as the G7 country with the lowest deficit. Now is the time to act. That is why we are here today. We want to vote.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I was a child, there were stories on TV. They all used to end with “they got married and had many children”. The NDP and the Liberals got married and had many closure motions. They impose closure on themselves. They impose closure on the House of Commons. We have never seen an opposition party so eager to keep quiet. Sometimes, when we hear them talk, we can understand them.

Seriously, the government has negotiated 20 closure motions with the NDP. There was a motion that said the government could extend sittings until midnight up to June 23, if it so desired.

Let us look at the legislative agenda: Today we are studying Bill C-32; tomorrow, Bill C-32; Thursday, Bill C-32; Friday, Bill C-32. That is what is on the agenda.

They can extend the sittings until midnight, but that is not enough for them. They are in a hurry. Their bill is urgent. What do they do? They decide. My colleague, the Minister of Tourism, said that they are fed up. I would like to remind them that they are in Parliament. This is a democracy. I know that the Prime Minister once said he admired China and China’s dictatorship, but at some point he will have to learn to listen to the opposition, because the opposition parties often have important and relevant things to say. It might inspire them not to introduce bills like Bill C-31. That is why the NDP is on its knees licking the Liberals’ shoes; it is all for Bill C-31.

I have been a member of the House for 10 years, and I have never seen such a rotten bill. It is not me saying that, it is Mario Dumont, when he wrote about dental insurance and Bill C-31 in his column. The bill was so badly put together that they must have been hanging their heads in shame as they drafted it. That is why the NDP supported 20 gag orders. It is a little embarrassing.

My question is for the NDP. Are members of the NDP not ashamed of having supported 20 gag orders and not saying anything?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I have enormous respect for my hon. colleague.

Before answering his question, I would like to mention that this is a sad day that marks a tragedy motivated by hate and misogyny. The École Polytechnique massacre will always be seared into our collective memory. My heart and my thoughts go out to the families of the victims who died 33 years ago, as well as to the families of all women who suffered a violent death. The minister and all of my colleagues in the House have my full support in the fight against misogyny. We need to put an end to violence against women and against those who identify as women.

We know that times are hard for Canadians, and Bill C-32 will provide them with essential support. We will eliminate interest on student loans, help families purchase their first home and reduce income tax for growing small and medium-size businesses. These are concrete measures that form the basis of our bill.

Rather than supporting Canadians who need the measures set out in Bill C-32, the Conservatives continue to vote against the bill and are now using delay tactics. I understand that there can be some back and forth in the House, but when the issue is the title of the bill, enough is enough, and we should move on to a vote.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That in relation to 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, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and

That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Madam Speaker, to directly answer the question, 2023 is when we are committed to removing all inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

I would also encourage anyone listening to this to look at our entire emissions reduction plan. There has been over 100 billion dollars' worth of investments into initiatives leading to a cleaner future, including in budget 2022, which took a number of important steps to mobilize private investments, including launching the Canada growth fund. The Canada growth fund is going to attract substantial private sector investment in Canadian businesses and projects to help seize the opportunities that are provided by building a net-zero economy, which is exactly what we are doing.

I invite all members to read Bill C-32 if they have not already done so. The legislation would provide up to $2 billion in initial capitalization for the Canada growth fund. Not only will this help Canada fight against climate change, but it will also grow our economy and create jobs for Canadians, which is what we are trying to do in everything that we do.

Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that the minister will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. It is always a pleasure to listen to him. I understand that there is a whole host of needs in his riding, as there is in mine, none of which are addressed in Bill C-32, despite the 25 tax measures and so on. How does my colleague explain that?

In principle, we are here to vote on bills that are designed for our constituents. How does he explain the fact that there is nothing in this bill to help them?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and privilege today to have an opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-32 on the fall economic statement. We know people are struggling. The cost of goods and inflation are skyrocketing. The rising interest rates are having a huge impact on people's budgets and to families in our communities, especially in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni.

We are pleased to see some of the things that are in this budget, such as the Canada recovery dividend and the elimination of interest on student loans, which is something that we have been fighting to get for a very long time. We believe there is a lot more the fall economic statement should have offered and did not offer. I am going to speak to that as well.

We know that while people are struggling, there are many big corporations that are having record profits. Whether it is oil and gas, the big banks, or Loblaws and the others of three big grocery store chains, they have had record profits.

We would have welcomed a windfall tax, but we did see there was a small 1.5% tax on banks and insurers that have profits over $100 million. We would have liked to see that expanded to include those other sectors that are having windfall profits right now.

The government could have used that money to eliminate the GST on home heating or could have gotten rid of the surcharge on Canada Post being implemented right now. During this holiday season, that is having a huge impact on small businesses. Natalie Weekes, a friend of mine, just wrote me about that. As well, consumers are trying to get presents to their families.

Members have heard me speak about mental health and the disastrous effects of the government not implementing a mental health transfer. It promised $875 million of new money that it has not spent so far to date, and that is creating backlogs in our health care system.

Members have heard me talk about the substance use assistance program, with the Liberals only funding 14% of the applications that are coming in when we know there is a toxic drug crisis happening.

Members have heard me speak many times about the need for co-op housing. As someone who grew up in co-op housing, I know how critically important it is to have safe, secure housing. When the Liberals got out of the national housing strategy in the early nineties, they were developing and building 25,000 units a year. They are now building a measly 6,500 units, and we are in a housing crisis.

We know the free market will not solve the crisis, and 10% of our housing in the seventies and eighties was non-market housing. We are now below 4%. Europe is at 30%. It understands that housing is not just a commodity, which is the way it is being treated here. It is a critical for people to have a safe, secure home.

Members have heard me speak about those many issues. One area and one group that we do not talk enough about are our first responders. We have a crisis there too with our volunteer firefighters, our search and rescue volunteers and the people who are out there day in, day out. They work jobs, and they are doing this as a volunteer job.

They go out in the rural communities where I live and where many of my colleagues live. We all know the value of those first responders and the sacrifices they make to make sure we are safe. This week, we have the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs here, and they are lobbying right now.

I am going to read a quote from an op-ed by Chief Ken McMullen and Chief Tina Saryeddine that was in the Hill Times this morning. They said, “The climate crisis, health-care crisis, and personnel shortages in Canada's fire departments are converging, causing increasing strain on Canada's fire-fighting capacity.”

They continued, “This year, 629 fire departments [are] providing services to 24 million Canadians”. They have seen the number of firefighters drop from what was 156,000 to 126,000. Their crisis is a labour market shortage and attraction. We know the inflation crisis is impacting everybody, but it is impacting volunteer firefighters too.

I tabled a bill, Bill C-201, calling for the federal government to increase the tax credit for those who volunteer over 200 hours from $3,000 to $10,000. They would basically get $450 in their pocket if they did 200 hours today, and that would expand to over $1,200 if we went for the $10,000 amount.

The cost to the coffers right now in Canada is $10 million to support all of these volunteer firefighters right across the country and that includes 8,000 search and rescue volunteers. That are a lot of people who would be impacted. I know it does not sound like a lot, but I will provide an example.

The Qualicum Beach fire chief, Peter Cornell, who is in a recruitment drive right now, just like almost every volunteer fire department in this country, said that it would be a game changer. He said it would be so important and would help keep those firefighters in the community, making sure that they meet their requirements and their hours.

That is not why they do it. We know why they do it. They do it to protect us and because they love their communities. Also, not only do they put their lives on the line, but also they put in time for training. This would also help small communities and take the pressure off them.

We know that volunteerism is decreasing and volunteer fire departments in my riding, from Ucluelet, Tofino, Beaver Creek, Cherry Creek, Sproat Lake, Errington, Coombs, Cumberland, Parksville, Qualicum, Bowser, Denman Island, Hornby Island, Lasqueti Island and Cumberland, just to name a few in my riding, tell us that this is a big deal, and it is important. I wanted to raise that because far too often our heros fall through the cracks.

I hope the government will listen to this pitch today because it is something first responders have said will make a difference. I know it is not in the fall economic statement, but I hope the government will consider it for the upcoming budget. I have many quotes from many of the fire chiefs, but I do not think we have time for me to go into all of them.

Another thing is that the FCM has their reps here from British Columbia with respect to climate adaptation, and we know the government just made an announcement. They welcomed the release of Canada's national adaptation strategy just two weeks ago and the news of a one-time transfer of $530 million to the green municipal fund.

From my riding I have Will Cole-Hamilton, who is a councillor for the City of Courtenay, and Daniel Arbour, who is a local area director from Hornby Islands. They are here calling on the government to increase that. They cite that it is going to be $25 billion in losses relative to a stable climate scenario because of the impact on climate emergencies. They want to be partners but they say that it is going to cost $5.3 billion per year in shared costs to ensure that they can avoid the worst impacts of climate change. I wanted to raise that because they are here and they are calling for that.

Another small thing that just does not get talked about is seaweed. The Speaker is from the coast and knows how important seaweed is. It is a great opportunity for economic development, but the current wait time in B.C. for an aquaculture licence is three to five years.

The government could have helped support fast-tracking that. It is just too long for B.C. businesses and farmers to build a thriving seaweed enterprise and sector that would compete with the global sector, so the renewing of these licences is too slow. They need DFO to ensure that its staff are there to so we can move this forward.

This is not just important to the ecosystems and coastal communities, but to indigenous communities as well, so it is a really incredible opportunity for both the environment and the economy. Many indigenous nations are looking at seaweed as an opportunity for economic development, but they need to make sure this is moving forward. It is a great opportunity, which I wanted to flag here.

In my riding right now we have aging infrastructure. In Port Alberni, our pool is aging. Parksville wants a new pool. Out on the west coast in Tofino, Ucluelet, Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Yuu-cluth-aht, Toquaht and Hesquiaht, they want to build a pool out at the Long Beach Airport. However, the investing in Canada infrastructure program and British Columbia partnership is tapped out right now, so they want to see the government replenish that because we know how important it is to live, work and play in our communities. Also, when we have recreation facilities, that lowers our health care costs. It is good for tourism in a place like the west coast, especially in my riding, which everybody should come to visit because it will change their life. It is a great place. These facilities desperately need funds so they can advance this. It is really good for people who have been injured in the workplace so they can rehabilitate themselves.

Therefore, I urge the government side to look at and consider these things. They were missing in this fall economic statement, and I have not had an opportunity to raise these really important asks from our riding of Courtenay—Alberni.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a bill that would go down in history and really support all of the vulnerable people in Quebec and Canada, and it is not Bill C‑32.

Studying any bill, let alone one as lengthy as Bill C‑32, is a serious responsibility for all parliamentarians, not just opposition members. It is in the interest of the population. Everything we do, every decision we make has repercussions. If a bill is not studied properly, we might miss details that will impact the people we represent.

The purpose of the debate at second reading is to point out the aspects of a bill that need to be changed and improved. Those changes are made in committee. Unfortunately, the report on Bill C‑32, which is over 100 pages long, was adopted on division in just 20 minutes. It was therefore impossible for any parliamentarian, from the government or the opposition, to propose amendments and improvements and have them adopted in the interest of the population.

A bill often contains good things, more worrisome things and sometimes even legislative gaps, regardless of which political party introduced it. That is the case with Bill C‑32.

One of the good things about Bill C‑32 is that it phases out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. It is important to know what a flow-through share is to understand why this is a generally a decent measure. It does not go far enough and it is weak, but it is a start.

Flow-through shares are shares issued to new investors. They give companies the funding they need to for exploration activities, while giving investors an equity stake in the company and tax deductions for new money spent on exploration and development. That simply means that there are fewer opportunities for companies to find new funding for exploration. Without money for exploration, it is impossible to look for, find and develop resources.

The problem is that flow-through shares are generally used by small companies that have very little money. This measure does not affect big companies, especially since the government continues, time after time, to allow these big companies to conduct exploration activities in very fragile areas that are supposed to be protected.

A second good thing about this bill is the anti-flipping tax on housing. If someone buys a house and wants to sell it within a year, whether it has been renovated or not, they will have to pay more tax. This is good because it will help reduce inflation and the artificial increase in house prices. We cannot complain about that.

Another good thing about this bill is the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. Today, people have a choice. They can put their parents in a seniors' residence, bring them into their home or build them a small apartment. I do not know about my colleagues' parents, but knowing mine, they would not want to live under the same roof as me. It is not that I am a bad person. We all have our habits. That is normal, and most people do. Having the money to convert a single-family home into a multi-generational home is ideal. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for this since 2015. Everyone gets to live in their own home, while the homeowners take care of their parents and look after their health. It is the best of both worlds. That is expensive, so the tax credit is welcome for those who want to reconfigure their homes.

Bill C‑32 makes minor amendments to the Income Tax Act, which is 3,355 pages long. It is a massive piece of legislation. It would be nice to see a thorough review of this legislation in order to simplify it and give it more teeth. I salute the accountants and tax experts who have to review the 3,355 pages of this legislation. They have my respect.

I will now turn to the areas that are a little more worrisome. The economic situation is very troubling right now, with inflation and a possible recession on the horizon.

Inflation is worrisome for students, low-income workers, seniors and others who are on a fixed income. It is worrisome because, thanks to inflation, these people do not have a penny to spare. They are having a harder time buying the essentials. I am not talking about a three-week trip to Cancun. I am talking about putting bread and butter on the table, getting new shoes when the old ones get holes in them, buying a coat and mittens. I am talking about the basics. With inflation, people on a fixed income are unable to afford all that. They have practically been abandoned except for a $650 benefit for their teeth. They have no more money. Prices are going up. This puts more pressure on non-profit organizations, including those working to improve food security.

The recession is also worrisome because it means job losses. Some might say that is not a problem since there is a labour shortage and those who lose their jobs will find another one. That is true in cities, but in more remote regions with less economic diversity, this may cause a problem. We cannot ask people in the regions who lose their jobs to move to the city. That is not better. That is not a solution. They have been overlooked.

There is nothing in this bill about supply chains. As everyone knows, Quebec and Canada are suppliers of natural resources. We extract our natural resources, send them away for processing and then buy them back at a hefty price. We should consolidate our supply chains. That would be a visionary undertaking. During the pandemic, people talked about the importance of doing that, but this bill offers nothing in that department.

I want to talk about legislative gaps. In 1999, when my daughter was born, I collected $72 a week in EI benefits. I was lucky. That was before the Harper reform. I was among those entitled to EI benefits. Now, only 40% of claimants actually collect benefits. Had that been the case in 1999, I would have gotten nothing. Even back in 1999, $72 towards diapers was not much. Luckily, I got help from my mother. This bill offers nothing in the way of support and no changes to EI despite the government's promises. This is a legislative gap, one that must be closed quickly. This is urgent, especially given the combined effects of inflation and a potential recession, which will be seriously painful.

Active workers are not the only ones getting a raw deal because of a legislative gap. Seniors are also affected, especially senior women. Bill C‑32 does nothing to enhance their pensions. Yes, it is true that seniors who worked for 30 or 35 years are now living longer, and their retirement funds must now last 30 or 40 years. I understand the 75-and-up policy, but it is not acceptable anymore. Seniors 65 to 74 years of age are also living longer. Senior women 65 to 74 years of age are the most affected by the government's refusal to increase their pensions. They have no savings, as they earned very little when they were working. The refusal to increase the pensions of those 65 to 74 years of age is not only discriminatory, I would go so far as to say that it is misogynistic. I am certain that no government in this place wants to be called that. The government needs to rethink this.

To sum up, the bill to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement contains a few good things. Once upon a time, there was a bill that did not change much. Let us not forget that parliamentarians were muzzled. They were not allowed to make amendments that would benefit the public, especially those most at risk of suffering the damaging effects of inflation and the recession. For the sake of current and future generations, we need to think about taking action to prevent the worst from happening. Let us not forget that our role is to stand up for the dignity of the most vulnerable, not to erase them through inaction and a lack of vision.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have a chance to respond to Bill C-32. It pulls together a number of different items, some of which were in the governing party's fall economic statement and some of which date back to the budget introduced in the spring.

I would like to start where I usually do, which is on some of the items I appreciate in Bill C-32.

The first item was in the fall economic statement, and this is the governing party's stated intent to finally fully eliminate interest on Canada student loans. This was set to expire March 31 of this coming year, as it was temporarily waiving interest, but if Bill C-32 were to pass, this would become a permanent measure. This is critical, because the number I have for the average student debt for a student in this country is over $26,000 a year. This is at a time when young people are already dealt a pretty bad hand, whether because of the rising cost of housing while their wages do not keep up, the gig economy they are getting thrown into or the climate crisis, as they are going to have to deal with the repercussions of decisions made or not made in this place and others around the world.

This measure would not be huge, but it would be a significant amount, $410 on average per student per year. That is a step in the right direction. It is something I am happy to support and call out the importance of while encouraging the governing party to go further.

Second, there is inclusion here of a measure from budget 2022, which is the Canada recovery dividend. It was announced last April and would finally be implemented here. It would require banks and life insurance companies to pay a one-time 15% tax on profits above $1 billion over the next five years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a review and found that it would raise $3 billion in revenue, which on its own would be more than enough to pay for eliminating interest on student loans. It is clear that it is possible for the governing party to raise revenue and use it to address really critical needs.

The third point that encouraged me is something that was not in the fall economic statement, and that was talk of a potential further increase for another tax credit for carbon capture and storage. It is a false climate solution and it is going in the wrong direction.

In the budget, the governing party introduced this as a new fossil fuel subsidy to the tune of $8.6 billion a year. Carbon capture has been studied around the world, and 32 out of the 42 times that it has been implemented, emissions have actually gone up. I was glad that, despite all the lobbying from oil and gas companies across the country, at least in Bill C-32 and in the fall economic statement, there was not a further increase to send billions more in a new fossil fuel subsidy.

I would like to turn now to some areas where I would encourage the governing party to consider going further, if not in Bill C-32 then in budget 2023.

I will start with climate, because we have heard it very clearly. Here is a line from the co-chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, working group three, from back in April. His name is Jim Skea. He said, “It's now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.” This is at a time when profits from the oil and gas industry are just off the charts.

Imperial Oil, for example, reported profits of $6.2 billion in the first nine months of this year compared to the same period last year of $1.7 billion, which is an almost four times increase in profits. How is it doing this? It is gouging Canadians at the pumps. Wholesale margins, in other words, profits per litre, are up 18¢ a litre.

No doubt, one solution is the same Canada recovery dividend I mentioned earlier that is being applied to banks and life insurance companies. Why not apply that to oil and gas? In fact, thanks to colleagues of ours here, the MPs for Elmwood—Transcona and Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, we know how much this would have raised.

It would have raised $4.4 billion a year that could be used to invest in proven climate solutions on top of the tens of billions dollars we could be eliminating in other subsidies currently continuing to go to the very sector most responsible for the crisis. Of course we cannot expect the arsonist to put out the fire.

I will also point out that eliminating these subsidies is part of the confidence and supply agreement signed between the governing party and the NDP, one line of which mentions a commitment to develop “a plan to phase-out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations, including early moves in 2022.” I would love to have seen one of those early moves in Bill C-32. We have about two weeks left to see one of those early moves.

If they were to make those moves, they could invest in renovations across the country, as called for by the Green Budget Coalition, calling for a $10-billion investment in deep energy retrofits so that homeowners can invest in reducing their emissions. As they do so, every dollar they spend would contribute two to five dollars of tax revenue that could be reinvested in climate solutions or invested in ground transportation, for example, which we also would not see in Bill C-32.

The second gap that is really important for the governing party to pay attention to is following through on its promise to address mental health. Mental health is health. Whether we listen to students across the country, housing providers or health care professionals, of course we need to be investing in mental health, yet we have not seen that in either last year's budget or this fall economic statement. A $4.5-billion commitment was made in the Liberal Party's platform. It is incumbent on all of us here as parliamentarians to continue to put pressure on having that commitment realized, recognizing that not one cent of it was committed in last year's budget, nor do we see anything in the fall economic statement.

The third piece that is really important for us to be calling out and encouraging the governing party to go further on is to follow through on addressing the disproportionate rates of poverty experienced by those with disabilities across the country. Over 40% of those living with a disability are living in poverty today. While we are slowly making progress on Bill C-22 that would bring about a guaranteed income for folks with disabilities, I am looking forward to seeing amendments passed at committee to improve Bill C-22. In the meantime, nothing changes for a person with as disability living in poverty.

We know it is possible for parliamentarians to provide emergency supports, because they did it in the midst of the pandemic. I join disability advocates from across the country calling for a disability emergency response benefit to address the gap and provide support today until we move toward a more permanent solution, ideally a holistic one, when Bill C-22 gets passed with improvements.

Last, I will briefly comment on housing. We have heard already this afternoon some speakers mention that, while money is being spent, the results are not there. In my community, homelessness has tripled in the last three years, from just over 300 people living unsheltered to over 1,000. It is obvious more needs to be done. There are some initial measures in Bill C-32, including a tax on those flipping homes in less than a year. If we were to recognize and really be honest about homes needing to be places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade, there is far more that can and should be done to tilt the market back toward homes for people to live in.

In closing, it is important to be clear that there are some important and timely measures in Bill C-32 and I would strongly encourage the governing party to go further on some of the areas I mentioned.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the government's agenda. Today my comments will reflect upon the government's fall economic statement and the measures in Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, which comes at a critical juncture in the history of Canada and the world, at a time when global energy trade flows and trade flows in general, as well as economic and military alliances, are all being reshaped, and some are being tested.

Before I discuss some of the key themes in Bill C-32, I wish to say it is always a pleasure and privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the city of Vaughan, who, in my view, are the most entrepreneurial and generous in the country. In fact, the city of Vaughan's entrepreneurial spirit is seen on a daily basis through its over 19,000 businesses, which contribute every day to Canada's success. These entrepreneurs and business leaders take risks, make investments, generate wealth and create jobs and futures, all the while demonstrating a spirit of generosity that is unrivalled.

For example, the city of Vaughan is home to the first net new hospital to be built in Ontario in over 30 years, the $1.8-billion Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital. Our community was given a task, a goal, to raise $250 million for the Cortellucci Vaughan Hospital and, in a very few short years, it surpassed that target.

For me, the idea is that individuals desire to create wealth. What does that imply? Wealth creation is at the heart of capitalism. It is at the heart of the market system that drives our economy, raises our standard of living and creates jobs and futures for the residents not only of my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge, but also throughout this blessed country. This notion of wealth creation through trade, investment, done within a democratic system that protects the environment and our health, has lifted billions of people out of poverty around the world and brought with it technological and scientific innovations that continue to move us forward as a country and as a world.

Bill C-32 contains the core elements of the fall economic statement, which sets Canada up for success in the coming years by addressing the needs of Canadians today in the context of an inflationary environment. It also thoughtfully addresses the economic transition occurring in the global economy by responding to the competitive challenges laid out by the Biden administration through several pieces of legislation, including the Inflation Reduction Act, all the while ensuring Canada's strong fiscal framework remains intact for today's generations and future generations, including the three children I am blessed with. In economy speak, our AAA ratings are intact, reflective of what is noted as high economic strength and very strong institutional and government framework, in addition to a very effective fiscal policy framework.

Since our government's mandate from the citizens of this blessed country in 2015, we have made a commitment to strengthen the middle class and help those working hard to join the middle class. We know that the last few years have not been easy for many Canadians, including those most impacted by inflationary pressures, much of it brought on by global causes. Our government responded, and in Bill C-32 our response is laid out for Canadians. It is to help Canadians deal with inflationary pressures through an affordability plan that demonstrates responsible leadership.

Here is what we did and what we are doing to help Canadians. We are doubling the GST tax credit for six months, benefiting over 11 million Canadian households to the tune of $2.5 billion in support. We are providing a $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit to low-income renters from coast to coast to coast. That is a $500 one-time top-up to 1.8 million renters.

We are providing an automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit, a non-refundable tax credit, which is one of the most effective policy instruments, will provide a top-up to income, a benefit that is received by nearly three million hard-working Canadians. This measure would provide over $4 billion over the next six years starting in 2022-23 to be paid in quarterly installments ahead of time, assisting Canadians when they need it most.

We are providing the Canada dental benefit, as we committed to. The first interim step is to ensure that Canadian families without insurance, means-tested, will receive funding up to $1,300 over two years for their children under 12 years of age.

This is only the first step. I cannot wait to have this measure brought in to help my hard-working seniors, those who have now retired, who built this country, who sacrificed and who need assistance when they do not have dental insurance after they retire.

We are eliminating interest on federal student loans and apprenticeship loans. This would be a savings for students and their families, assisting families today and into the future, of $2.7 billion over five years and $550 million on an ongoing basis.

There is the Canada-wide early learning and child care agreement. This is personal for me because our family just received notice that the fees are going down for our daughter at the day care we have her enrolled in, which is a day care that has been in Woodbridge for 30 years and is run by great staff. It is such a loving environment. We are so happy our daughter is there. My family is blessed tremendously in many ways. We have been blessed with three beautiful daughters. We have been blessed with a livelihood and support from our families.

This is a savings for us, but really this is going to be a savings for so many hard-working families out there from coast to coast to coast. This is real change. Not only do we have the Canada child benefit to the tune of $26 billion, which is paid out tax-free monthly, and not sent to millionaires anymore, but now we also have an early learning and national day care plan that will assist families from coast to coast to coast and reduce expenses. At one time, when our first daughter went to day care, we were paying nearly $2,000 a month, prior to me being elected in 2015, for day care on an after-tax basis in the city of Toronto.

Thankfully, our government has responded, and we have been able to put in a full indexation of credits and benefits. For this I have to give credit to another Liberal finance minister Paul Martin, who, on October 18, 2000, brought in a budget where tax brackets were fully indexed and where the credits for the GIS, OAS and CPP were fully indexed. This was to protect against bracket creep, which is an economics or tax term. We know that inflation impacts Canadians everywhere, and if these tax brackets were not indexed, bracket creep and inflation would be a major tax on individuals. Thankfully, under former Liberal finance minister Paul Martin, we indexed everything.

These measures are great for today, but what is the plan for tomorrow? One side of this plan is that, today, the Prime Minister was in Ingersoll, Ontario, at the General Motor’s CAMI production plant, to see the first electric commercial vehicle roll off its production facility today. It is the first large-scale plant in Canada making electric vehicles. This is great news for GM workers, their families, the environment and Canada's economy. We were just ranked number two in the battery supply chain, as measured by one of the indexes that Bloomberg uses. Canada is positioned nicely, I would even say sweetly, to be a provider and supplier of choice in electric vehicles along the entire supply chain continuum.

The decisions we make today as legislators will affect us for many decades to come in the economic transition to a low-carbon economy with, for example, electric vehicles, and with regard to our strong fiscal framework.

I am glad to see that, in this fall economic statement, we would be following through with enlarging the small business tax credit. We had reduced it to 9%. Now we would enlarge it so that more businesses are captured within it. It is a several hundred million dollar benefit to our SMEs, our hard-working small businesses. We know that, at a lower business tax rate, they would be able to invest more into their workers and their facilities, and create more wealth and more jobs, and that is what it is all about.

I am so happy to see that we have a critical minerals exploration tax credit of 30%. Again, that is in the fall economic statement.

There are a number of measures on the housing front. I look forward to seeing the details of the housing accelerator fund. We know we need to build housing. In my riding, in the city, we have 14,000 units being built by the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre, where the subway comes from the city of Toronto into the city of Vaughan. I know there is an application for another 7,000 units on the other side of the 400 highway that will be going to city council and that I will be opining on personally.

We know that we need to move Canada forward. The fall economic statement and the measures in Bill C-32 not only respond to our competitive challenges with respect to the United States, China and other countries, but also ensure we show compassion to Canadian families at a time when they are facing inflationary pressures.

The House resumed 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.

Carbon Pricing

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Canada and Canadians are not alone around the world in facing high prices. It is true that extreme weather has led to very bad harvests, and supply chain issues are still causing food prices to rise, which is why we have put in place supports to provide housing opportunities for Canadians, to double the GST tax credit and also to put in place dental supports.

If the Conservatives are serious about getting these supports to Canadians, they can support the government and vote for the fall economic statement, Bill C-32.

Motions in Amendment

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the fiscally responsible citizens of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

This costly coalition is out of control. The fall economic statement spells out in black and white just how bad the government's addiction to spending has gotten. None of this is a surprise. It is déjà vu all over again.

In 1972, after just one term under Pierre Trudeau, Canadians clipped his wings and handed him a minority government. Pierre Trudeau struck a deal with the NDP to stay in power. Does that sound familiar? The NDP made expensive demands and the Liberals spent and spent. They timed their spending for maximum pain as the rest of the decade was dominated by stagflation, which is high inflation and low growth fuelled by government spending. Does it sound familiar?

By the end of Pierre Trudeau's reign of error, the deficit was the largest in prepandemic Canadian history. The situation was so bad that Canadians had to elect a Progressive Conservative government to raise taxes and a Liberal government to cut spending. It took 15 years to clean up Pierre Trudeau's overspending addiction. How long will Canadians have to wait this time?

This fall economic statement is either the height of delusion or the peak of cynicism. Canadians face a stark choice: Either the government is delusional and believes spending even more than what it had budgeted for six months ago is fiscally responsible, or Canadians have a government that is so cynical of democracy it thinks it can just repeat the claim of fiscal responsibility enough that people believe it. The government knows it is addicted to spending without a plan. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says there is $14 billion unaccounted for, just another little slush fund to pay off whichever interest group is most in favour tomorrow.

Recently, headlines said the Bank of Canada lost money for the first time in history. That is because it had to pay interest to the banks for the bonds they swapped to keep the current government afloat. That is great for Bay Street, but it is bad for the taxpayers. We can add that to the interest we are all paying on the debt. It is now more than what we spend on national defence and soon it will be more than we spend on health. It did not have to be this way.

Once upon a time, we had a national consensus that deficits outside of economic downturns were to be avoided. The economy roared back after the government lockdowns nearly cratered it. Had the government demonstrated even a modicum of self-restraint, we could be arguing about how to spend a surplus.

Many Canadians believe that our country is becoming more polarized. We should ask ourselves if deficits contribute to the increasing polarization. Running deficits is a bit like musical chairs. Everyone knows that eventually the song will end and there will not be enough chairs for every person, so people get their elbows up and eventually the bonds stop selling and the money runs out. Rather than people scrambling for chairs, it will be social factions fighting for funding. When the money runs out, do they close the school or the hospital?

If the government truly wished to reduce polarization in society, it would be running surpluses. When they can run surpluses, everything becomes easier. It is like a game of musical chairs, except when the music stops they add extra seats. With surpluses, they could pay down debt, lower taxes and make sound investments in core areas of federal responsibility. All it requires is an element of patience. It requires the ability to say “not yet” to favourite interest groups. However, the government lacks discipline.

The government lives in denial. Every budget and every update, the Liberals make the same empty promise. They say that this time it will be different. It is as if Canadians are Charlie Brown and the Liberals are Lucy with a football of fiscal responsibility.

In 2019, the budget said the Liberals would be spending $421 billion by 2024. In the 2020 economic update, the minister claimed that spending in 2024 would be $429 billion. One year later, the Liberals needed to revise the numbers again. That time, they said the spending in 2024 would be $465 billion. That was just 12 months ago. Now, the gang who cannot spend responsibly claims that spending in 2024 will $505 billion. That is not sustainable.

There is no better illustration of the government's addiction to spending than its latest plans for the Canada growth fund. Here is what the fall economic statement says about the new Canada growth fund. The fund will make investments “that contribute to economic growth through direct investments, loans, loan guarantees and equity investments.” I apologize, that was the 2016 budget referring to the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Here is the quote from this year: “It will invest using a broad suite of financial instruments including all forms of debt, equity, guarantees, and specialized contracts.” How will this growth fund operate? Here is what the government said: “The Canada Infrastructure Bank will be accountable to, and partner with, government, but will operate at greater arm’s length than a department”. I am sorry, that is the 2016 budget again.

This is what budget 2022 said, “The Canada Growth Fund will be a new public investment vehicle that will operate at arms-length from the federal government.” Now the growth fund is all about leveraging private capital. It states, “It will invest on a concessionary basis, with the goal that for every dollar invested by the fund, it will aim to attract at least three dollars of private capital.”

I will say that the government has gotten slightly more modest since 2016, when it said, “great opportunity for the government to leverage its investments in infrastructure, by bringing in private capital to the table to multiply the level of investment...there is a potential to multiply this level of investment 10 to 14 times”. While the Canada Infrastructure Bank was supposed to be at arm's length and focus on infrastructure, it quickly fell victim to the government's radical net-zero ideology. This so-called growth fund is just another example. The growth fund will be stuffed with well-connected executives friendly to the Liberal ideology. They will be paid bonuses whether they accomplish anything or not.

There will be billions and billions for green dreams, yet Canada does not have a national four-lane highway. Ontario's Ring of Fire is full of critical minerals and metals, yet it is nearly inaccessible by road. The government has mandated that 20% of cars sold in three years will be zero emission, yet it has not even studied the costs of electric vehicles. There is nowhere near the electrical capacity in our grid to switch one in five cars. No amount of government spending can change the physics of energy density. No amount of growth funds or infrastructure banks can change the economic realities of scarcity and opportunity costs.

With every dollar the government spends chasing its net-zero ideology, it is a dollar we do not spend on mitigation. Every dollar the government borrows to purchase prohibited firearms is a dollar plus interest it cannot spend stopping gang violence. Every bonus paid to executives at the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the growth fund comes at the expense of seniors, veterans and the disabled.

We know the Minister of Justice has some disgusting suggestions on how we can cut spending on vulnerable Canadians. The Liberal addiction to spending is terrible. Sadly, bad spending is not the only terrible thing in Bill C-32. Reminding Canadians this bunch of Liberals is more like a parody of government, this bill attacks the solicitor-client privilege by requiring lawyers to report the names of their clients to the Canada Revenue Agency. The same government invoking solicitor-client privilege to keep its legal opinion hidden is removing that same privilege from Canadians.

Canadians should know, without any doubts, that the government wants to go down in history for bringing the biggest tax hike on alcohol in Canadian history. It could have introduced a freeze on the excise tax hikes, which it tied to inflation with its automatic escalator tax, but Bill C-32 contains a number of changes to the excise tax. Of course, as with everything the government does, the changes are for the benefit of the government. It has no problem making it easier for the tax man to search our records, but making it easier for Canadians to enjoy beer on the weekend? We can forget it. All the government cares about are the wealthy and well connected, who get rich off the special deals cooked up by these so-called arm's-length funds.

Canadians need relief from inflation and all the government does is increase spending, which fuels inflation. Like an addict, the government will deny it has a problem. It will deny and deflect until the money runs out.

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

Madam Speaker, I am excited to speak to Bill C‑32 today, the bill to implement the economic statement introduced by the Liberal government.

The bill contains 25 tax measures and about 10 other non-tax measures. This may seem like a lot, but a closer look at these measures reveals that they are twofold: minor legislative amendments, and measures that were announced in the spring 2022 budget that were not included in the first budget implementation bill passed last June. Clearly, like the November 3 economic statement, Bill C‑32 contains no measures to address the new economic reality of high living costs and a possible recession.

The Bloc Québécois bemoans the fact that this economic update mentions the issue of inflation 108 times without offering any additional support to vulnerable people even though there is a fear that a recession will hit as early as 2023. Quebeckers who are worried about the rising cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with the follow-up to last spring's budget. We must denounce a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers face the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are feared for the months to come.

This bill will not exactly go down in history, and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise. However, it does not contain anything harmful enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting in favour of Bill C‑32, albeit half-heartedly, and I would like to use the rest of my time to talk about what is missing from this economic statement.

The first big thing missing from Bill C‑32 is support for seniors. Still, to this day, Ottawa continues to deprive people aged 65 to 74 of the old age pension increase they need more than ever now. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so it is harder for them to deal with a cost of living increase as drastic as the one we are currently experiencing. These folks are the most likely to face tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy. Last week, a study by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées in partnership with the Observatoire québécois des inégalités revealed that nearly half of Quebec seniors do not have a livable income. Specifically, 49% of seniors aged 60 and over do not have a decent income to live in dignity. Members will agree that helping seniors is about more than just ageism, isolation and abuse. It is about ensuring that they have adequate financial support to live and age with dignity. This is not currently the case in terms of the Liberal government's priorities.

What is more, the government keeps penalizing seniors who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Inflation, unlike the federal government, does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. It is not by starving seniors 65 to 75 that we are going to encourage them to stay in their jobs. We do that by no longer penalizing them for working.

The second thing that has been largely forgotten in this economic update is employment insurance reform, a significant measure that the forgotten are counting on. Employment insurance is the ultimate economic stabilizer during a recession. While a growing number of analysts continue to be concerned about the possibility of a recession as early as next year, the Canadian government seems to be going back on the comprehensive EI reform it promised in the summer. The system has essentially been dismantled over the years and currently six in 10 workers who lose their jobs are not entitled to employment insurance. This is because they fail to qualify and, of course, they do not meet the current eligibility criteria. That is unacceptable in a developed country like ours.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the replacement rate to at least 60%, as was the case prior to 1993.

The Bloc Québécois also believes that we need to better redistribute the EI regions to reflect the reality of workers in the seasonal industry and unemployment in the regions. In my riding in the Lower St. Lawrence area, seasonal work is a reality for many people who work hard in industries such as forestry, tourism and agriculture. These industries are important for economic vitality, but they also help build our region's unique character. They are part of our culture and heritage.

By stubbornly refusing to move forward with the necessary EI reform, Ottawa is putting our workers, our seasonal industries and our regions in a precarious situation. It is ignoring and abandoning our needs, and yet the Liberals promised EI reform in both the 2015 and 2019 elections. How many times will the federal government let Quebec's regions down?

The third thing missing here is inflation, a word we have been hearing over and over. As I said earlier, the government has identified the problem, the rising cost of living, but is not actually doing anything about it. It tells us to expect very tough times this winter, but says nothing about how to get through them. It makes dire observations about the economic situation, but dismisses any and every opposition suggestion for dealing with it. Consider supply chains, whose fragility was exposed during the pandemic. Last spring's budget named the problem 71 times, and the economic update did so another 45 times. However, neither document offers any solutions whatsoever to the problem.

In Bill C‑32, the government repeats measures it took in the past and acts on announcements from last April's budget, but there is nothing to suggest it knows where it is headed. This is all déjà vu. It is a celebration of Liberal lip service, but one cannot feed one's children with fine speeches.

Another major file that Ottawa continues to ignore is health transfers. The meeting of health ministers from Quebec, the provinces and the federal government from November 7 to 9, 2022, went nowhere. The federal government showed up empty-handed and did not offer any increase in health transfers. Even worse, it lectured and insulted the provinces, accusing them of mismanaging health care. That came from a government that is incapable of managing its own responsibilities such as passports, employment insurance and immigration. That is really rich coming from the federal Liberals.

The Bloc Québécois is defending the provinces and Quebec, which are united in asking for an increase in federal health transfers from 22% to 35%, or an increase from $42 billion to $60 billion. That is a $28 billion increase per year, as unanimously requested by Quebec and all the provinces. This permanent and unconditional increase would make it possible for Quebec to rebuild its health system, which was undermined by years of austerity caused by the reduction in transfers in the 1990s. It would also help address issues related to the aging population and the additional pressure this will put on the health care network.

Those three Bloc Québécois priorities are not included in the economic update. I would like to take the time to remind my fellow members, and all Quebeckers, of what the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to do in conjunction with this economic statement. Our request was both simple and meaningful in an uncertain and difficult economic context: We asked the government to refocus on its fundamental responsibilities towards vulnerable people.

The measure of a society is how much care and support it provides to those who are most vulnerable and most in need. To do this, three key measures are more crucial than ever: increasing health transfers; providing adequate support to people aged 65 and over, since they are on a fixed income with low indexation that fails to offset our rampant inflation; and, of course, undertaking a comprehensive reform of employment insurance. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not think any of these measures were worth considering.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member spoke about some of the positive items in Bill C-32 as well as concerns about items that were not there. One of those things is recognizing that Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. Bill C-32, the fall economic statement, and the budget before that failed to introduce any kind of emergency response in the way that parliamentarians in this place had done when COVID first hit. I know he was here for that.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona has been a champion for pushing for better supports for Canadians living with disabilities. I wonder if he could talk about why there has not been a response already and what it would take to get a disability emergency response introduced in this place.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at report stage of Bill C-32 to talk a bit about the bill.

One of the really important measures contained in this bill is the Canada recovery dividend. We have talked a lot in this place about the impact of the pandemic on people and about the need for the government to have spent a considerable sum of money to support people as they contemplated losing their homes during the pandemic, particularly in those early days when the economy all but shut down and people were put out of work and were not sure how they were going to pay their bills. We have also talked a lot in this place about the amount of financial aid that was made available to large financial institutions like banks right at the outset of the pandemic. Indeed, we have talked about some of the knock-on effects in the economy of providing that liquidity, support and de-risking to major financial institutions.

The Canada recovery dividend is a one-time tax assessed on Canada's largest financial institutions for profits of over $1 billion during those early years of the pandemic. It is to be paid over five years and represents a considerable amount of revenue. It is something the New Democrats would have liked to see applied to big box stores, grocery stores and oil and gas companies, which also saw considerable profits during that period. By considerable profits, I do not just mean their normal considerable profits. I mean extra profit above and beyond the normal rate of profit that these companies enjoy.

While we would have liked to see that expanded and while we continue to ask and push for that, there is an important piece of work being done here, which is to assess the Canada recovery dividend, or what in other jurisdictions has been called a windfall tax, on Canada's financial institutions. It has not been done before, to my knowledge, in my own lifetime, so it is a really significant undertaking to go to the large financial institutions, which made a lot of money and benefited significantly from public funding during the pandemic, and say they need to pay their fair share.

Oftentimes, we talk about folks having to pay their fair share. The New Democrats talk about large companies having to pay their fair share. Rarely do we see actual instances of their being required to do it. This is what it looks like when they do it. While going ahead with this with respect to financial institutions is a positive thing, it also demonstrates the extent to which we are not requiring other large profitable companies to pay their fair share, because they are not mentioned in this legislation. They are not going to do it spontaneously. They are not going to do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They are not going to just come around. The banks did not, but they will have to do it because it is legislated. It should be legislated for other sectors as well, but it matters that we are doing it for some sectors.

In addition to that, this legislation would permanently increase the corporate tax rate on those very same companies, including the big banks and life insurance companies, from 15% to 16.5%. That is also significant. That is what it means to make companies pay their fair share, and it is something too infrequently seen in this place. I note to anyone listening at home who has an outpouring of sympathy for these large institutions, although I doubt many are, that this is still far less than the large institutions paid in the year 2000, when they paid a 28% corporate tax rate. Going up to 16.5% for a small cross-section of corporate Canada, albeit a large, powerful and profitable cross-section, is hardly what we mean when we talk about tax fairness. It is at least, for the first time in over 20 years, a step in the right direction.

I am proud to be rising today to support that step in the right direction. I hope it is the first of many. I know if Canadians see fit to elect a New Democratic government, it will be. In the meantime, we will be here fighting the Liberals and dragging them kicking and screaming at every opportunity we get so they do the right thing and ensure that corporate Canada is paying its fair share. Canadians who want a sense of what that looks like need only look at this bill and see the progress we are making.

There are also some things in this bill that have to do with the housing market. Ultimately, they are a drop in the bucket because they are predicated upon the same ethos or philosophy that has been driving the housing market since the Liberal government of the mid-nineties first terminated the national housing strategy, which had a commodity-based and market-based approach to housing.

This is not because we ever had a time when there was not a housing market. There has always been a housing market in Canada, and rightly so, but we used to have a housing market in Canada that was about people being able to buy a family home and sell a home when it came time for them to downsize in retirement and have a bit of a nest egg. That was complemented by a parallel public housing sector that was meaningful, made real investments and built a significant number of units every year. That stopped in the mid-nineties, and we have never really gotten back to that.

Things that the New Democrats support, incidentally, such as a doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, will make a difference for certain families that are already financially well positioned to contemplate buying a house in this market. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the astronomical increase in the cost of housing. Fewer and fewer Canadians belong to that category because of the significant depreciation in their salaries against inflation and the prices of many things. These are things that will make a difference for some Canadians.

Some of these things the New Democrats have advocated for, such as the doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit and cracking down elsewhere, to the extent that the government has done so in this bill. We will see in time how effective that is and what the loopholes mean, but things like house flipping and other things are making it harder for Canadians to compete and get a first home. They are being outbid by people who have made a science of bidding on homes and flipping them and who are backed by access to a lot of capital that most Canadians do not have ready access to. Nevertheless, there are some measures that may help certain Canadians.

That is fine, but there is a lot more work to do to combat the idea that houses are commercial assets as opposed to homes. Significant government investments will be required to make that case and take the framework on so that we are building more social housing units for which rent is geared to income. Also, not unlike what I was just talking about with regard to assessing real taxes on the biggest corporate players in Canada, there is a lot of work to do in changing the regulatory environment so that big real estate investment trusts and other large corporate players in the housing market, which are pushing up prices and evicting low-income tenants, do not have a free hand to do that in the way they have.

That is what it will ultimately take for us to live in a country that has made a real decision about its values in respect of housing so that housing is not a simple market with a good like any other good in the market, but is a right for Canadian citizens. We have to design our housing market, including using non-market tools, to ensure that everybody has access to housing. This bill does not get us there, but it does tinker at the edges in ways that will be helpful for some people.

I want to talk a bit about what is not in the bill. The New Democrats are quite prepared to support this bill on the basis of some of the things that are significant and some of the things that tinker at the edges, albeit in helpful ways as opposed to harmful ways, but there is a lot that is not in the bill. I think particularly of employment insurance reform as the government begins to talk about a recession. We do not see any clues in this bill, just as we did not see any in the fall economic statement, about where the government is going on certain key policy decisions that have been made to get our employment insurance system up to where it needs to be.

I would note, while I have the opportunity, that one thing the government has decided to do, which we do not see in this bill but is on the books, is attribute $25 billion of debt, a big number, to the employment insurance account for the CERB and CRB payments that were made under the auspices of Service Canada, as opposed to the CRA. I have to say that whatever the government has in store for EI modernization clearly cannot involve any funding, because a $25-billion debt on the EI account means that we are going see maximum premium increases for the next seven years, with all of that money paying down CERB debt that should not be on the EI account. That was a general expense by the government in the context of a global emergency, and it should not be on the on the EI account. I am happy to talk more about that during questions and answers.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-32.

After reading Bill C‑32 and the proposed amendment, all I can say is that this bill just dusts off some old legislative measures. There is nothing to excite us or to show us what direction the government wants to take. This bill is actually rather disappointing.

As a former health care network manager in Quebec, I want to talk the fact that there is absolutely no mention of health transfers in this bill. That is a problem.

Coincidentally, I read a wonderful article in La Presse this morning by the former mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud‑Jobin. I am actually somewhat envious of him. I wish I could have written that article myself, because what he said is exactly what I think about the whole debate on health transfers, namely, that needs are being expressed in the provinces and Quebec, but the money is in Ottawa.

I urge my Liberal and NDP colleagues to read the article. It is in French, but that would be a good way for them to practice their French. It is so interesting that it might even be worth getting it translated. Essentially, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin says that the needs vary so widely from one province to another that Canada-wide standards would not really help patients. The purpose of the health transfers is to allow as many residents as possible to obtain high-quality public services, regardless where they live.

It is worth reading a excerpt:

I will give you one last sampling of our differences to demonstrate how useless, if not extremely complex, it would be to set Canada-wide standards.

Quebec is the only province that has a drug plan. Quebeckers consume the least amount of cannabis. The morning-after pill is used less in Quebec than anywhere else in the country, and 8% of [elective abortions] were performed using that method here, while the rate is 31% in Ontario and 50% in British Columbia. Quebec is the place with the most psychologists per capita in North America. There are as many here as in the rest of Canada combined. Quebec has the lowest perinatal and neonatal mortality rate in Canada. In Quebec, only a pharmacist can own a pharmacy, which is a unique situation. And so on and so forth.

We have a different lifestyle, we have a different health status, and, since Marguerite Bourgeoys, we have our own health management model.

This quote demonstrates that it is unrealistic for the federal government to think it can create equity with Canada-wide standards. It is trying to make itself look good by saying it will impose a standard to ensure health equity, but it is just deluding itself. The needs are not the same everywhere. It is not that Quebec is better or worse; it is simply different. Each province has its own public health needs based on the residents it most urgently needs to care for.

Quebec also has different tools. There are local community service centres, known as CLSCs, and family medicine groups, known as GMFs. Quebec is also recognized for its expertise in setting up vaccination clinics. We are true leaders. We have developed tools that are different from other provinces', and we are proud of that. We know very well what we need to do and, more importantly, where we need to improve.

Having worked as a manager at the Montérégie-Ouest integrated health and social services centre, or CISSS, I can say that each manager is responsible for achieving certain indicators that are both well known and documented. From one region to another, these indicators are directly linked to the public health system's departmental guidelines.

The CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest's catchment area includes parts of four members' ridings, specifically the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle and the member for La Prairie. It is a large CISSS, and with that comes various challenges. I would like to talk about a few of the indicators that the department is asking us to observe and improve on.

The members on the government side make it sound like there are no standards at all, like it is complete chaos in the provinces. I would like my colleagues to know that the opposite is true. We have indicators, very specific standards and percentage targets. I will name a few, of which I am particularly proud.

One indicator that the CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest has as an objective is to improve access to addiction services. There is a broad departmental guideline regarding addiction, and my CISSS—I say “my” because it is still my CISSS—wants to improve access to addiction services. If we compare some data, we see that 10,717 people received addiction services in 2020. That number went down in 2021, when 9,743 people received those services. What happened? Some of the CISSS staff are studied the situation to find out why fewer people accessed addiction services than the year before. They looked into it, did some research and consulted with professionals. They realized that they need to serve people who may not be accustomed to bureaucracy, people who may not want to go to a hospital or a CLSC, but who want to be in contact with professionals who understand their lives and do not judge them.

That is why my CISSS got in touch with Pacte de rue, a community organization in my riding with outreach workers across the CISSS's territory. These workers connect with people where they are at, in their everyday lives and on the street. They work on the ground, not in offices. They realized that, if the organization had a street medicine service, they could increase the number of individuals accessing addiction services by going to people rather than waiting until people came to them.

I think that is a powerful example of a public network, our CISSS, working with a community organization in my riding. Through their co-operation and unique model, they are reaching people who might not otherwise receive public health care services. Now people who are homeless or have addictions may encounter an outreach worker who will take them to see a street medicine nurse. This is such a great model that it proves that these claims I am hearing, that there are no standards or indicators, are not true. Quebec's Department of Health requires my CISSS to adhere to broad guidelines for health, social services and public health and very specific indicators with measurable objectives. Every CISSS in Quebec has to do everything in its power to meet the goal.

The same thing happened with the new service that just opened, called Aire ouverte. Quebec wanted to improve access to services for children, youth and their families. We noticed that our statistics and indicators showed that there were clients who were not being reached as much, clients whose needs may not be as great, but who need help and services and do not seek them out. That is why Quebec created Aire ouverte, a program where health care workers meet with young people and no appointment is needed. These are clinics where no appointment is needed to easily access health care workers who will welcome young people and speak openly with them, without judgment, and refer to them to right services.

In closing, funding for the health care system is a critical issue. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a government that is playing games with this critical issue at patients' expense.

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

Madam Speaker, the things that stand out about Bill C-32 are the things that are missing, and that includes a very important request from Quebeckers and my constituents.

I am talking about the two-tier pension system. The government increased pensions for people aged 75 and up, but it seems to think that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not need a pension increase.

I think they do need one, particularly with inflation being what it is right now. I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on that.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-32. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

The House proceeded to the 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.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will need to wait for the unanimous consent motion to see what will happen. I will wait for that. There is good news for the member opposite in that he has the opportunity, at committee of course, to review those guns and make any suggestions his members would like. I am sure, as a long-serving member, he would be aware of that opportunity, but I just remind him of that.

The Speaker will be pleased to know we will continue with debate at second reading of Bill C-26, an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts. Tomorrow we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C-23, the historic places of Canada act.

On Monday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading on Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2022. Thursday will be the final allotted day of the current supply period. For the rest of the week, priority should be given to Bill C-32.

I would also like to indicate that on Tuesday there will be a statement by the minister on the commemoration of the Polytechnique massacre.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to 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.

I would like to thank our finance committee clerks, Alexandre Roger and Carine Grand-Jean; our legislative clerks, Philippe Méla and Jean-François Pagé; our analysts, Joëlle Malo and Michaël Lambert-Racine; our committee assistant, Lynda Gaudreault; all committee staff, interpreters and services, and all members of the finance committee for their dedication and hard work.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

In the spirit of offering some reflections at the outset for our position with respect to the bill, I thought I would make my own contribution.

Similarly to Mr. Ste-Marie, I think some of the cracking down on tax avoidant measures in Bill C-32 is certainly welcome. There's more work to do, but these are steps in the right direction.

I would highlight in this bill, as well, the elimination of interest on student loans, something New Democrats have long championed and are glad to see a government finally proceed with. It is also under-reported.

I think the headline item for this is actually something New Democrats have been calling for, for some time, which we made sure was part of our understanding with the government in the supply and confidence agreement, and that is the Canada recovery dividend. It means that big banks and insurance companies that did very well during the pandemic, including because of the generous support of the federal government, are going to have to pay some of that money back, and that's important so that there are resources to do the things we need to do in order to support Canadians through a very difficult time.

New Democrats think the Canada recovery dividend is an important step alongside a permanent increase of 1.5% in the corporate tax rate for banks and insurance companies.

These are some of the reasons we're supporting Bill C-32, and I thank you for the time to put that on the record.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, too, have a point of order, as well as a comment that will hopefully be as brief as Mr. Lawrence's.

First, I had informed the committee that I still had a lot of questions for the officials from the various departments that will have a hand in Bill C‑32. At a previous meeting, I had requested the committee's unanimous consent to ask those officials to provide written answers to the questions suggested by the House of Commons analysts, but there wasn't unanimous support for that request.

In the spirit of co‑operation, Terry Beech, the parliamentary secretary, suggested I give him the list of questions I was most interested in having the answers for, and in hardly any time at all, the officials had answered all of my questions in a document that was sent to me. I asked the clerk to share the document with the committee so that members would have the excellent information I received, which was in both official languages.

I realize how much work that was, so I want to express my sincere thanks to Terry Beech for his help, as well as to the finance officials for their comprehensive answers. Thanks to them, I won't have any technical questions today, since I already have the answers I was looking for.

It is clear to those of us in the Bloc Québécois that Bill C‑32 does not address the financial priorities of the people of Quebec. However, as always, we will vote on what is in the bill, not on what isn't. We don't have a problem with any of the measures proposed in this omnibus bill, and that is why I, as the Bloc Québécois's representative today, will be voting in favour of the bill and each of its clauses. We don't have any amendments to propose.

Before I wrap up, though, I would like to point something out to the members of the committee. The Canadian Bar Association sent a letter to the chair to express its concern that some of the proposed amendments would undermine solicitor-client privilege. I know that the government is very mindful of the rules in place and has read the letter, as I have. For that reason, I am not so concerned that I feel the need to propose an amendment.

Speaking of solicitor-client privilege, I would also remind the members of the committee of our study into the whole Isle of Man affair and the use of trusts for the purposes of tax avoidance and tax evasion. That was a case in which KPMG invoked solicitor-client privilege to refuse to disclose the names of its fraudster clients to the government. We must bear in mind that solicitor-client privilege is not absolute, because it does not apply when a lawyer advises their client to do something illegal.

The Canada Revenue Agency's American counterpart, the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, gave KPMG an ultimatum when it tried to pull the same thing in the U.S. The company could either hand over the list of clients with whom it had conspired to defraud the IRS or it would face criminal prosecution and risk dissolution. The matter was resolved pretty quickly. Here, an out-of-court settlement was reached.

I welcome the measures in Bill C‑32. Solicitor-client privilege is obviously very important, but so is the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, as brevity is the soul of wit, I will be quick. I'm renowned in this committee for my brevity. In all seriousness, I just want to put a couple of comments onto the record, if the other members will indulge me.

Conservatives will not be supporting Bill C-32, the legislative implementation of the fall economic statement.

Prior to the announcement of the fall economic update, Conservatives stated that they had two requirements for the upcoming legislation: one, that there be no new taxes; and two, that there be no new spending. Conservatives put these requirements in place because we are acutely aware of the struggles that Canadians are facing in the midst of one of Canada's largest affordability crises.

Food bank usage has climbed to record highs, with 1.5 million Canadians using food banks in a single month. A third of those were children, so that's 500,000 children who had to go to food banks just to eat in one month.

Nearly half of Canadians are within $200 of insolvency, and with rising interest rates, many Canadians are now on the brink of losing their homes. The pain that has been inflicted is the responsibility of the failed Liberal tax-and-spend agenda.

In the fall economic statement the greedy government refused to give up even $1 of revenue while adding to Canadians' suffering. Instead, it is stubbornly refusing to relent on its plan to raise the carbon tax, which, according to the Bank of Canada, is inflationary, so this represents a double hit for Canadians. One is the direct impact on gas, groceries and home heating, but then there's also the impact of inflation, which, at its low rate of $40 per tonne, was estimated by the Bank of Canada to be 0.4% and very well could be over 1% when we get our numbers back from the PBO.

On January 1, the greedy Liberals will take yet more money from Canadians, and for what sin? What travesty have Canadians committed? They have gone to work. In one of Canada's worst labour shortages in recent history, the Liberals are actively disincentivizing work. They're punishing workers by increasing the payroll tax.

In addition to direct taxation, the government is indirectly increasing the burden on workers through inflationary spending. As Tiff Macklem said at this very committee in response to my colleague's question, more spending equals more inflation. The more the Liberals spend, the harder life gets for Canadians.

We have also heard comments, not just by the current Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem but also by former Bank of Canada governor and future Liberal leader Mark Carney that inflation is actually a homegrown problem that is a direct result of this government's tax-and-spend policies.

The government has had the opportunity to provide hope by reducing the burden through reductions in the carbon tax or the payroll tax, or even by cancelling the planned tax hikes on Canada's sacrosanct tradition of drinking beer. Unfortunately, the only thing it had to offer Canadians was more taxes and more inflation. At a time when Canadians needed a hand up, the Liberals dropped an anchor on them.

For these reasons and many more, Conservatives cannot support Bill C-32.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The budget is approved.

Today, to help with our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-32, we have officials from the Canadian Space Agency, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, the Department of Employment and Social Development, the Department of Finance and the Department of Justice.

On behalf of the committee, I thank all our officials. I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses have been audio tested for today's meeting and have passed the test.

We now move to the bill. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 70 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee is meeting to proceed with the clause-by-clause 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as well as we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Members, before we go to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-32, you will have received the budget for the Bill C-228 study from the clerk on Tuesday. Everybody should have received it at 11:03 a.m.

I'm looking around for confirmation that everybody is good with that budget.

Small Business

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, Canada's small and medium-sized businesses are the heart of our economy. They define our communities, our main streets and our neighbourhoods across the country, in big cities and small villages. Helping them innovate is good for Canada, and that is why our government has addressed and continues to address barriers that are preventing them from growing.

With Bill C-32, we are proposing to cut taxes for Canada's growing small businesses, which will help them continue to grow and create good jobs. We are also working with payment card networks, financial institutions, acquirers, payment processors and businesses to lower credit card transaction fees for small businesses. We want these fees to be lowered in a manner that protects existing reward points for consumers and does not adversely affect other businesses.

We believe an agreement can be reached, but should it be the case we are not able to come to an agreement, we will introduce this legislation at the earliest possible opportunity in the new year and move forward on regulating credit card transaction fees.

We have already published draft legislation amendments to the Payment Card Networks Act, and I invite the member for Spadina—Fort York to read them and provide feedback.

We all want Canadians to have good jobs, but it is also important to keep a good social safety net, and employment insurance is certainly one aspect of it. EI is a tool that helps provide resources for people in their time of need.

I would like to remind the member for Spadina—Fort York that it is the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, not the government, that sets the annual employment insurance premium rate according to a seven-year break-even rate, as forecast by the EI senior actuary. It does this every year and has done so since 2016.

The commission is a tripartite organization representing the interests of workers, employers and government. It is mandated to represent and reflect the views of its respective constituencies. The employment insurance premium rate will be $1.63 per $100 of insurable earnings in 2023. That is 25¢ less than it was in 2013 when it was $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings, and notably, this was under the management of the current Leader of the Opposition.

In June 2013, the national unemployment rate was 7.2%. It is now 5.2%. Over two million more Canadians are now working compared to June 2013, including 500,000 more since the beginning of the pandemic. The seven-year break-even mechanism ensures stable and predictable premium rates for Canadian workers and employers. In fact, annual changes to the premium rate are subject to a legislated limit of just 5¢. The mechanism is also intended to ensure EI contributions are only used for EI purposes.

This is a prudent and transparent way for EI premiums to be managed, and I do not understand exactly why the hon. member would be against it.

Taxation

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to address the question of pollution pricing.

Our government knows that putting a price on pollution remains the most effective way to fight climate change while making life more affordable for Canadians. Not only does pollution pricing ensure it is no longer free to pollute anywhere in Canada, but for eight out of 10 Canadians who receive the climate action incentive payments, the federal pollution pricing system actually puts more money back into their pockets.

Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; addressing it is an economic necessity. The reality is that Canadians are confronted every day with more extreme events, such as floods, hurricanes and wildfires. A few months ago, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing that climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. Responsible governments can only grow the economy and make life more affordable for Canadians if they have a responsible climate plan. The member opposite, respectfully, has neither a credible plan for the environment nor the economy.

However, I would also like to reassure my hon. colleagues that our government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet and that many are worried as our country's economy faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenge of high inflation and higher interest rates. Still, inflation in Canada is high and we know that Canadians are feeling it when they go to the grocery store, fill up their tanks and pay their rent. The good news is that there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Our country has an AAA credit rating, has the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year, and the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. In fact, we have strengthened that advantage over the pandemic. Also, our unemployment rate continues to be near its record low.

We do appreciate that this will continue to be a difficult time for a lot of Canadians. It is a difficult time for our families, friends and neighbours. That is why the government is supporting Canadians who are most affected by inflation. For example, by doubling the GST credit for six months, we will deliver $2.5 billion in additional targeted support to roughly 11 million individuals and families, including more than 50% of Canada's seniors. I thank the member opposite for supporting that measure.

Canadians will even start to see some more of these targeted measures this week. On Thursday, December 1, Canadians can begin applying for the Canada dental benefit. That means the parents of kids under the age of 12 will be able to claim $650 per child for visits to the dentist.

We are also moving forward with new measures introduced in our fall economic statement a few weeks ago. For example, Bill C-32 would make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprenticeship loans permanently interest-free, including those that are currently being repaid. We are making major investments in housing affordability, and our key benefits are indexed to inflation. We have a world-class child care program and have cut costs by more than 50% just this year, and we have reduced taxes for the middle class and for small businesses.

We will continue to work hard to make sure that life is more affordable in Canada and to grow an economy that works for everyone.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Grinshpoon. Thank you for agreeing to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance on such short notice. We're very grateful to you for that. Thanks as well for the three studies you released this morning. They'll be very useful to us.

Since we'll be conducting clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑32 at our next meeting, the committee will have devoted only two meetings to the study of this bill: one with the officials of the departments concerned and this one today.

My first questions will focus on parts of your statement, Mr. Giroux.

In particular, you said that the government had announced $14.2 billion in new measures without providing details on that spending, which represents 27% of new measures in the fall economic statement 2022.

Would you please explain to us at greater length how that's being presented? Why do you think no more details are provided?

[Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.

We are pleased to be here to discuss our analysis of Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, which we published in our report entitled “Fall Economic Statement—Issues for Parliamentarians” on November 15, 2022.

Additionally, this morning my office published three separate legislative costing notes: our analysis of the residential property flipping rule, the doubling of the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, and eliminating the interest on federal student and apprentice loans.

With me today, I have Kristina Grinshpoon, who is director of fiscal analysis.

In accordance with the PBO's legislative mandate to provide impartial, independent analysis to help parliamentarians fulfill their constitutional role, which consists of holding government accountable, our report on the fall economic statement highlights key issues to assist parliamentarians in their budgetary deliberations.

In terms of funding and new budgetary measures, revisions to the private sector economic outlook and fiscal developments in the fall economic statement provide a total of $81.2 billion in new fiscal room, which finances $52.2 billion in net new measures over 2022-23 to 2027-28.

Of note is the government's $4 billion enhancement to the Canada workers benefit, which will automatically provide advance payment to individuals who qualified for the benefit in the previous year. The substantial cost of this measure is largely due to the government's policy decision not to recoup these advance payment when recipients' incomes rise and they become ineligible for benefits or eligible for lower benefits. Not requiring repayment of federal benefits for ineligible individuals is a pronounced departure from the existing federal tax and transfer system. This expensive policy change was not mentioned in the fall statement.

Further, the government identified $14.2 billion in new measures without providing specific details on this spending, which represents 27% of all new measures, totalling $52.2 billion, in the fall economic statement 2022. This lack of transparency presents challenges for parliamentarians and the public in scrutinizing the government’s spending plans.

The timeliness of financial reporting also continues to present challenges. This year the Public Accounts were tabled on October 27—seven months after the close of the fiscal year. Canada continues to fall short of the standard for advanced practice in the International Monetary Fund's financial reporting guidelines, which recommends that governments publish their annual financial statements within six months. Parliamentarians may wish to request that the government publish the Public Accounts of Canada and the Departmental Results Reports, which have not yet been published, within six months of the close of the fiscal year. Legislative amendments to that effect could be considered.

Finally, the government highlighted that it exceeded its first spending review target of $3.0 billion by achieving savings of $3.8 billion from lower-than-anticipated spending on certain COVID‑19 support measures in the previous fiscal year, 2021‑22. However, the source of this saving is inconsistent with the intention and timing that was announced in Budget 2022. The FES provided no explanation for this discrepancy. This puts into question the credibility of the yet-to-be-launched strategic policy review supposed to generate savings of $6 billion by 2026‑27 and $3 billion in annual savings.

Ms. Grinshpoon and I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding our analysis of the fall economic statement or other PBO work.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to say thank you to you, Minister, for being with us today to speak to Bill C-32.

I appreciated that you spoke about immigration and the importance of immigrants to Canada's economy in our society. As you know, I've been a passionate advocate for immigrants and for more immigration, given that I truly believe that's key to Canada's future economic growth and prosperity. In my riding of Davenport, immigration is also important, not least because 45% of my riding are first-generation immigrants, and also because many of the businesses in my riding are really having a hard time filling jobs and finding talent that will allow them to grow their businesses.

Can you speak to what the federal government has done on immigration and how the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, continues to build on that work?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I really want to thank Nick and Mio for being here with us today. Both of them, and all of our officials in the Department of Finance, have really been working remarkably hard, and I'm really grateful.

Mr. Chair, it's a pleasure to appear before you and the members of the committee to discuss Bill C‑32.

I would like to explain to you why it's so important that we work together to pass this bill.

First of all, we're permanently eliminating interest on Canada student loans and apprentice loans, which will save students an average of $410. We've also provided the necessary funding to extend this measure to Quebec students as well.

We're cutting taxes for Canada's growing small businesses from 15% to 9%. This is the delivery of a key commitment we made in the spring.

We're permanently increasing the corporate income tax rate of banks and life insurance groups by 1.5%, and we're implementing the Canada recovery dividend, which is a one-time 15% tax on their income above $1 billion to support Canada's COVID recovery.

Bill C‑32 will also enable us to implement our plan to make housing more affordable.

We're creating the first home savings account. This account will help Canadians make a down payment sooner by enabling first-time buyers to save up to $40,000 for that purpose.

We're offering a multigenerational home renovation tax credit of up to $7,500 to enable Canadian families to house a grandparent or a family member with a disability who decides to return home and live with them.

By ensuring that profits from the resale of properties held for at least 12 months are fully taxed, we will help ensure that houses serve as homes for Canadians, not frequently flipped investment assets.

We will also help reduce closing costs by doubling the first-time home buyers' tax credit to provide $1,500 to cover increased closing costs associated with the purchase of a first home.

One of the pillars of the fall economic statement was about growing our economy and creating good jobs, and this legislation helps deliver on that.

We're launching the Canada growth fund, which will help bring to Canada the billions of dollars in new private investment required to reduce our emissions, grow our economy and create good jobs at the same time, and we're delivering a new 30% critical mineral exploration tax credit that will help make Canada a global leader in an industry that is essential for everything from electric cars to cellphones.

Before I close, Mr. Chair, I also know that you will be hearing from witnesses about the Canada workers benefit. The Canada workers benefit tops up the incomes of our lowest-paid and often most essential workers. No one who works 40 hours a week should have to worry about paying the bills or putting food on the table. In budget 2021, we expanded and enhanced the Canada workers benefit to reach three million Canadians who do important jobs but don't get paid very much. The Canada workers benefit can mean up to $2,400 for a working couple every year.

The government currently delivers the Canada workers benefit through tax returns. That means that eligible Canadians need to wait until the tax year is over to receive the money they have already earned, but bills need to be paid throughout the year. That's why in the fall economic statement we further improved the Canada workers benefit. We've expanded the Canada workers benefit to reach up to 1.2 million additional hard-working low- and modest-income Canadians. This was an intentional policy choice, and it means the CWB will top up the income of up to 4.2 million of the lowest-paid Canadians.

Going forward, eligible workers will receive advance payments of the Canada workers benefit based on the income they made last year. Advance payments will be made in July, October and January based on a worker's income in the previous year.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, Canada has the smallest deficit and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all the G7 countries.

A few hours after the fall economic statement 2022 was tabled, Moody's reconfirmed our AAA credit rating with stable outlook. In October alone, 108,000 jobs were created in Canada, which means that 513,000 more Canadians are working today than before the COVID‑19 pandemic. Our economy is now at 103% of what it was before the pandemic, and our economic growth since the start of this year is the strongest of all the G7 countries.

Canadians are standing strong and our country's economy is resilient. Consequently, we can all rest assured that we'll pull through, just as we've made it through the last two and a half years.

Thank you, and I'll be pleased to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 69 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee is meeting to discuss 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute it when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would now like to welcome our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland. Joining the minister from the Department of Finance, we have the associate deputy minister, Nicholas Leswick, and the assistant deputy minister of the tax policy branch, Miodrag Jovanovic.

Thank you for joining us.

Minister, we are all ears for your opening remarks.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I take a lot of time writing my notes, but to get off that for a second, at the request of my colleague, there was in fact a carbon price seven years ago, just not in his home province of Alberta. In my home province of B.C., there absolutely was a price on carbon, and guess what. During that period, British Columbia had the fastest-growing economy in the country at the same time as we had a carbon price. That is just some food for thought before I get into my extensive notes.

Our government understands that many Canadians are worried about our country's economy and that we are facing a global slowdown due to global challenges of high inflation and higher interest rates. However, it is important to remember that inflation is in fact a global phenomenon. Indeed, it is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic, Putin's illegal war on Ukraine and the snarled supply chains that are affecting so many people and businesses right around the world. The good news, though, is that no country is better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead.

Canada's inflation rate is less severe, at 6.9%, than those of our peers, like the United States, at 7.7%, the United Kingdom, at 11.1% and Germany, at 10.4%. We rely on Stats Canada to do those calculations. Also, our country has a AAA credit rating and has had the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year. That is alongside the lowest deficit- and net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. In fact, we have strengthened that advantage over the course of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is also near its record low, and 500,000 more Canadians are working today than before the pandemic.

We do appreciate, though, that this is a difficult time for families, friends and of course our neighbours. That is why we are now moving forward with targeted measures, including new ones introduced in the fall economic statement. For example, Bill C-32 would make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans permanently interest-free, including those currently being repaid.

We are also continuing to implement our government's affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. For example, with Bill C-31 having recently received royal assent, we are moving forward with the creation of the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 in families with annual incomes of less than $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. Also, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support earlier this month, and I thank my friend opposite for supporting that measure.

These are targeted measures that help make life more affordable for Canadians who need it the most, while being careful not to add fuel to the inflationary fire.

When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting more money back into the pockets of most Canadians. Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate; it is an economic necessity.

Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. The Conservatives regularly conflate the increased cost in global commodity prices with a price on pollution, but this is a fundamental error in practice. In B.C., for example, the carbon price has increased by only two cents per litre over the last three years while the price of gas has increased by over a dollar. That means the Conservatives are regularly ignoring 98% of the real problem. They also ignore the fact that the federal carbon price is revenue-neutral and that it actually makes life more affordable for eight out of 10 Canadian families through the climate action rebate.

The House resumed from November 21 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by sharing the sentiment of my friend from Kitchener Centre with regard to the urgency of this issue and with regard to making sure that we get this right, for the sake of our children and all children across Canada and around the world.

Canada remains committed to phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. We have already taken action to phase out nine tax measures supporting the fossil fuel sector. We have also pledged to undertake a peer review of inefficient fossil fuel subsides under the G20 process. The reality is that Canada fought hard at COP27 so that the world did not backslide on the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. We reiterated our commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2023, two years earlier than the G20 commitment.

Some have argued, including the member who just spoke, that our recent measures to support the emerging carbon capture, use and storage sector amount to an inefficient fossil fuel subsidy. This is not true. The fact is that CCUS is one of many tools in our tool box to meet our climate commitments. I would note that many respected global organizations support CCUS development. This includes the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Paris-based International Energy Agency.

In fact, the agency estimates that this technology could be responsible for about 15% of global emission reductions. It is part of the plan. It also gives us a tool to lower emissions outside of the oil and gas sector. Steel production, cement and other emission-intensive industries can benefit from this technology. This, in fact, builds on our world-leading climate plan, one that approaches reducing emissions and developing clean technology in all facets of our economy, and one that we further expanded on in the fall economic statement tabled earlier this month.

While we are removing tax credits from flow-through shares on oil, gas and coal, we are also creating new investment tax credits for clean tech and for clean hydrogen. We are also creating a sustainable jobs training centre that will prepare our workers for the high-paying sustainable jobs that will be created as new economic opportunities emerge as part of our climate plan. In addition, we are investing in a world-leading innovation and investment agency and a $15-billion clean growth fund that will help Canada further tap into the economic opportunities that the clean transition provides.

That being said, our government's priority, beyond fighting climate change and growing an economy that works for everyone, is to make life more affordable for Canadians who are currently struggling with global inflation.

Indeed, we are now moving forward with targeted measures, including new ones introduced in the fall economic statement. For example, Bill C-32 would make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprenticeship loans permanently interest-free, including those currently being repaid.

We are expanding our efforts with regard to affordable housing and we are making sure that every child in Canada, no matter how wealthy their parents are, has access to affordable dental care. This is in addition to our investments that have lifted millions of children and seniors out of poverty, including an early learning and child care agreement that will make our kids smarter and allow hundreds of thousands of parents to rejoin the workforce, if they choose to do so.

Finally, we have doubled the GST benefit to help 11 million Canadian households, including more than 50% of seniors, better handle the impacts of global inflation.

Any responsible plan must tackle climate change in a way so that no one is left behind in our economy, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House to represent the incredible people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

Today, as we debate the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, I find it challenging to speak to the government's financial priorities. The priorities of the Liberal government differ dramatically from the priorities of Canadians and the official opposition. We have fundamentally different beliefs, and we generally disagree on the role government should play in the lives of Canadians.

This is a politically charged financial statement with two objectives: first, for the Liberals to spend enough money to buy the support of the NDP so their Liberal-NDP political love story can continue; and, second, to divide Canadians based on an ideological framework regardless of the financial or political consequences.

Canadians are tired. We have been stretched emotionally and spiritually, and now we have been physically pushed beyond our limits, especially over the last two and a half years. Like an overworked body, we need time to rest and recover. We need a sense of normality and hope, but that is not what is happening here. Canada is facing a cost of living crisis brought on by years of overspending, excessive borrowing and money printing, though the government will say it is quantitative easing, which has created the highest rates of inflation in decades.

Of late, the Bank of Canada has been raising interest rates at an unprecedented pace, and it is not done yet, all in an effort to curb the inflationary trend. The government has doubled Canada's debt in the last seven years, and the Prime Minister, as has been said many times before, has added more debt than all prime ministers in the history of Canada combined. For those trying to keep track of that at home, that is over half a trillion dollars.

The Liberals would have us believe that they had no choice, given the pandemic. However, 40% of all new spending and measures has nothing to do with COVID. That is over $200 billion. The resulting national debt interest payment costs have doubled, and next year those interest payments will be nearly as much as the Canada health transfers to the provinces. Let us just think of the impact of that.

I am sure that members of the House recall the Prime Minister, the current finance minister and the previous finance minister touting how inexpensive it was for the government to borrow money. This is no longer the case. Now Canadians are stuck repaying their bills at these new and much higher interest rates.

The only person with any fundamental financial understanding back then and now is the Conservative leader. He warned the finance minister back in December of last year. She was asked what impact a 1% average increase on interest rates would have on Canada's national debt. She was unable to provide any number. The crushing part is that rates did not go up 1%. They are up 3.5%. A finance minister who could not fathom a 1% increase when questioned was clearly unprepared for that eventuality.

Now we are in a situation where the reality is substantially worse than that, yet the finance minister remains equally as oblivious to the situation and as arrogant to her colleagues as she was a year ago. In her fall update, she should have been singing the praises of the Leader of the Opposition. After all, he was clearly the only one with both the foresight and understanding that interest rates would not remain at historic lows forever and the conviction to ensure that the government had a plan.

During this time of self-induced financial uncertainty, the government needs to partner with Canadians and not continue to punish them. Let us take small business owners, for example. They are the unsung heroes of Canada's economy. They employ nearly two-thirds of workers across the country and take on incredible risk to provide the necessary goods and services to our communities, yet under the Liberal government, small businesses are being punished with rising payroll taxes, an increasing carbon tax, labour shortages and staggering inflation, which is driving up the cost of everything.

This fall economic statement was the Liberals' chance to let Canadians know that the Government of Canada is a strong and stable partner, and they failed. It was the Liberals' chance to rein in spending and focus on getting the country's financial house in order, but they failed there, too. It was their chance to acknowledge that a carbon tax only hurts Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet, but Liberals let Canadians down there, too.

Sadly, the Liberal plan does nothing to address the cost of living crisis and government overspending. Rather, it shows that government revenues have increased by $40 billion this year alone. This not only means that inflation is increasing the cost of everyday essentials, but it also means there is an increase in taxes while the Liberal government is profiting from increased inflation on the backs of already struggling Canadians.

Canada's Conservatives had two clear expectations and demands of the government, as did Canadians: stop the taxes and stop the spending. Stopping the taxes means no new taxes and includes cancelling all planned tax hikes and the increasing of the carbon tax. Stopping the spending means no new spending and that any new spending by ministers must be matched by an equivalent saving. None of those demands were met in the fall economic inflationary update.

As I stated recently in the House, all that Canadians really need to thrive and survive is individual freedom and good government. I believe a good government is for the people, not of the people, and is transparent. It acknowledges that every time a dollar is given away, it must first be taken from a Canadian who went to work to earn it. It is a government that makes life more affordable for Canadian, not by creating more cash but by creating more of what cash can buy, and understands that ethically produced and environmentally responsible Canadian energy helps fuel our economy and should fuel the world. It is a government that knows carbon taxes will not tackle climate change and that focuses on promoting Canadian technology to the world, making alternative energy cheaper, not making Canadian energy more expensive. It is a government committed to reforming the tax and benefit system so that those who work can keep more of what they earn, and one that offers Canadians hope and creates an environment to succeed and prosper.

Freedom and good government are exactly what the Conservative leader, my Conservative colleagues and I are intent on providing Canadians. Buckle up folks. The fight to get Canada back on track has started.

It starts with removing the carbon tax, which is further burdening already struggling Canadians. It starts by helping the finance minister understand that her plan to print, borrow and spend on political pet projects needs to end. It starts by voting down this misguided and hyperpartisan fall economic statement. I ask my colleagues to please join me in ensuring that this bill does not pass.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, with a particular focus on how the NDP-Liberal government claims to put Canadians' interests first, yet continues to push forward with its uncontrolled, insatiable inflationary spending.

We have two simple demands of the NDP-Liberal government to address the affordability crisis: Stop the taxes and stop the spending.

The cost of living crisis did not come without fair warning. We Conservatives have a long record of warning the NDP-Liberal government of the consequences of its actions. Needless to say, the direction it has demonstrated has been one of irresponsibility, mismanagement and carelessness. Skyrocketing inflation and the affordability crisis are likely to be mishandled yet again unless the NDP-Liberal government continues to listen to common-sense, realistic Conservative solutions to truly support Canadians across the country, so this is what we have to say.

The economic update does nothing to remedy the homegrown affordability crisis, and there is a running theme of deflecting the blame altogether. Whether it be the war in Ukraine, the pandemic or inflation being a problem around the world, the Liberal government chooses to blame everything else but its inflationary spending.

The inflationary deficits, totalling about half a trillion dollars, have sent more money chasing fewer goods. These inflationary practices are hiking the cost of everything while leaving Canadians with band-aid solutions that provide them with no long-term support. The Liberals' tax-and-spend agenda is completely unsustainable, and Canadians deserve better than choosing between eating or heating this winter. Seniors deserve better than barely scraping by with the cost of groceries. Families deserve better than paying the ever-climbing carbon tax. Students deserve better than facing a bleak housing market post graduation.

Canadians have never paid so much into taxes as they are because of this government. With record-breaking price hikes for gas, groceries and home heating, it is no wonder that more Canadians are turning to food banks for extra support once they have exhausted everything else they could possibly have saved money on.

The Prime Minister has managed to pack on more debt for Canadians than all the past prime ministers combined. That is why we Conservatives are championing the interests of hard-working Canadians by advancing two demands of the government: Stop the tax hikes and stop the inflationary spending.

The government loves to masquerade its inflationary spending as “helping Canadians” but tends to neglect saying that it is adding more debt and hiking inflation with its so-called affordability measures. If the NDP-Liberals were sincere about supporting Canadians through the cost of living crisis, then they would cancel all planned tax hikes, including the tripling of the carbon tax. Canadians are already struggling with inflation. My constituents have been talking about how much it costs to heat their homes nowadays. Since when has heating during the winter become a luxury?

Canadians work hard. They have demonstrated resilience and hard work to support their families and help their neighbours throughout the pandemic, even now, when the price of everything drifts further out of reach. Ironically, this coincides directly with the NDP-Liberal government's drifting further out of touch with how much it costs to live under its inflationary nonsense. Canadians deserve better than choosing between heating their homes for the winter or putting food on the table for themselves and their families.

Furthermore, we Conservatives are calling on the NDP-Liberal government to stop the inflationary spending and strongly consider reinvesting that back into the Canadian economy by creating more things that money can buy: more Canadian energy, more Canadian products and more Canadian jobs.

We are also calling on the government to manage its inflationary spending for once, by matching new spending with equivalent savings elsewhere to rein in inflation as well as to stop the inflationary deficits that drive the costs of everything up. It is no lie that Canadians' paycheques are no longer going as far as they used to and their dreams of a brighter future are fading.

None of our practical solutions to curb inflation were reflected in the fall economic statement, and for that reason, we Conservatives cannot stand by the inflationary updates outlined in Bill C-32. The NDP-Liberal government had every opportunity to understand that its approach does nothing to serve Canadians, yet it moved forward with its problematic plan anyway.

From the lengthy lineups at airports, to the painfully slow passport processing, the wasteful ArriveCAN app and, even now, Bill C-32, the NDP-Liberal government has proven that it is incapable of addressing inflation and meeting the basic needs of Canadians. The cost of government is driving up the cost of living for Canadians. The Liberals are out of touch and Canadians are out of time. Winter is here and the government should do everything better to prevent Canadians from choosing between eating or heating this winter.

This government likes to pretend that there was no other choice than to double the debt. While the Prime Minister spends $6,000 a night on the most expensive hotel room in London, Canadians are barely able to afford home heating or a roof over their heads. When Canadians are struggling to pay for groceries, this government tells them to tighten their belts and, further, to cancel their Disney+ subscriptions. The Liberal government likes to call the carbon tax a price on pollution while its members are chauffeured everywhere they go. Canadians on the other hand have to pinch pennies at the pumps.

This government once stated that the country's debt would not exceed $10 billion. It lied. In fact, over 40% of new spending was not related to the pandemic at all. That is $205 billion of inflationary spending. On top of that, interest rates are skyrocketing at an unprecedented pace. Mortgage payments are becoming unaffordable and most young people do not even think about buying a home at all any more. Canada is one of the largest, richest, most proudly diverse countries in the world, yet Canada has had the second most inflated housing bubble.

Canadians deserve better than just being able to afford to get by. They deserve security, opportunity and a fiscally responsible government. Instead of printing more and more cash to throw around, we Conservatives believe in creating more of what cash buys, bolstering our economy and making more quality jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

We are lucky enough to be in a country so full of resources, so why are we not investing more proudly in Canadian products, such as food and energy, instead of importing oil from other countries? The NDP-Liberal government loves to claim environmental protection for the tripling carbon tax, but it chooses to import oil from other countries, which costs more in funds and emissions to ship, trains and trucks into Canadian households.

Instead of providing people with one-time rent support cheques, which only helps a fraction of Canadians, we Conservatives urge this government to cut the red tape, quit the gatekeeping and get shovels into the ground to build more affordable housing for Canadians. It is time that the Liberals understand the real consequences of their wasteful spending and listen to Conservative solutions. It is time for the government to show more compassion and stop the inflationary recklessness. It is time for the government to stop spending and stop the tax hikes.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise to join the debate today on Bill C-32 as the government tries to push through some of its fall economic update. Not only are we talking about yet another bad bill, but again, it is trying to rush through the process of us reviewing it.

We saw this morning the government wants to cut short our debate by limiting it until the end of the day. To be clear, when I say “government” in this case, it applies to something more than what the Minister of Finance and the government House leader, as cabinet members, are supposed to represent when they introduce their bills or motions. It is something more than the wider Liberal caucus in this place that has stood by and supported the government's decision no matter the cost it brings to Canadians.

What is happening right now actually goes back to the agreement made earlier this year with the NDP. Yes, we are starting to see the NDP-Liberal coalition back in action.

It reminds me of when, not too long ago, Canadians first learned about a deal between the Liberals and the NDP. Everybody knew it was a convenient arrangement for these two parties to help each other stay in business, but they have been downplaying it from the time they announced it. They tried to pass it off as a working agreement on a small number of points where they had some mutual understanding. However, over here in the opposition, we have already seen what is going on, and Canadians outside this place can see it too.

The NDP and the Liberals will not dare to call themselves a coalition, but the whole time they have behaved like they are a majority government in Parliament. Back in the spring, it did not take long for them to bring forward a motion to push through government bills. The most shocking part of it might have been that it allowed a minister to move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House until we would resume months later in September. Such a motion would be decided immediately without debate or amendment.

From early in May, the opposition was left waiting to see if the government would suddenly shut down Parliament for months. It was a strange thing to give the government such power if there was never actually a chance or need for it to be used.

At the same time, the motion also allowed the government to change the parliamentary schedule and give next to no notice. A minister could rise a minute before adjournment and declare we are sitting until midnight on a government bill. This introduced a lot of uncertainty into the whole process, not just for members but for parliamentary staff like our interpreters, who have had to work throughout these proceedings.

The Liberals and the NDP would have to explain to me the practicality of a lot of this happening without them working so closely together to coordinate the agenda and prepare for any last-minute changes. It would be exactly like if they were all part of a government trying to keep the opposition on its toes and undermine our important work. As we have heard from the government so often, it made it seem like this was only temporary and that it expired before the summer break. Then we all came back and it seems to be happening all over again.

First, the Liberals and the NDP used a special motion to rush Bill C-31 through the House with late-night debates and committee meetings. The result is more inflationary spending, which might fulfill part of their political agreement but is not the right solution for what Canadians are going through and asking for at this moment in time. However, that was not enough for the coalition. Last week, it passed another motion similar to the one it used before the summer, so now it can play games with the opposition again until the end of June.

It is a clear pattern. It is even more troubling to see it come from a party that is supposed to be in opposition and still officially pretends it is. Instead, it is enabling the Liberals to avoid accountability as a minority Parliament. That is what they are doing again with Bill C-32 today. However, none of this will stop us Conservatives from doing our jobs and doing our best to stand up against the desperate decisions of a government in decline.

Right now there is a cost of living crisis caused by inflation and interest rates, and they are failing to address it. The cost of groceries went up at the fastest pace in 40 years, and people have had to pay the highest gas prices ever. While Canadians are forced to cut back on spending, we are not seeing the government show fiscal restraint or provide tax relief. Instead, it continues to waste taxpayer dollars and weaken the foundation of our economy, especially by attacking our energy sector.

With that in mind, it is ironic to read this part of the economic update:

There is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. We have the most talented and resilient workforce in the world, and we are a country that skilled workers want to move to. We have the key resources the global economy needs, and as we enter an era of friendshoring and our closest partners shift their strategic reliance from dictatorships to democracies, they are looking to Canada to provide them with those resources.

It is the last part of that statement that I find the most interesting. The government, from day one, has spent the last seven years attacking the development and growth of our natural resources sector here in Canada. During that entire time, the Conservatives have defended Canada's great potential to supply the world's needs, while our industry follows higher standards for respecting human rights and the environment. We keep saying it and the government ignores it time and time again. Even now, I doubt it really even cares to get it.

The sad reality is that the government is hurting the same sector that would strengthen our economy and support our allies all over the world. We have already seen that the federal government's past decisions have limited Canada's ability to help Europe as much as we otherwise could have during an energy crisis, but what is worse is that the government still does not have the willingness to rise to the occasion with Canadian energy. We saw that when the German Chancellor personally came here on a special trip and the Prime Minister gave him a disappointing response. The Chancellor came here looking for Canadian LNG to help wean Germany off its dependency on Russia, and he was told “no”.

The Liberals are not going to reverse their anti-energy policies, which they will continue to expand. One of the new and subtle ways they are doing this is through a shares tax. They are not saying it openly, of course, but the industry has raised it as a concern. What is even more telling, though, is that opponents of the energy sector have also pointed to this tax as something that specifically targets Canadian oil and gas.

The likely result is that there will be damage done to Canadian jobs and industry more than anything else. It is also going to help drive carbon leakage into other areas run by dictators, like some of these overseas places we are importing oil from and other countries are dependent on when they should instead be focused on Canadian oil and gas. As usual, the Liberals pretend to go after big business, while their policies make life more expensive for all Canadians, including the most vulnerable. It is exactly the opposite of what is needed while facing economic hardship.

This is the same government that weakened our economy before it had to go through stressful events, and then decided to make it worse with wasteful spending. The Liberals' economic update proves that they have not learned much from their mistakes. As a case in point, the Liberals are going to raise the carbon tax, even though it has been a big part of the problem in terms of the cost of food and fuel. They say it is an environmental plan, but it is really nothing but a tax plan.

Along with that, the Liberals are failing to support workers and communities affected by their mandated coal transition. I represent some of these communities, alongside the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. Rockglen and Willow Bunch are such communities that are in my riding, and this year the environment commissioner's audit has shown that so far, the transition program is shaping up to leave these communities and their workforce behind. In fact, it goes so far as to say there is a complete lack of a plan, and that over the pandemic the Liberals have taken the last two years completely off, while not even allowing an extra two years in lieu for these communities to get their orders in line to be able to meet this transition from the government, but without the government's help.

There are a lot of talented people who are doing the best they can to prepare for this coming change, but again, as I just alluded to, there is still no planning and no attention from the government. These places still are not getting the answers they need for the future. When I look at the economic update, it still seems like this not a real priority for the Liberals, and that they will continue to break their promise to these coal communities.

These are the things we need to talk about while the government tries to shut down debate. These are things that should have been brought up in the fall economic update and have not been brought up, which is why we need this time to be debating this here today.

The Liberals are once again missing an opportunity, and they will continue to use the same kinds of decisions that brought us here, to where we are, where they limit debate along with the help of the NDP, and Canadians cannot afford it anymore.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a very well delivered speech. I would expect nothing less from a man of wisdom, one with so many years of experience.

He delivered a speech that showed a great deal of concern for Canadians, and I thank him very much for that, as well as for his work and his words.

I would like to address a few points in his speech. I would like my colleague to respond to them with his own comments.

In terms of our investments in health care, we spent an additional $2 billion not too long ago to try and catch up on surgeries that were delayed because of the pandemic. That was on top of the $4.5 billion that was added during the pandemic, also to help Canadians.

With respect to Bill C‑32, I would like to remind my colleague that the Canada workers benefit will also help those in need.

[Pierre Mercille]

I'm not sure if anyone on this panel can answer that question, because that's not what Bill C‑32 is about.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-32 has more bulk than substance. My colleagues were right in saying so earlier.

Bill C-32 contains 25 different tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. That may seem like a lot, but there are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis to comply with court rulings, treaties and new accounting policies or to correct an unintended effect of an act, while others were already announced in the spring 2022 budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June.

Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, 2022, Bill C-32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. It is a bill that does not do any harm but does not deserve much praise either. At the same time, it is not a total disappointment, because it does contain a few positive measures.

The Bloc Québécois takes issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 108 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people, such as the elderly or those who have lost their jobs. It offers no solutions, despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget.

The Bloc Québécois asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people, such as increasing health transfers, which I will come back to, adequately supporting people aged 65 and over, and immediately reforming the EI program, which is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. The government dismissed our proposals. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

With respect to health care, there is an ongoing standoff between the federal government on one side and Quebec and the provinces on the other. The Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. Let us not forget that, in 1993, former minister Paul Martin decided to erase the federal deficit by cutting health transfers from 50% to 25%. The provinces were in crisis. Since then, no government has been interested in getting funding back up to that 50% over time. We would be happy with a boost to 35%, but the government has not only failed to restore funding to where it was, it has reduced it to 22%.

That is unacceptable. This injustice must be corrected. Sick people and health care workers are the ones suffering. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached the breaking point, but the federal government is not taking action. Obviously, it would much rather prolong the health care funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front so it can convince them to accept less than they are asking for.

I would remind the House that sections 92 and 93 of the Canadian Constitution state very clearly that the only role of the federal Parliament is to transfer money to the provinces without any conditions. When I look at the various political parties here in Ottawa, I often wonder if they are proud to be Canadian. I am very proud to be a Quebecker, and if there were a Quebec constitution, the first thing I would do to express my pride would be to respect it. At the federal level, the Constitution is abundantly clear about health transfers. Why, then, does Ottawa choose not to respect the Constitution? Are those members proud to be Canadian, yes or no? Anyone who is proud to be Canadian would respect the country's Constitution.

Let us now talk about the two classes of seniors. This is the first time we see an attack on the universality of health programs. People between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase in old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living. Seniors are the most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store, the pharmacy or the gas pump. The government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD.

The increase in old age security should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

There are several solutions that could help seniors. I would like to quote from a letter I received from Robert Bernatchez, who lives in my riding. His proposal is very acceptable, very simple to understand and very simple to implement, but for the time being the government is turning a deaf ear.

His letter reads as follows:

Dear Mr. [MP], allow me to share with you an initiative that may help seniors 65 to 74. They do not benefit from the increase to old age security, since the federal government increased the age of eligibility to 75.

Whereas the 10% increase to old age security is reserved for individuals 75 and older and this is unfair to individuals who have not reached that age. It should be noted that we had a universal plan starting at 65 for the old age security pension.

Whereas there is currently no permanent government measure that allows retirees 65 to 74 to increase their income to cope with growing inflation.

Whereas the message sent by the federal and provincial governments to retirees 65 to 74 is that “if you want more money then get a job to help address the pressing labour shortage and/or to increase your income”.

Whereas many retirees 65 to 74 do not want to return to work or they would have already done so.

Whereas these are the same people who helped build the Quebec and Canada of today. They have made invaluable contributions and now want to receive some help.

We, retirees aged 65 to 75, are calling on the federal government to change the eligibility criteria for the guaranteed income supplement to include the following.

When inflation exceeds 3%, the following measures will apply:

Retirees aged 65 to 75 who earn less than $50,000 in income, as entered on line 199 of their income tax return, can withdraw up to a maximum of $2,500 from their RRIFs without any reduction to their guaranteed income supplement. This measure will apply for the 2022 tax year. An adjustment will consequently be made to non-refundable federal tax credits to increase the amount of deductible pension income to $2,500.

Sir, I hope you will defend this new measure like you defended the earnings exemption for self-employed workers in 2019....

I hope the government will get the message.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague agree with me on the following?

Bill C-32 sets out 25 tax measures, but they are basically nothing but minor legislative amendments. Some measures that were announced were already in budget 2020. There is nothing new in Bill C-32 to help combat inflation.

Does he agree with me?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also thank everyone who worked very hard on the fall economic statement and the measures that are in Bill C‑32. I know what an extraordinary job this is and that it is done every year, both in terms of budgets and economic statements. I take my hat off to you for all your good work.

My question will be directed primarily to officials in the Department of Finance and will focus on measures regarding the general anti-avoidance rule.

I congratulate you on making a very important change. However, there are other measures that have not been taken into account.

You will remember that at this committee we invited Professor Brian Arnold. He advised us and we transmitted these recommendations through our committee.

There are a lot of proposals there that are not in this bill.

I'm also aware that you did a consultation between August 9 and September 30, which is good. I think it was the right thing to do to talk to stakeholders about that. We wanted to achieve the right balance between having a fair tax system and a tax system that gives certainty and allows taxpayers to arrange their affairs to minimize their tax burden. At the same time we want integrity and we cannot have aggressive tax planning that has no economic substance continue to erode our tax base, especially at a time when Canadians are making so many efforts to weather the inflation phenomenon.

Where are you in the consultation and will you provide amendments to the tax benefit avoidance transaction? I know the consultation paper stated that the government intends to add an explicit economic substance rule, but also, the GAAR has no penalty, which, in itself, doesn't really incentivize taxpayers to be respectful of the integrity of the tax system.

My question is for the Department of Finance. What is the status of the consultation? Hopefully, we can see progress and further enhance the GAAR.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay. Well, if you could provide an answer to the committee in writing....

I have to say, I'm quite surprised that the officials here aren't going to answer basic questions about the fall economic statement given the fact that we're in a prestudy and that Bill C-32 hasn't passed the House. It's very odd.

Let me go back to something that perhaps you can answer.

On the issue of the gain on disposition of a Canadian housing unit, is that a housing unit that's purchased by anyone for any reason? For example, somebody purchases a house and moves their family in. They sell it within a year and there's a gain. Will it be treated as business income and not capital gain? Do I have that right?

I think that would be Ms. Gwyer.

[Pierre Leblanc]

Mr. Chair, we'll have to treat that as we've treated the last few questions given that it's on the fall economic statement and not on Bill C-32.

[Pierre Leblanc]

Mr. Chair, I regret that I have to give the same answer.

We're here to discuss what was on the notice for the meeting, which is the subject matter of Bill C-32.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Bill C-32 hasn't passed the House yet and this is a prestudy on the fall economic statement, so it's disappointing that question couldn't be answered by one of the officials here.

Well, they're not here; they're online.

I'll ask this question anyway, but I suspect you'll just give the same answer.

In the fall economic statement, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified that $52 billion in new spending was announced.

Do you think that new spending, given what the finance minister said, will exacerbate the situation in causing more inflation and possible interest rate hikes?

[Pierre Leblanc]

Mr. Chair, I would just note that we are here as officials to respond to questions on the subject matter of Bill C-32, which does have some measures from the fall economic statement, but it also has measures from budget 2022 and previous budgets, as explained by my colleagues.

We're not the ones who are well-positioned to respond to that question, given the subject of the meeting.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In Bill C‑32, there are changes with respect to foundations or charities in relation to the disbursement quota. I would like to have this explained to me with concrete cases.

How many organizations are affected?

What does Bill C‑32 change?

[Yves Poirier, Director, Economic Development, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance]

Hello. Thank you for your question.

As stated earlier, we can't really answer about the government's intent or why they created this new account instead of using the HBP.

However, I can say what has changed from the first proposal. Initially, it was going to be one or the other, either the HBP or the FHSA. In Bill C‑32, both would now be allowed.

[Jack Glick, Senior Advisor, Sales Tax Division, Department of Finance]

Thank you, Lindsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and good afternoon.

My name is Jack Glick and I'm a senior policy adviser in the excise policy section of the Department of Finance.

Part 2 of Bill C-32 implements measures announced in budget 2022 regarding the taxation of cannabis products. In particular, amendments in the bill permit certain smaller licensees to remit excise duties on a quarterly rather than monthly basis, while other amendments are of a more technical nature. Those include permitting the transfer of packaged but unstamped cannabis products between licensees. The quarterly remittances have been administered by the CRA beginning on April 1 of this year, while the remaining amendments would come into force upon royal assent.

Part 2 also brings forward amendments to the framework for the taxation of vaping products, which was introduced in budget 2022 and already implemented via the budget implementation act, 2022, No. 1. These vaping-related measures provide for more clarity on markings and custom storage rules and on excise duty liabilities for these goods. The modifications proposed are largely technical in nature and would allow the CRA and the CBSA to ensure proper administration of the vaping product taxation regime. The proposed amendments in these respects would be retroactive to October 1, 2022, which was the coming into force date of the overall taxation framework for vaping products. We've previously consulted the public on both the cannabis and vaping-related frameworks and the specific measures noted above.

I look forward to any questions you might have, and I'll turn it over to my colleague for part 3.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome to meeting number 67 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee is meeting to discuss the subject matter 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.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of either the floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I wish to inform the committee members that all the witnesses have been tested for today's meeting. One of the witnesses is still experiencing some technical difficulties, and that is Benjamin Myers. There is one witness, Mr. Kanji, who has not been able to join us.

We're going to open it up to the departments. We have the Canadian Space Agency, the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, the Department of Employment and Social Development, the Department of Justice and the Department of Finance.

Each will have up to five minutes for opening remarks. The total will be 25 minutes before we get to members' questions.

We will start with the Canadian Space Agency, please.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today as we debate the—what is it now?—18th or 19th time allocation motion so far.

It is hard to keep track because this habit has become so ingrained in how we operate. It is time allocation after time allocation. Maybe people will start using that expression. Time allocation used to be the exception, but now, since the pandemic, since the advent of the hybrid Parliament, it seems to have become common practice, and I think that is a shame. I think it is a shame to shut down democratic debate and take away what really matters in a Parliament: time and space to debate and air contrasting views.

That is why I am pleased to share some of my thoughts on Bill C‑32.

Before the economic statement, the Bloc Québécois had great expectations. We really wanted a conversation about health transfers. We were hoping for a sign that the government wanted to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they have been asking for so they can fulfill their responsibilities.

In Quebec, that means addressing the aging population and the significant issues with mental health services, which are lacking in number and scope to meet the demand. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the economic update about that.

My colleague from Shefford has said this, and the Bloc Québécois has said it, and it is one of our priorities. We do not understand how the government does not consider those between the ages of 65 and 74 to be people who need to regain a certain amount of purchasing power, especially with the inflation crisis. If there was ever a segment of the population that needed a helping hand, it is them. Increasing old age security would have really been good news, a sign that the government is listening to seniors, those who built the Quebec of today.

In the economic update, we really wanted to see the government's desire and firm resolve to overhaul employment insurance. Today, I will use the minutes at my disposal to speak in greater detail about the EI program and the need to reform it.

Today, as we speak, barely 40% of workers have access to EI.

That is sad because, as we know, the EI fund is an insurance program. That means that workers pay premiums on their paycheque and employers pay premiums, and the money goes to build the EI fund, an important reservoir for workers who need it. Unfortunately, although the fund is quite healthy at the moment, it does not actually serve the people who really need it. Access is restricted.

I am very committed to this cause. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for EI reform for years, and we do not understand the government's resistance.

As I like to remind everyone, I decided to run again in 2015, the year the Liberals campaigned on a promise of comprehensive EI reform. In 2019, they promised it again, and then again in 2021. It is promise after promise, but nothing ever happens. The government had included $5 million in its budget to conduct extensive consultations across the provinces and Canada to understand and gauge the needs of workers, employers and civil society, and yet, 18 months later, we still have nothing. There has been no proposal and no plan to reform EI, even though my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville made it a subject to be studied by her committee. The committee heard from many witnesses who expressed the needs and shortcomings of the current system, which, as we all know, really needs to be modernized and updated to be tailored to today's labour market.

Of course, we have a number of demands. Workers who have paid premiums all their lives but find themselves in a difficult situation, like if their business is forced to shut down and they have to rely on EI, receive benefits equivalent to 55% of their income. The Bloc Québécois believes that, in the overall reform, that percentage really needs to increase to 60%. I think this is reasonable, and the rate was 60% prior to 1993. I remember very clearly when it was reduced to 55% of income. This demand remains permanent and is also being made by all the stakeholders who support the unemployed and others.

In its overhaul of EI, we would also like the government to eliminate the one-week waiting period. I do not know the reason behind the one-week period, but it is in addition to the system's bureaucratic delays for those who lose their jobs. People do not choose to go on EI. They do so because they lose their jobs as a result of the closure of a business, layoffs or any number of other reasons. Because of this long waiting period, which really should not happen, claimants only receive their first payment after six weeks. At least, that was the waiting period before the government system was paralyzed, back when it was working well and the performance and service standards were met. That was in the old days. Now, someone who loses their job in early or mid-June will not receive a cheque until late September or early October, because the system is completely paralyzed.

Our demands for the reform are important, and we were hoping to see them reflected in the economic update. We wanted people with a serious illness to be able to get 50 to 52 weeks of special EI sickness benefits in the event they are unable to return to work.

As members know, in the last Parliament, I introduced a bill that proposed that. What is more, as we speak, Bill C‑215 has been studied in committee, and the majority of the members who sit on that committee voted in favour of ensuring that people who have a serious illness can take the time they need to fight the illness and recover their health without having to worry about their financial circumstances.

As things stand now, it pains me to see people get to the end of their 15th week of special benefits when they have not finished their cancer treatments, their chemotherapy or their radiation. By the next week, they will have nothing left to pay their bills.

The minister seems to be sympathetic to the situation, but I think it is unacceptable when she promises this will arrive in the summer, then in fall, then at Christmas. She keeps pushing the date back further and further. Although she has the budget to do this, she refuses to give a specific date that would give hope to those who are starting chemotherapy or radiation today or who are taking long-term sick leave to take care of themselves, so they can regain their strength and go back to work.

We have talked a lot about Marie-Hélène Dubé, a woman who had cancer a few years ago and who decided to fight to have EI sickness benefits increased to 52 weeks, because she had to re-mortgage her house to meet her responsibilities and take care of herself.

Unfortunately, in committee two weeks ago, she said that her cancer is back and she will not have time to heal before the end of her 15 weeks. She is reliving the nightmare she went through a few years ago. To my mind, that is unacceptable.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑32, because it does contain some good measures, but I implore the government to take a step in the right direction by quickly agreeing to reform EI and to implement the special benefits program for sick workers as soon as possible.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear from my colleague.

Bill C-32 is notable for what it does not contain. Old age security was increased for people 75 years and older. This created a two-tiered system for old age security, because those between 65 and 75 got nothing.

In my colleague's opinion, should there be just one benefit? Should the benefit not be increased for all seniors, not just those 75 and over?

The House resumed from November 18 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-32—Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague and his comments on making sure we use time efficiently in the House. I will take his comment under advisement and discuss it with the government House leader.

Today is about making sure we can get Bill C-32 to committee so we can get back here for third reading, and then we would be able to get housing supports to people, get student loan interest removed for apprentices and students, reduce taxes on small businesses and do all the other good things for growing the economy that are included in the fall economic statement.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, by my count, I think that the vast majority of last week was spent debating Bill C-32. Unfortunately, the House cannot debate two bills at any one time. As a consequence of last week, Bill C-20, the important oversight legislation for both the CBSA and the RCMP, has been bumped to tomorrow.

People have been waiting for years for an effective oversight mechanism for both of these agencies. The CBSA has never had this kind of oversight. There are other interests in play. I know that the Conservatives would like to keep on debating Bill C-32, but indigenous people in Canada, racialized people and so many people who have been at the wrong receiving end of both the RCMP and the CBSA have been waiting years for this important accountability and oversight legislation.

I hope that, after we get through Bill C-32 and it is sent to committee, I have a commitment from the government that Bill C-20 will get the priority it deserves.

We waited in the 42nd Parliament for Bill C-98 when that member was here. We waited in the last Parliament for Bill C-3 and we now, finally, have Bill C-20. I want to see a commitment that this bill will get the time it deserves.

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

Madam Speaker, I detest the way the Liberals keep invoking closure. They did it for the official languages bill and they are doing it today for Bill C‑32. The shocking thing is what is missing from Bill C‑32. All provinces are asking for an increase in health transfers. Health care systems across the country are vulnerable. There is nothing in the bill to help with that, nor is there anything about increasing old age benefits for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74.

What does my colleague have to say about that? Why not increase the health transfer?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her support of Bill C-32. I was not on the opposition benches at time to which she is referring. As a member and as a minister, I can say that I talked to Brad in my riding this week, who thanked us for making sure we got Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 done so quickly, because he wanted and needs the $500 housing support in that legislation. On the weekend, I talked to Mike and Laurie, who thanked us for our child care supports. They said to me at the All is Bright festival, “It's making a real difference, and we're able to make it through this inflationary cycle.”

There are millions of other Canadians waiting for us to get to work, to get to committee and to get Bill C-32 passed so that the people who need the help the most can get those supports when they need them the most.

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

Madam Speaker, rising yet again on a time allocation debate, I am reminded of when, in previous Parliaments, the Conservatives under Stephen Harper used time allocation again and again and again. I sat in that corner with the Liberals when they were the third party. Consistently, every time, they said that if we allow this to happen, eventually Parliament and democracy will be diminished and time allocations will become so routine that they are used over and over again in future Parliaments. I think I am the last standing member of the opposition to Stephen Harper's use of time allocations for almost every bill. It has, as we worried, become routine. I will never vote for a time allocation on a bill. Even when, as is the case here, I support Bill C-32, I object to the truncation of time. It diminishes Parliament's work.

I do, though, sympathise with the governing party in that because we have ignored our rules for so long, nobody remembers that it is against Westminister parliamentary rules to give a written speech. I maintain that House leaders, when meeting together, should give an honest assessment to each other of how many members they really have who can speak to a bill without a written speech, without notes, and contribute to a thoughtful debate. I lament where we are right now, and this can be regarded as more a comment than a question, because the Liberals have completely forgotten all the reasons they used to warn that the use of time allocation for almost every bill was anti-democratic.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my Bloc Québécois colleague when it come to this issue.

I think that it is worth noting that we really need to do our homework as parliamentarians when it comes to House procedure and the important Bill C-32 in order to provide Quebeckers and Canadians with the support they so desperately need.

With regard to the duration of the debate, I want to mention that we have had 18 hours of debate and 120 speeches so far. As members are well aware, the issue can be examined more closely during the in-depth discussions held in committee and members will have more opportunities to speak there. Members will also be able to debate the bill at third reading.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just cannot believe this is happening again.

The Liberal government ran on promises in elections that it was not going to shut down debate, yet it does it all the time. It is no wonder there are no Canadians who believe them any more. However, I am surprised that the NDP is supporting this unholy marriage, this costly coalition. They used to have principles on time allocation, and used to not allow it. It boggles the mind.

How are the people of Sarnia—Lambton supposed to have their voices heard in this place when I have not even had a chance to speak to Bill C-32?

Second Reading

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am shocked and outraged. As soon as the member finished her speech, the President of the Privy Council and Minister of Emergency Preparedness rose to announce that he was going to limit debate on Bill C-32. That is really shameful and offensive.

Why does the government always want to limit debate in the House, particularly when we know that this bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, when we are beginning a pre-study on it right now with a sunset clause, and when we are going to do the clause-by-clause study in a few days—

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Bill C-32—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Bill Blair, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I rise to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage 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.

Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting of the House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member. I did not see any funds for health care in Bill C-32.

Is the member concerned that the government is not doing enough for health care?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity I have been given to take part in today's debate on Bill C‑32 on the 2022 fall economic statement.

In short, Bill C‑32 is nothing but minor legislative amendments or a hodgepodge of measures announced in the spring budget that had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill adopted in June.

What are the concerns that we hear people talk about daily? It is the cost of living that keeps going up and a possible recession and yet there is no measure to address this new economic reality. It is very disappointing and a missed opportunity.

It is unfortunate to end up with an economic update that mentions inflation 108 times without offering any extra help to people who are vulnerable or alternative solutions when, again, a recession is on the horizon for 2023.

Bill C‑32 is a bill that fails to address the major challenges facing our society. The government identifies the problem of the rising cost of living but does nothing beyond naming it. It talks of tough days ahead this winter without making any plans to get through it.

Families, seniors, pensioners, the unemployed and workers cannot take it anymore. They are at their wits' end. The price of gas, groceries, clothing, rent and everything else is going up. People are having to cut back everywhere, do without and make choices: Do I put food on the table or do I buy winter clothes for my kids? Do I buy medicine or do I put gas in the car? These are the kinds of tough choices that most people face.

Bill C-32 includes measures to help people buy their first home. I recognize that that is a good measure, but not everyone can afford to buy a house or wants to buy a house, and those individuals need housing, especially affordable housing.

As we know, the appalling lack of housing in Nunavik can have serious, and I would even say very grave, consequences. Because of limited space, young children are sleeping in the same beds as adults, which poses a risk of death by accidental asphyxiation. Sometimes children are even crushed and die of asphyxiation in their sleep. That is unacceptable. Overcrowded housing has been identified as a recurrent risk factor.

The coroner's office has recommended that the government inject funds into housing specifically in Nunavik. The construction of social housing in Nunavik would solve the problem of the death of infants and young children, as well as other public health problems. When will the government take action? It is urgent. We are talking about saving lives.

Last week, I was in my riding, Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou. As members know, it is a vast riding and I represent almost half of Quebec. I met with the CAO of the Vallée‑de‑l'Or RCM, who spoke to me about the housing shortage. The wheel keeps turning. Housing problems mean labour shortages and an inability to attract people to the region. We cannot stop the wheel from turning. People are tired and demoralized. They cannot manage.

People come to work in our area to make good money and then they return home. They do not buy locally, and so there is no local economy. It is an ongoing problem in Abitibi—Baie‑James—Nunavik—Eeyou. What can we do to keep our foreign workers? We must also improve the immigration process, which is very slow. It is outrageous. I feel as though the government is abandoning our regions.

The Bloc Québécois asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people by increasing health transfers, providing adequate support to those aged 65 and over and urgently reforming employment insurance, which we know is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty.

Sadly, the government dismissed all of those good suggestions. We can therefore only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

The government itself is making some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves. Where is the logic in that?

Quebec and the other provinces are unanimously asking the government to immediately, permanently and unconditionally increase health transfers. Emergency rooms everywhere are overflowing. What is the government waiting for to transfer funds?

In addition, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. This is unthinkable. I have trouble understanding why the government has created two classes of seniors. It is unfair. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy.

To add to this, the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

What about people who lose their jobs and have to rely on EI? For all intents and purposes, the EI system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six out of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. This is a serious problem in these tough times. The government promised reform seven years ago, and time is running out. We need EI reform. It is crucially important that we not be forced to cobble together a new CERB to offset the system's shortcomings if recession hits. As we saw during the pandemic, improvised programs are expensive and ineffective. With the looming threat of recession, there is an urgent need to rebuild the system to avoid a repeat of what we went through in 2020.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for families, children and social development, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the plight of some of our children in these tough times given the possibility of a recession. Yesterday morning, I had a chance to meet with people from the Breakfast Club, an organization that was founded in Quebec in 1994. Thanks to them, many children have access to the healthy food that is essential to their success. Thanks to them, children do not start their day on an empty stomach.

Some businesses have shut down because of the pandemic, and this has led to an increase in unemployment and poverty. Food insecurity is affecting a growing number of people. Experts believe that food insecurity could double in Canada by the end of the year. The government is making efforts and investing money, but it is still not enough. In 2020, nearly one in seven people in Canada lived in a household that had experienced food insecurity in the previous 30 days. Nearly 2.1 million households experienced food insecurity. That is a 39% increase from 2017-18 data.

One thing is clear: Things are not getting any better under this government. Our children need to have full bellies in order to reach their full potential. It is also important to note the shortage of children's medicine in our pharmacies. It is impossible to provide adequate care to our young people because the shelves are empty.

It is the same story for all of our constituents. Where will it all end?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today and I would like to point out that I am on indigenous lands.

It is Algonquin and Anishinabe land, and I am honoured to be here on behalf of my constituents from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Today we are taking up Bill C-32, the legislative interpretation of the Minister of Finance's fall economic statement, as tabled on November 4. I will start with the things I like about the bill. I want to be clear that I will be voting in favour of it, but I will be bringing forward amendments, assuming the bill gets through second reading and we see it at committee, which I think is a foregone conclusion.

In any case, the bill is primarily focused, in its substance, on a number of promises that have to do with making housing more affordable, such as reducing speculation in the residential housing market with really substantial measures, which I am pleased to see, to discourage the flipping of real estate properties. As to first-time homebuyer opportunities, the first-time homebuyers' tax credit is being substantially increased. We are also seeing cuts on interest rates on student loans.

We are seeing a number of measures that one could generally categorize as making life more affordable, and I am pleased to see those measures. Clearly, there are things in the bill that are long overdue. I am also pleased that on facing the climate crisis, although there is very little, we have one good measure: phasing out the flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. In other words, we are stopping one of the many tax advantages offered to fossil fuels.

However, there is a lot to discuss that flows from the fall economic statement that is not in the legislation. With the Speaker's indulgence, I will concentrate more on what is missing than on what is here.

I would like to read from the fall economic statement. The hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, in the introduction before we get into the substantial part of the statement, calls for a green transition and then says this requires “an industrial transformation comparable in scale only to the Industrial Revolution itself”. I completely agree with that. I would say that perhaps it is an industrial transformation that is quite comparable to what Canada's economy went through in the Second World War. These are not incremental steps. This is fundamental and transformational, and that is what is required.

The hon. minister put this forward in connection with a 1903 quote from Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, who said in this place when it was in Centre Block that we cannot wait for transformation. He was referring to building a transcontinental railway and said that this transformation would change “the conditions of our national life which it would be folly to ignore and a crime to overlook.”

I agree with all of those words, but the ambition embedded in those words is completely lacking in Bill C-32. Looking ahead to the spring budget and identifying what is missing, I want to reflect a bit on the timing, the urgency, what I hope to see and what all Canadians should put pressure on the government to deliver by spring.

In contrast, looking south of the border, it is very interesting to me that President Joe Biden managed to get through a very ambitious climate plan, but the name of his bill is the Inflation Reduction Act. The target is inflation, and it will in fact reduce inflation, but the measures are ambitious climate-related measures that Canada has not yet undertaken. The U.S., of course, must do more as well.

As we stand here today, our delegates and friends from this chamber, such as my friend from Kitchener Centre and the Minister of Environment, are at COP27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where they just decided to extend the meeting that was slated to adjourn today. It is extended until midnight tomorrow as progress has not been made.

We are running out of time, quite literally. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, opened COP27 by saying that the world was on “a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” We have an obligation not to allow our children and grandchildren to live in a climate hell, yet everything we have done so far as a nation has fallen dramatically short of what is required to meet our obligations under the science and meet our international obligations to attempt to hold to less than 1.5°C global warming and stay as far below 2°C as possible.

It is getting impossible, even for an optimist like me, to imagine that we can hold to 1.5°C. We are on track to nearly double that. However, let us look at what we would do if we were serious. I will start by looking at what should be in the next budget and what the government should do, because it is not too late. It is desperately close to too late, but it is not too late.

We need to stop increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Obviously, it is impossible to reach the targets set by the Paris Agreement with increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions. We must act quickly and also accept the idea that the era of fossil fuels is almost over.

It will not be tomorrow, but we have to accept that our dependency on fossil fuels must end, and soon. It was very disappointing to read that at COP27, within the last 24 hours, Canada rejected the language that we had accepted in Glasgow last year, that we are working towards the phase-out of coal. Most countries, many of our allies, were prepared to say, let us say “coal and oil and gas”. Canada said we could not say we were going to phase out oil and gas, on any timeline. Of course we cannot do that in two weeks. Can we do it in ten years? Probably not. However, the goal must be to phase out all fossil fuels, or we are indeed headed on the highway to climate hell.

When Sir Wilfrid Laurier talked about linking the country, east to west, with a railway, what is the modern climate equivalent of that? It is an east-west electricity grid: 100% renewably sourced electricity must be able to flow from one province to the other and north to the territories. Right now, our provincial monopolistic utilities want to sell only one way: south. They sell south for their profits, and that is fine and good, but the grid could operate like the giant battery we really need.

Let us look at where we would be if we considered the links between inflation and climate action. That is an important place to start. We need to stop thinking in silos, in other words, and start thinking holistically.

A lightbulb went off for me recently. I was talking to a friend who is an Alberta grain farmer. I asked how they had survived the very brutal drought. His answer was that it would have been really bad because they had planted barley and only got in about half the crop they would have gotten in a normal year without the extreme drought, but because of the war in Ukraine, the price of grain was so high that in the end they kind of had a good year.

What does that say? It says that when Canadian consumers are looking at increased prices for pasta and increased prices for bread products, it is a combination of things that have nothing to do with the type of demand-driven inflation that we had in the early 1970s.

Food costs are going to keep going up, because the climate crisis will continue to interrupt the growing seasons and will continue to deliver what we had for a lot of farmers and livestock producers in southern British Columbia, when atmospheric rivers killed tens of thousands of animals, mostly chickens. We have droughts that mean farmers cannot plant crops and have a good return.

That is a real cost increase. It is not about spending by the government that drives up inflation because it is demand-driven by people needing more wages. These are real cost increases.

That means we also have to be prepared for extreme weather events, and we are not. The government has postponed the delivery of the adaptation strategy until next year. Yesterday the Auditor General told us that in the case of first nations communities, 112 approved infrastructure grants that would help first nations and other indigenous communities prepare for extreme weather events were not funded by the department, just through pure delays.

There is much to be done in this country to take us from laggard, and as many people know, this week we were rated among the worst-performing industrialized countries on climate. We could still propel ourselves to leader. We could take care of our farmers, our agriculture and our economic future, at the same time as ensuring that our kids live in a livable, hospitable world. We have an obligation to do so.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured by the opportunity to rise again today and speak to a government bill, Bill C-32, in regard to the fall economic statement. The member for Winnipeg North believes it is a good bill. Unfortunately, I cannot really say the same, and I am going to get into that here with my remarks.

Obviously, it is an important discussion we are having today, with the cost of living crisis that is facing Canadians across the country. We are feeling that in the Kenora riding in northern Ontario, and we know we are seeing it across the country, but unfortunately, the government's economic statement is really just more of the same policies we have seen over the last number of years from the government. It is more of the same policies that have driven up inflation in the first place and have really created and exacerbated this cost of living crisis people are facing.

In the lead-up to the economic statement, Conservatives called for the same things we have been calling for for quite some time. It will probably not surprise members to know what we were calling for; we were calling for no new spending and no new taxes. We know the government's spending has driven up inflation. The PBO has told us that and independent economists have told us that, and that is the real cause and the reason we are here today and Canadians are facing the concerns they are.

Conservatives believe that every new dollar of spending should be matched by a dollar of savings. It is a very simple principle, something that most people would use in their own households and with their own pocketbooks, that if we are going to spend more money on one thing, we should find savings elsewhere. Unfortunately, that is not what we saw from the government, and it has brought forward a plan that is really just going to add more fuel to the inflationary fire.

Of course, the second thing we have called for, as I mentioned earlier, is no new taxes, because Canadians are really feeling the squeeze right now. The cost of everything is going up, and the government's additional taxes and the increases in the taxes, including the tripling of the carbon tax, are not going to make that any better. Canadians are looking for relief, and Conservatives are here fighting for that relief and calling on the government to do the same.

We know half of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency right now, and that is a very stark and striking statistic that shows the real issues and challenges people are facing. I want to share some concerns constituents have brought and sent to me. One comes from a constituent of mine in Pickle Lake, which is the northernmost municipality in Ontario and is in my riding. This constituent says, “Costs are rising at an alarming rate, and living in a remote community makes it even more so. With gas prices and the cost of heating fuel continually on the rise, it makes it hard to make ends meet.” That is just one of the many concerns in letters and emails I know I have been getting and I think all of us in the House have been getting from our own respective communities, highlighting how difficulty it is for people to get by.

Inflation is impacting gas, groceries and home heating, perhaps the most. These are three essential things that Canadians need. In fact, when it comes to gas prices, far too often in northwestern Ontario we see some of the highest gas prices in the country. I want to share a quick excerpt from a Kenora Online news article from September of this year. The headline is “Kenora has the most expensive gas in Ontario, again”.

This is something we see over and over again, that the Kenora district has the highest gas prices in the province of Ontario. Of course, being in a remote northern area, the issues of the added cost of the carbon tax hit us so much more than they would in areas like Toronto, Ottawa and across southern Ontario. This specific article notes that Kenora had the “14th most expensive fuel in Canada, behind [only] 13 communities from British Columbia”. I think that highlights, at the time of writing, just how challenging the fuel prices are.

Gas is essential in the Kenora district. People need it, not only to go to work or get groceries, but often to travel multiple hours to medical appointments. It is really something that is perhaps taken for granted for those in southern Ontario and in the larger urban centres, who have public transit and many more options and services close to home. People need to use fuel to travel long distances in the remote north, and that is something that definitely makes everything more complicated for people in the Kenora riding and across northern Ontario.

I also want to share a couple more letters that I received from constituents about that. Wendy from Red Lake reached out to say that the prices of gas, food and electricity are all making it difficult for seniors to remain in our area as well. Tina from Dryden is a single mother of three. She says that she is forced to work two jobs to support her children, and more often than not it has become easier to eat takeout, which of course is super unhealthy, so she is very concerned about that.

This all goes back to the taxes and the inflationary spending policies of the government. It is not just gas. As I mentioned, it is groceries and home heating that are getting hit as well.

When it comes to groceries, we are seeing record food bank usage across the country. It is at an all-time high. There have been 1.5 million visits in one month to food banks in Canada. I have heard a lot about that as well from constituents.

Another individual, from Sioux Lookout, reached out to me saying that the cost of food has become so unaffordable, especially the healthy, nutritious food that is essential for her children. She is very concerned about how that is going to be impacting her. I have had a couple from Minaki reach out, saying they are both pensioners on a fixed income. They are facing a choice between eating properly or being able to stay warm this winter. That is the crisis they are facing in the Kenora riding.

I just want to share one more, from a constituent who wrote in saying that if we look at the prices in Ear Falls, a carton of milk right now costs $8.39, and a single head of lettuce is $7.99. It has become almost impossible for people to afford to put food on the table, specifically healthy food.

With the coming winter months, with the colder weather, we know home heating is something a lot of people are very concerned about. It is not a luxury in northern Ontario. It is essential. Richard from Kenora has written to me to share that his natural gas has jumped from 11¢ a cubic metre to 30¢ a cubic metre, nearly tripling in price as a result of the government's policies. He is very concerned about how he is going to be able to afford to heat his home.

What is the answer? Luckily, a constituent wrote to me to tell me what the answer is. Faith from Kenora simply says, “Eric, the carbon tax needs to go.” I could not agree more. She is obviously feeling the squeeze as well.

The concern I have, and I know all of us on this side of the House have this concern, is that when the government is faced with this crisis, its only answer is to spend more money and continue with the same inflationary policies that have really gotten us into this mess in the first place. There is no question that the Liberals like to judge their results based on how much money they can spend. If we ask a question about anything in the House, they say they have spent all this money and they are doing a great job.

On this side of the House, we are looking at the results. When we have record food bank usage across the country, when people are struggling to put food on the table and when those in remote northern communities are struggling to get by, it is clear that these policies are not working.

We are simply asking the government to rethink its approach, to stop its inflationary spending and to look at cutting taxes on struggling Canadians who are looking only for relief. That is why, as I mentioned earlier, I will not be supporting the fall economic statement. That is why I am concerned with the economic direction of the government. I look forward to any questions and comments from my colleagues on that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. He just went over the whole inflation problem.

The word “inflation” appears in the fall economic update 108 times. We know that in contrast to the previous budget, there are no new measures. It is just a rehash. It uses different rhetoric to justify the same measures.

The government is rightly concerned that a recession could hit this winter. As far as the recession is concerned, the Bloc Québécois is asking for employment insurance to be reformed as soon as possible so it is ready to go. The government was supposed to have it in place for last summer, but the system still has not been reformed. We would not want to have to create a CERB 2.0 to limit the damage and make up for a failing EI system.

Why was this reform not included in Bill C‑32?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on Bill C-32, the fall economic statement and its implementation. It is critical to address this kind of issue. It is critical to the constituents I represent in Parkdale—High Park in terms of the cost of living crisis that so many Canadians are facing and in terms of addressing affordability.

I am happy to highlight, in the context of this intervention, what we are doing and what we are proposing to do as a government. Let me start with students. I feel that I am not that far removed from my student years, although it has been almost 30 years. I remember those days fondly. What I did not have to deal with then that students have to deal with now is really crippling debt with skyrocketing tuition rates and the debt loads that young people are taking on.

We want people to be considering post-secondary education. We want them to be advancing themselves and their careers through higher education. During COVID we implemented a new relaxation on the interest being charged on federal student loans. With the fall economic statement, we are entrenching permanently the position that we took during COVID on a go-forward basis to eliminate interest on the federal portion of student loans.

The caveat here is that not every province is following suit with their provincial counterparts. As a proud representative from Toronto, I urge the provincial government in Ontario to follow suit as six other provinces have. This would ensure that the provincial portion in my native province also eliminates interest so that we can render more fairness for these young people.

The next subject area I will to turn to is housing. Housing is something we hear about all the time and rightfully so. Housing has become difficult in terms of attaining housing on a purchase model for people who would like to own property. It has become difficult for people who want to rent in this country. It is difficult on a number of fronts.

Colleagues know the actions we have taken as a government, but more needs to be done. The national housing strategy was an important initial step in 2017. We have supplemented that with continuing contributions to the housing portfolio.

What we are doing in this fall economic statement is fourfold. The first thing we are doing is ensuring that a new tax-free first homes savings account is permitted to be opened. This will operate much like a TFSA. This would allow a young person or a young couple to save as much as $40,000 in savings, tax free, to contribute to the purchase of that first home. That is an important step.

A few years ago, we also implemented something called the first-time homebuyers' tax credit. The fall economic statement proposes to double that amount to reflect the fact that housing prices have gone up. We appreciate that people need more of a credit to take that initial step to purchase their first home.

On a third front, what we are doing with respect to house flipping is really critical. We have heard about the commodification of the housing industry. We have heard about people using it as a speculative sort of exercise. The proposal contained in the fall economic statement is to tax the profits as business income for those who would sell a property within 12 months of having purchased it, preventing them from taking the capital gains exemption that is otherwise available to them. That is really critical because we want to ease that speculation in the housing market, not encourage it.

The last piece is also critical for those who want multi-generational housing. This is common in some parts of the country and some parts of the Canadian mosaic. We are trying to facilitate seniors to age at home. For example, for people who might want to have elderly parents live in their homes, possibly having three generations within the same dwelling, the renovation tax credit is being expanded through the multi-generational home renovation tax credit.

It does not stop with those who own homes. What we are doing for renters is very significant. Recently we topped up the Canada housing benefit, which was implemented through a proposal that I believe received royal assent yesterday. That was a $500 top-up. It is unfortunate that not all parties were onside in terms of supporting Bill C-31, which implemented this increase of $500 to the Canada housing benefit. It targets low-income Canadians who are renting in this current financial environment. Approximately 1.8 million people renting in this country will be affected by this one change, which is direct assistance during difficult economic times to help with the cost of housing.

On the broader piece of affordability, I want to highlight two other key facets. The first is the GST rebate, which I believe is in Bill C-30, if memory serves. Thankfully, there was a lot of consent in the chamber for doubling it for the next six months. That affects 11 million Canadians. That is a very significant form of assistance in difficult economic times.

The second is the dental benefit, which will be up to $1,300, in Bill C-31, which I believe received royal assent just yesterday. That will enable children under the age of 12 in low-income families to get much-needed dental care. I will salute the approach that has been mooted in the chamber by various parties about expanding the concept of health care to include dental care. That is a step in the right direction. That is a step we need to take and are taking as a government. This is really critical.

Another point I want to add, if I can open a parenthesis, is that it is critical for people to understand, including Canadians watching right now, in dealing with the rising impacts of inflation, they should note how many government benefits that are currently part of our social safety net are indexed to inflation. They are multiple. The Canada child benefit, the GST credit, CPP benefits, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and even the federal minimum wage are all tied to and indexed to inflation. We do not want to see inflation rise any further, but if it does, the benefits will also have a concomitant increase. That is very important to give people peace of mind about what their benefits will be assisting them with as we deal with difficult issues about the cost of living.

I want to touch on what we are doing for workers. We are working hard to assist workers directly. The fall economic statement would enhance the Canada workers benefit, which we have implemented. For those who are not familiar with it, there used to be disincentives for people coming off of assistance and taking low-paying work. We did not want to disincentivize people from leaving government assistance and entering the workforce.

The Canada workers benefit creates a top-up for those people who are in that particular situation, so they are encouraged to enter the workforce rather than discouraged. With this change, we are not providing that benefit annually, but on a quarterly basis, so those benefits will be in people's bank accounts more frequently, which helps them deal with the cost of living on a more direct and frequent basis. This one change has the potential to affect as many as 4.2 million workers.

We are also talking about a sustainable jobs training centre. This dovetails exactly with something we have heard a lot about over the past four to five years in the chamber, which is the notion of a just transition. How do we transition good, unionized work from different sectors into good, unionized, high-paying jobs in new, sustainable clean tech sectors? We do that through harnessing the power of unions and also through harnessing the powers of a sustainable economy. The sustainable jobs training centre would do just that. That is part of the fall economic statement.

We are also addressing fairness for workers directly by taxing share buybacks. This is important because, as the Minister of Finance outlined when she announced the fall economic statement, what we want to do is encourage businesses to not hold on to their wealth, to not pay for dividends to shareholders, but rather to reinvest in their businesses, including through R and D, which would empower the workers themselves. That is a critical feature, and that is what we are doing in this fall economic statement.

Another component is addressing fairness for small and medium enterprises. I am proud to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Small Business. Insofar as we addressed the small businesses stakeholders around the country, we heard repeatedly from entities about the prohibitive costs of credit card transactions, which only escalated during the pandemic as people turned to cashless methods of payment.

The charges that are part of the credit interchange fee structures are proving to be more and more prohibitive on small business owners. What we have committed quite openly in the fall economic statement is that we will doggedly pursue a negotiated agreement with financial institutions to reduce those fees. If those negotiations prove futile or unsuccessful, we have made a public statement in the chamber and through the fall economic statement that we will actually legislate in this area to bring down those fees. That would have a direct impact on small and medium businesses.

On this point, I want to read some of the reaction we have heard. The Convenience Industry Council of Canada has said, “CICC is pleased that the government has responded to our calls for action and has acknowledged the impact that credit card fees are having on convenience stores across the country.” They also said that Canadian convenience stores “have reached a tipping point & we need the feds to act NOW.”

That is exactly what we are doing. We are responding to this. When one responds to the needs of small business owners, one also responds to the people who use small businesses, the consumers who are facing escalating costs because credit card transaction fees are passed on to them.

That is part of what we are doing in the fall economic statement. It is critical to address the cost of living needs of Canadians, my constituents of Parkdale—High Park, the constituents of every member in this chamber. That is why I will be voting in support of the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, and I encourage every member of this chamber to do the same.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise in this place, and especially so when it comes to important decisions around helping Canadians get through these times of inflationary pressure, with a housing crisis and a health care system in chaos. Today we are debating the implementation of items included in the fall economic statement, which the Minister of Finance produced a couple of weeks ago.

The NDP is always focused on helping Canadians. That is why we were happy to see NDP initiatives that are clearly designed to do just that, help Canadians who need the support the most, included in that fall economic statement. There are initiatives like providing dental care for kids who do not have access to a dental plan now, like doubling the GST rebate for low-income Canadians to help them deal with the rising costs of food and gas, and like providing a $500 boost for low-income renters so they can afford to keep a roof over their heads. I would like to point out that the dental care provisions in the fall statement are not in Bill C-32, which we are discussing today, but were in Bill C-31, which received royal assent yesterday, so that was a great day for Canadians.

I am also happy to find a couple of paragraphs in the statement about credit card transaction fees, an issue that the NDP has been raising for decades. Jack Layton brought this up time and again. Canadian small business owners pay some of the highest credit card transaction fees in the world, and in this world of online shopping, the fees make it even more difficult for them to compete for Canadians' shopping dollars.

As the NDP critic for small business, I have talked with executives from Visa, Mastercard, Moneris and other companies involved in these transactions. I know it is a complex issue and that these fees vary with the business volume and the credit card type, but the fact remains that small business owners pay the highest rates, and these are the highest rates in the world. These are the business owners who can least afford those high fees. Now consumers are concerned because business owners have been given the okay to pass these fees on to consumers.

I was happy to see a pledge in the fall economic statement that the government will move forward on regulating credit card transaction fees if negotiations with the industry do not bear fruit. The NDP will be watching this issue with great interest because we want to make sure this actually happens. We want to make sure that real, concrete action is taken to ease the pressure on Canadian businesses and consumers.

I want to spend the rest of my time discussing some items that were not included in the fall economic statement and therefore are not in Bill C-32. They are items that I was hoping would be there as they would have helped Canadians this winter before we get another update in the spring budget.

There was something in the fall economic statement about eliminating the interest on federal student loans, which is something again that the NDP has been calling for. However, there was nothing for one of the most blatant aspects of student underfunding in Canada. That is the scholarships given to graduate students who are working full time on their research. These federal scholarship amounts provided by the three funding councils have remained unchanged since 2003. That is almost 20 years ago, when housing costs were a fraction of what they are now. Master's students now work full time on their research for the princely annual salary of $17,500. Ph.D. students work full time for $21,000. Regular Canadians would have a very difficult time surviving on those wages, but these students have to pay thousands of dollars in tuition on top of that as well. This is below minimum wage. We are forcing our best and brightest to live in poverty.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research recommended in a recent report that the government increase these scholarship levels to rectify the situation. I also sponsored an e-petition, e-4098, organized by scientists across the country and signed by thousands of Canadians, that asked for a 48% increase in the value of those scholarships to match inflation over the past 20 years. The petition also asked that the number of scholarships be increased by 50% to match the demand for graduate students across the country.

Once students get their Ph.D.s, they must compete to get post-doctoral fellowships. It is an essential part of the career track of young scientists. Last year, 840 master's students received scholarships, and 750 received Ph.D. scholarships, but only 150 post-doctoral fellowships were provided. The petition mentioned above asked that the number of post-doctoral fellowships be doubled so that we can keep these students in Canada.

We are forcing young researchers to leave the country to continue their education. These are students we have educated here in Canada since they were in kindergarten. The numbers tell the story: 38% of graduates leave Canada to do their postgraduate work. They go to the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia. They go to a host of other countries that know the future of their economies relies on innovation and well-educated workers.

The negative impact of this neglect of young researchers on the Canadian economy is incalculable, but even the lost cost of that training is estimated to be about $640 million every year. I was disappointed that this issue was not dealt with in the fall economic statement, but I can assure the House that I will keep up the pressure on the government to ensure that it is fixed in next year's budget.

Another issue that was not dealt with in the statement was the automatically escalating alcohol excise tax. This tax will increase by over 6% in the coming months because of the high inflation rate. Distilleries, breweries and wineries, which are already facing the rising costs of packaging and production, will have to swallow that increase in their costs to consumers. These are costs that are not faced by their foreign competition.

My riding makes the best wine in the country. My hometown is the epicentre of craft brewing in Canada, and there are more craft distilleries in my riding every year. However, these small businesses, which are an important and growing part of the economy in my riding, now face this increase of costs that was never part of their business plans.

I have talked to representatives from these distilleries, breweries and wineries, and they have practical solutions for this problem. They have no objection to paying the excise tax, but they want to make sure it is fair compared to what their international competitors pay.

The United States has a system whereby smaller producers pay a smaller rate of tax for distillers and breweries. Other wine-producing countries support their industries in ways that are trade legal. Canada came up with a similar support for our wine industry, but it is set to expire next year after only 18 months. This program needs to be extended to 2030, at least, to make sure our industry, especially the smaller producers, can continue to thrive.

Most Canadians are struggling to get by these days, but wealthy Canadians and many big corporations are making record amounts of money. Oil and gas companies are making record profits based on the windfall of world oil prices caused by international events. Big grocery stores are making record profits, even as many Canadians are forced to cut back on their food purchases.

The Liberal government could have instituted a windfall tax on these excess profits, which could have generated billions of dollars in revenue to really support the Canadians who need it most. Even the Conservative government in the United Kingdom is taxing these windfall profits. In fact, it just raised that windfall tax from 25% to 35% yesterday. The CEO of Shell Canada literally told the federal government that their company should be taxed more.

Why is the CEO of Shell more progressive than the Liberal government, to say nothing of the Conservatives?

The fall economic statement included a modest increase in the tax rate for banks and other financial institutions, but totally ignored the big corporations that made the biggest profits in this difficult time for Canadians. I hope that, by the time the spring budget rolls around, the Liberal government will have found the courage to bring in windfall taxes to make sure that companies that are making record profits on the backs of Canadians pay their fair share.

In conclusion, I will be voting in favour of this bill. It brings several supports to Canadians that will truly help those who need it most, and it takes some hesitant steps toward a more sustainable future.

The House resumed from November 17 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber and bring the voices of the constituents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this place, and it is an honour to speak to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act.

The Conservative Party had two asks going into the fall economic statement process. One was to stop the tax increases and have no new taxes, which includes cancelling all of the planned tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. The other was to stop the spending and have no new spending, and ensure that any new spending by ministers or ministries is offset by equivalent savings found elsewhere. We need to cut the wasteful spending and stop the inflationary deficits that drive up the cost of living. Of course, none of our demands were met in the fall economic statement, and for that reason, the Conservatives, me included, will not be supporting it. I know that is a shock to the members opposite.

The cost of government spending is the main driver of the increasing cost of living. As stated by a colleague in an earlier speech this week, Canadians now have to make tough decisions. Why? It is because the government did not make tough decisions.

Of course, the pandemic required extra spending. The Conservatives knew that and supported the early programs. However, $200 billion of it, almost half of the $500 billion of added debt, was not pandemic-related. Program spending by the government is now 30% above prepandemic levels. It is amazing.

Last week I was in my riding and hosted a series of coffee meetings over two days to hear from constituents. I was just talking about the rising cost of living, and that is exactly what I heard from my constituents. Over and over again, the rising costs of everything, particularly food, fuel and housing, were highlighted. Last month it was reported that there was 11.4% food inflation. This month the rising cost of food is reported as being 10.7%. That is what Canadians are facing when they make a trip to the grocery store.

While rising inflation is causing pain for Canadian families in their everyday lives, it has boosted the tax revenues of the government. One would think there would have been an opportunity in the fall economic statement to bring some fiscal responsibility to budgeting.

I am not an economist, but let me share some thoughts from some respected voices on the fall economic statement. I will begin with Douglas Porter and others from BMO Capital Markets, who stated:

Less than half of this year’s revenue windfall will make it through to an improved bottom line. Moreover, the double-whammy of slower (or no) growth and rising interest rates will limit flexibility into 2023.... [T]he boost to government finances from higher inflation is temporary. Eventually, costs do catch up to the run-up in prices, and revenues get crimped by the economic slowdown. Accordingly, after a nice run of better-than-expected fiscal outcomes, Ottawa’s finances are expected to turn more challenging next year.

Will the government look ahead and plan accordingly? Obviously from prepandemic times we know that it did not.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, on November 3, the Conservative leader made two clear demands on behalf of our party.

First, we wanted the Liberal government to stop the taxes. This included cancelling the planned tax hikes and the tripling of the carbon tax. Second, we wanted the Liberal government to stop the spending. Any new spending by Liberal ministers in the government must be matched by an equivalent saving to cut wasteful spending and stop the inflationary deficits that drive up the cost of everything for Canadians.

Unfortunately, neither of our demands was met by the government and, for that reason, I will be voting against this bill.

Simply put, the fall economic statement does not address the cost of living crisis facing Canadians right now. In fact, it makes the crisis worse. After seven years of the Liberal government, we pay more today for goods and services and get less. Groceries, gas, home heating and more are getting more and more expensive by the day because of the Liberals' reckless spending habits, the same reckless spending habits that have played a big role in driving up inflation.

Many of the inflationary issues and concerns we face are of the government's own making. For months we have been warning the Liberals that their out-of-control spending would lead to an increase in interest rates. The government responded by telling Canadians not to worry and to go ahead and take out big loans and mortgages, because interest rates would remain low for a long time and there would not be any negative consequences.

Well, fast-forward to now, and interest rates are increasing at the fastest rate in decades. Families that bought a home five years ago with a typical mortgage that is now up for renewal will pay $7,000 more a year. The Bank of Canada has signalled that interest rates will have to rise even higher to tackle inflation. Many Canadians will not be able to afford their mortgages and will risk losing their homes.

Through the government's bad spending habits, as inflation soars, so does our national debt. Since they were elected in 2015, the Liberal government has doubled our national debt, spending more than all previous governments combined since Confederation in 1867. Let that resonate for a moment.

Here are some recent examples of reckless Liberal spending contributing to inflation and our national debt.

The government wasted $54 million on the disastrous ArriveCAN app, yet it refuses to tell us who got rich off those massively excessive contracts.

The federal government paid out generous bonuses to Destination Canada executives when the tourism industry badly needs to recover.

The Liberal government recklessly spent $400 million on random testing at our borders, when medical experts said this policy was no longer needed.

Just last month, the Prime Minister spent $6,000 to stay for one night in a luxurious European hotel room.

Despite all the reckless and record Liberal spending, Canadians have less to show for it and are worse off because of it. Is it any wonder, then, that Canadians are struggling? The cost of groceries is up almost 11%. The cost of transportation is up over 10%. Gas is up over 22%. Next April, the excise tax on alcohol will increase by nearly 7%.

Under these deteriorating conditions, people work harder to try to get ahead, but they take less home because of the higher cost of the things they buy and the higher cost of punishing taxes to afford all this reckless Liberal spending. As a result of the Liberal government's incompetence, goods and services are more expensive and we have less money to pay for them.

How are Canadians reacting to this new reality? Families are downgrading their diets to cover the jump in food prices. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Seniors are delaying their retirement and watching their life savings evaporate with inflation. Younger adults who did everything right are now trapped in 400-square-foot apartments or living in their parents' basements. No wonder Canadians feel like they have lost control. Many are falling behind, and others are struggling to get ahead.

The fall economic update shows that federal government revenues have increased by $40.1 billion this year alone. As Canadians suffer financially, the Liberal government is actually profiting from increased inflation that it generates and Canadians pay for.

How did it do that? Well, when Canadians pay higher prices on goods and services, they are also paying higher taxes. When they pay higher taxes, the government makes more money.

My NDP colleagues in this place have a history and reputation for taking issue with big corporate greed, yet when it comes to big government greed, apparently it is different and they turn a blind eye.

Rather than rein in the spending to begin slowing down the vicious cycle of spend and inflate, the Liberals drive the cycle of inflation even faster by spending more money at every opportunity they get. In addition to driving inflation, the federal government is also incurring tremendous amounts of debt. In fact, debt interest payment costs will have doubled this year. Next year, interest payments will be nearly as much as the Canada health transfer, and it is projected to be larger than what the government spends on the budget for the Department of National Defence.

Let us think about that. This is not good governance. It is dangerous governance. Anyone with a stake or interest in the good governance of our country should be alarmed and concerned.

Today, the federal government spends more money than any federal government before it. It is bigger, in terms of workforce, than ever before, yet what are the results? Millions of immigration applications are backlogged. Passport applications are severely delayed. New NEXUS and FAST applications are far behind schedule. The Phoenix pay system disaster continues. Government transparency is all but gone as journalists, researchers and Canadians cannot access federal information because the access to information system is broken in many federal departments.

Another irony I will point out is that despite the record number of federal employees and a track record of nothing working, this big-spending Liberal government spent $14.6 billion last year on outsourcing contracts to businesses outside of the public service to do public service work. This is yet another indication that the federal government is too big, which is causing it to break down.

Canadians are paying for reckless Liberal spending. We are not benefiting from it. In fact, future Canadian generations are at risk because of that and the debt the Liberal government has incurred. Canadians must realize that as the Liberals make more promises for a better tomorrow to detract us from the issues of today, none of the problems they have created, which Canadians now face, are getting fixed. After seven years of Liberal government incompetence in Ottawa, Canadians are realizing they are worse off today compared to when the Liberals first took office in 2015. We need real solutions to these real problems that Canadians are facing right now.

Instead of creating more cash, the Conservatives would create more of what cash buys. Enough with the talking, we need to get more homes built. We need to make energy more affordable, and to do so we would repeal anti-energy laws and get Canadian energy out to market. We would cut corporate welfare and axe the carbon tax. We would tackle climate change by making alternative energy cheaper, not by making Canadian energy more expensive. We would reform the tax system to ensure that whenever people work an extra hour, take an extra shift or earn an extra bonus they are always better off and would keep more of that dollar for themselves and their needs, not for the government's political agenda.

Conservatives have an ambitious vision and plan for when we form government after the next election, but for now, I am going to do my part by voting against Bill C-32.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague, who is a very reasonable person. He is right, but when someone asks me a question, it is my job to answer. Every time I am asked the Thursday question, I try to answer as clearly and directly as possible.

Moving back to the calendar, as I know the hon. House leader for the opposition is keenly awaiting this information, this afternoon and tomorrow we will continue with the debate on Bill C-32, concerning the fall economic statement. Of course, we look forward to that hon. colleague's support for this.

Next week, we will be focusing on the second reading debate of Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission act; Bill S-4, COVID-19 measures; and Bill C-27, the digital charter implementation act, 2022.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of Don Valley East for providing me with the privilege of speaking in the House.

My riding is a remarkable community. It is very diverse culturally, in education and in professions. There are so many differences in my community, but despite all of these differences, we have the same set of values. We believe in values that unite us, like that hard work pays off; that education is and should be a top priority; that if people are sick, we come together and pool our resources to make sure they get the help they need; and making sure that our country remains clean and our environment is protected. The most important value I have picked up over the years is that, when we stick together, we are stronger and better for it. These are the values that make Canada and my community work.

I have the opportunity, due to my community's support, to come into this chamber through the democratic process and reflect those values in the House. We put those values into action by making decisions. Each of us has a choice we can make every single day. It is about choice. When we really cut away everything else, at the end of the day we are sent here to make decisions and choices for our communities. The word “choice” is important when it comes to democracy. It is an important word in the House, and every day those actions we take and choices we make eventually set a tone and become government policy and law.

We are here to make decisions and choices, and when our choice is not aligned with our communities, we know what happens. Communities eventually boot us out of office. We have an opportunity here to align with our communities. I can tell members that when it comes to the fall economic statement, I am very aligned with where my community is, and my community is aligned with the position I am taking in the House.

I am proud to support Bill C-32. I grew up in a community where, despite all of the big differences, people worked together and stuck together. It is a community that has many different types of housing: low-rent and subsidized housing, Toronto Community Housing and low-cost condominiums. There is an array of different styles of homes, and we all live together.

Some people are struggling in my community. I grew up in a neighbourhood where young people went to school without lunches. Growing up, I saw young people not getting the support I did at my house. I saw and picked up on these things. I come from a neighbourhood where many of the young men I grew up with did not graduate high school. By the time I was 21, I must have known at least a dozen young men who were murdered in my community due to street violence. I picked up on these things and took note. It was for these reasons I originally ran to be a school board trustee when I was almost 30 years old. I saw inequity in society and I wanted to take the values that were instilled in my community and look for ways to bring them into forums like this.

I saw many young people with limited opportunities. We are able, in assemblies like this, to create opportunities for people by the decisions and choices we make. I was pretty lucky. I had my mother and father, aunts and uncles, cousins and lots of friends. My lunch was packed for me when I went to school and when I went home, there was a warm meal. I was a lucky person. I did not have to think about the next meal or being safe at night. I did not have to think about those things, so I was able to look for opportunity.

It was because of government programs like student assistance that I got to go to university. I was the first person in my family to go. On whole my street, there were two guys who went to university, and I was one of them. I was lucky to have that opportunity, and it was because of government programming. Once, when I was growing up, my family was threatened with being thrown out on the street by the landlord. We went to the legal aid clinic, and because of the government programs, my family was safe.

One of the first jobs I ever had was subsidized by the government, like the student summer jobs program. I could go and get some experience and take that experience and grow. It is because of those programs that I was able to go off to university and serve my community as an MPP and then as a member of Parliament here in the House of Commons.

At the end of the day, we are opportunity-makers. What we do in this House is create opportunities for people. We create opportunities to make life better for people, and we make opportunities more abundant to them. We have choices. Eventually, with the decisions we make here and the tone we set, there is a tipping point at which it becomes government policy, so I am proud to stand in the House of Commons and support Bill C-32, because I know it is going to create more opportunities for the people who need them.

We just came out of a pretty rough financial situation and COVID. The financial sector on this planet was shocked. COVID changed the entire trajectory of how we do many things. Economically, it has been very challenging for Canadians and for the Canadian government.

Back in 2009, when we went through an economic challenge here in Canada, the Conservatives were in power, and Stephen Harper had choices to make. They decided to take a different route from the one we are taking today. The route they took was to cut programs. They sent out a blanket statement to the ministries, telling them to cut 10% to 15%, or whatever they could, from the departments. They cut literacy programs that were aimed at adult learners, and they did something that shocked Canadians during that time period, changing the rules of eligibility for seniors to receive their pension and moving the age from 65 to 67.

Here we are today in the House of Commons, and a bill is being put forward by this government and the finance minister to look at ways to strengthen people by providing more opportunity. The Conservatives have a choice. They have a choice to support people. I would say without question that the greatest resource we have as Canadians are the people who make up this great country, yet we see the Conservatives voting against things like dental care. Members can imagine having a $1,200 per family dental care program for the kinds of kids I grew up with. I would have been eligible for that program when I was a kid. The way the Conservatives have been talking, I can only presume they are going to vote against Bill C-32.

There is a $500 subsidy for some of the people who rent apartments and need help. The Conservatives are going to vote against that.

We talk about programs like child care, which can save families $10,000 a year. The Conservatives will vote against that.

In this bill is the elimination of interest on student loans. I had a student loan. The only way I could get to Carleton University was to take out a loan, which ended up costing me $57,000. I paid it back, and I was proud to pay it back, because it provided me with an opportunity to eventually be in a place like this with my fellow colleagues, representing my community. We all have choices.

When I was a very young man, I got to hear Nelson Mandela speak in the House of Commons. Yesterday I was learning a bit more about choice and politics in general, and I came across this great quote by him: “May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”

The Conservatives need to stand up and align themselves by choice with their communities, stop using fear as the motivator to separate people and use hope, as I think Bill C-32 does, to bring people together. We should create opportunity and hope, so the next generation of young Canadians, and Canadians today, have the opportunity to build a better country.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act for 2022.

The year 2022 has been very eventful. We came out of two and a half years of a pandemic. Canada faced the pandemic in a good state compared to many other countries. We listened to the opinions and recommendations of health care professionals and experts, and we came out of it better than many other countries.

The Canadian economy also came roaring back after the pandemic. We have recovered all the jobs that were lost during the pandemic. If members recall, we had lost around 8.9 million jobs. We have not just recovered all the jobs that we lost, but we have even added more. We are at about 117% of the jobs we had prepandemic.

The unemployment rate was at historic highs during the pandemic and now it is at a historic low. In fact, we have maintained that historic low unemployment rate for the last several months.

Our economic growth has been the strongest. Canadian economic growth is enviable amongst the G7 countries. We are doing better than many of our G7 partners, including the U.S., U.K., France, Japan and Italy.

We have the lowest deficit amongst the G7 countries. In fact, if members recall this year's budget, we had forecasted around a $56 billion deficit, and it is now predicted to be about 30% lower than what was projected a few months back. The budget deficit has also gone down about 3% from what was estimated. I think it is going down to about 1.3%. This is the best amongst all G7 countries.

Before the pandemic, we had the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio amongst all the G7 countries, and we continue to have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio amongst all G7 countries. The fall economic statement also projects that we will reach a balanced budget in the foreseeable future. However, we are not making a big deal about that right now.

The problems created by the pandemic continue to exist today. The supply chain issues that we saw during the pandemic have continued during the postpandemic period too. The pandemic affected production worldwide. Now one of the biggest manufacturers of various goods in the world, China, is continuing with zero COVID policies, and that adds to the problems we are seeing in the supply chains. This has increased the price of numerous products across the board.

Also this year, Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has created its own major problems. There are huge security problems in Europe with repercussions beyond Europe. This has created problems in energy supply, raising the prices of fuel. It has created problems in the food grain supply. Ukraine, as we know, was one of the major supplies of wheat to the world.

All these factor in supply chain issues. Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, resulting in higher fuel costs and the spike in food grain prices, has resulted in inflation. Canadians are feeling the pinch when they go to the grocery stores for their essential purchases or when they go to the gas station to fill up their tanks with gas.

October inflation is at 6.9%. A few months back it was higher. From that high it has come down. It was 6.9% in September. It has stayed at 6.9% in October, which is a good trend. The interesting thing is that this number is much lower than what the private sector economists were forecasting. I think they were forecasting between 7.1% and 7.4% inflation, but it has stayed at 6.9%, which is a good thing.

Again, the inflation we are seeing in Canada today is lower than that in the U.S., the U.K. or the eurozone. The inflation pain that Canada is experiencing today is not limited to Canadians. This is something that is being faced by people all across the world, in developed countries, developing countries and everybody else.

To combat this inflation, the Bank of Canada started raising its rates some time ago. I think it has raised the rates dramatically. There is no pattern to the rising interest rates in the history of the Bank of Canada, if I am not mistaken, but it has to stay to its mandate of bringing down inflation to the targeted rate of around 2%. With the increase in interest rates and higher inflation, it does not require brains to forecast that the economy is going to slow down in 2023. It is expected.

To help Canadians today, the vulnerable Canadians who are facing the problem of inflation and the forecasted economic slowdown next year, we have already taken numerous measures. While we are taking numerous measures, which have been explained in the last few months in the budget and also in this fall economic statement, we are continuing to restrain the deficit, because we do not want to add fuel to the fire of inflation.

Canada is better placed today than any other country in the developed world to face this oncoming economic slowdown. However, because of the pain faced by Canadians today, it is natural for Canadians to worry about the current status and the future. Canada's prosperity and standard of living have been quite high compared to any other country in the world. That is because of the natural resources we have, such as oil, gas, minerals, metals and forestry products, and the hard work of several generations of Canadians.

We have good prosperity and a good standard of living, but the current status and possible slowdown has Canadians worried about the future prospects for our children and grandchildren. They are naturally worried about whether we can pass on the prosperity that we enjoyed in the past to our future generation. However, in spite of the inflation that we are facing today, in spite of the pain we are seeing today, we should not forget the big picture. There are huge economic opportunities ahead of us in Canada, and I will come to that in a minute.

The globalization and global trade that we knew before the pandemic is almost on its way out among the developed countries, even with our biggest trading partner, the United States. Its Secretary of the Treasury has stated that what they call “friendshoring” is going to be a big issue going forward. The U.S. brought in the Inflation Reduction Act, which brought in the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act, and basically that is creating a new industrial policy.

We have to see what opportunities are available for us. One of the biggest opportunities I foresee for us in Canada is the critical minerals that are required to power the next generation of vehicles and energy storage batteries. We have the critical minerals, and we have already stated in the previous budget the support for the critical mineral sector.

Recently, the federal government signed an agreement with Ontario for the Ontario regional energy and resource tables to develop the natural resources sector, specifically the clean electricity grid, critical minerals, nuclear technology, clean hydrogen and sustainable forestry. The federal government is taking a team Canada approach in working with the provinces so that we can work together to align the resources, timelines and regulatory approaches to develop the critical minerals, forestry sector, nuclear energy and clean electricity. There are a lot of opportunities ahead.

We have also set up the Canada growth fund through which we want to bring in billions of dollars in private sector investment to achieve our economic objectives.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, seniors are the ones most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, not to mention housing, yet this government is deliberately choosing not to give people aged 65 to 74 the old age security increase even though they need it now more than ever.

That is not an inconsequential choice. Hypocritically, the government is trying to raise the retirement age. It has sneakily decided to force the less fortunate to work until they turn 75. The Liberals are well aware that inflation makes it impossible for people to make do with what the state provides. What we are witnessing is the creation of a two-tier retirement system. Got money? Enjoy retirement at 65. No private pension plan? Work until age 75. The government is choosing to increase inequality, and it is targeting women first and foremost. This is Liberal-style feminism. The Sheriff of Nottingham could not have done better himself.

While there is a serious risk of a recession in 2023, the Government of Canada is abandoning the comprehensive EI reform it promised last summer. There will be no EI reform. We know that the system has been essentially dismantled over the years and six out of 10 workers who lose their jobs are currently not eligible for EI. That is the situation seven years after the government promised reform. Time is of the essence. Clearly, Liberal promises are only binding on those who choose to believe in them.

On a more serious note, we must absolutely avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the system's shortcomings if a recession hits. As was saw during the pandemic, improvised programs cost more and are not as effective. Employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. However, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims, and that is a problem. In fact, the government predicts a surplus of $25 billion in the EI fund by 2028, and that amount will be paid into the consolidated fund rather than being used to improve the plan's coverage. That is unacceptable.

As for the 26 weeks of EI sickness benefits, that is a measure that was already in a bill passed a year and a half ago, even before the last election. All that is missing is a decree by the government to implement it, but the sick are still waiting. The House had even ordered the government to extend sickness leave to 52 weeks, and they are not even implementing the 26 weeks.

To summarize, this government is pointing to the problem of a rising cost of living, but is happy just talking about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves. They repeat what has already been done in the past, what they already announced in last April's budget, but do nothing else.

Let us consider the supply chains, whose vulnerabilities became apparent during the pandemic. Last spring's budget mentioned the problem 114 times. The statement two weeks ago mentioned it 45 more times, but neither provided any measures to resolve the problem. There is nothing in Bill C‑32, either.

As we know, all too often, the government buries harmful measures in its mammoth budget implementation bills, hoping that they will go unnoticed. This time, the bill contains no surprises, unless they are well hidden and have not been found yet.

Bill C‑32 even contains a number of interesting measures that were announced in the last budget. For instance, there is an anti-flipping tax on residential properties to limit real estate speculation, and a multi-generational home renovation tax credit for those who renovate their homes to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015. We welcome it.

There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive its share.

In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. No more flow-through shares. It is just one drop in the ocean of subsidies, but it is a start. There is a tax measure to promote mining development for the critical minerals that are essential to the energy transition, as well as an amendment to the excise tax to prevent cannabis producers from having to pay it on their unsold stock, which is causing them major cash flow problems.

As we know, the government gave licences to its friends. Now that they are having problems, the government is proposing a solution.

Other than that, Bill C-31 consists of minor legislative amendments. For instance, there is an adjustment to the Income Tax Act to reflect the new accounting standards for financial institutions. There are a lot of very technical pages about that.

There is also an amendment to the Income Tax Act to plug some of the loopholes that financial planners were trying to use to help their clients avoid taxes. We welcome that clarification. There are always people who try their luck. Obviously, the government must do much more to combat fraud, tax evasion and tax avoidance.

Finally, I am certain that my next point will be of great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), who is currently standing in the House chatting with another colleague and not listening to a word I say. I salute him. It is the implementation of a Canada-United States agreement on the salaries of government employees who go to the moon, like Tintin in Destination Moon.

To sum up, Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It proposes a few good measures and does some legislative housekeeping.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C‑32 contains 25 tax measures and about 10 non-tax measures. There are two kinds: minor legislative amendments and measures announced in the budget in the spring of 2022, last spring, that had not been included in the first implementation bill passed last June.

This means that this bill does not contain any measures to address the new economic reality of a high cost of living and a possible recession. As with the economic statement presented two weeks ago, there is nothing new, it is a rehash. The government thinks its measures are like shepherd's pie, better served as leftovers.

This is a bill with no point or certainty. It does not deserve to be applauded, but contains nothing to justify opposing it. Given current inflation and the risk of recession, the Bloc Québécois had asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable individuals, namely to increase health transfers, adequately support those aged 65 and over, and urgently reform employment insurance. Since the government chose to reject those proposals, we denounce this missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the difficult times they are already experiencing or that are expected in the coming months.

The Bloc Québécois had asked the government to agree to the unanimous request by Quebec and the other provinces to immediately, sustainably, and unconditionally increase health transfers. The health care system is stretched thin.

While emergency physicians warn us that our hospitals have reached their breaking point, the federal government is failing to act. The government clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the consensus among the provinces to convince them to agree to dilute their funding requests. That is exactly what the Liberal health minister said in the Quebec National Assembly: It is called predatory federalism.

We know too well that the fixed incomes of seniors do not allow them to cope with what are currently such pronounced increases in the cost of living. Seniors are those who are most likely to have to make difficult choices, such as groceries, medication or housing.

Madam Speaker, I am told that I must share my time with me esteemed colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I see in the House are members of Parliament who work hard, who are honest and who represent their fellow citizens well. The member for Kings—Hants is one of those people. Frankly, I hold him in high regard. He is an honest person and I know that he will answer my question honestly, without partisanship.

At my constituency office, I hear a lot of talk from seniors aged 65 to 74 who do not receive the same treatment by the federal government as senior who are aged 75 and over. I seriously receive a lot of calls at my office about this. I am asked why they are treated differently from other pensioners.

In Bill C‑32, there is nothing to correct the situation, namely this two-tiered approach to dealing with seniors under the age of 75.

Can my colleague answer me and tell me why?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to the fall economic statement, which is reflected in Bill C-32.

Let me go on record just quickly about the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Nova Scotia. The report was released today. I want to applaud the commission, particularly on its focus on reinstating all of Hants County as part of Kings—Hants. There was a lot of community backlash or engagement on this issue, and I certainly want to applaud the commission for its work. I know it is not an easy job, but as it relates to the boundaries in Kings—Hants, I do think objectively that it is fair and reasonable.

I am going to use my time this morning to talk about the fall economic statement and how what this government is putting forward is going to matter to my constituents. I am then going to talk about a few things that are going to be extremely important in the days ahead as we move into 2023 and start to focus on budget 2023.

This has been talked about a lot in the House. Right now, we know that times are challenging, particularly for those Canadians who are vulnerable and have lower incomes. I want to applaud the government for trying to strike the balance between fiscal discipline and making sure that there are targeted measures to help those Canadians who do need extra help right now.

First of all, there is a doubling of the GST rebate for the next six months. This is a targeted measure. Eleven million Canadians would receive it. It is something that is around $2 billion to the treasury, but it is something that matters to those families and those individuals who need a bit of extra help right now. It was approved by the House, and I certainly appreciate that it is there.

Along with that is a doubling of the Canada housing benefit. This is to about 1.1 million renters across the country who have lower incomes. I had the opportunity to speak to one of my constituents last week who was really struggling to be able to pay the bills. My riding is rural. It is outside of Halifax, but she was trying to pay a rental bill of about $1,500. That has increased significantly, even since I was elected in 2019. We know the challenges around housing, and this is a really important measure to help those who are needing the extra help.

By working together here in Parliament, we have been able to move forward on dental care support for children under 12. I believe that has actually passed the Senate. It is another important measure for children in households with incomes under $90,000 that do not have any private insurance. We are making sure those children have access to dental care. I was disappointed to see that the official opposition, the Conservatives, voted against this. I did not hear much of a rationale as to why they would not support something like this, which matters to constituents from Newfoundland and Labrador and all the way to British Columbia. However, I am pleased to see that it is going to move forward. I know it is going to make a difference for families in my riding of Kings—Hants.

Speaking as one of the youngest members of Parliament in the House, who does still indeed have student debt, albeit not federal, one of the big measures is to remove interest from the federal portion of student loans. This is something that matters. On average, it would save those who hold debt almost $400 a year, and it would make sure that we are not piling on interest at a time when students are trying to recover. This is in addition to the fact that we moved the student-loan repayment schedule from an income of $25,000 up to $40,000 before someone would have to start repaying. These are really important measures. I had the chance to be with the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth at Acadia University last week. We spoke to students, and we know how important this measure is.

The Canada workers benefit is a benefit that would be brought forward on a quarterly basis. It will be automatically available to workers. Workers will not have to apply for this. This will come as part of the benefits from the government, and it is for workers who have family income below $42,000, so it is very targeted to help those who are working hard but are struggling to stay ahead. This is another affordability measure that I certainly support.

With respect to the tax-free home savings account and the doubling of the first-time homeowners tax credit, again, as a younger member of Parliament with a number of friends and people I know looking to get into the housing market, I know these are really important measures to make sure that they have tools to help purchase their first home. I applaud the government for moving forward on them.

In my riding, there is the most concentrated group of farms east of Quebec, and there is a number of supply-managed farms. Of course, this government made a promise to make sure supply-managed farms would be compensated, and I am pleased to see the government is moving forward with that. The Minister of Agriculture had the opportunity to announce that in Quebec on Monday. I know it is going to make a difference across the country, particularly for farmers in my riding. We know how important their work is, especially during the pandemic.

I have two other quick points before I transition to something else. There is the launch of the growth fund. This is a $15-billion capitalization of funds to try to draw private capital. For energy transition and opportunities for Canadian leadership on food and energy, this is a really good thing. I am pleased to see the Minister of Finance moving forward with it, along with the tax credit for the hydrogen and critical minerals sector.

I was particularly pleased with the Minister of Finance's candour about the challenges we could face in the days ahead, particularly with the prospect that we could be facing a global recession in 2023. When I look at some of the challenges, such as health care, I was disappointed to see provincial health ministers not take federal money that was on the table in British Columbia on the guise that somehow a national sharing of data was a step too far for them to be able to work together.

We are seeing challenges across the country. We want to make sure that, if we are going to put federal money on the table, it is actually going to health care and it is going to deliver on results. I was quite disappointed, but it is going to be a significant spend. The Government of Canada has made sure there will be more money coming ahead. This is one element, when we look at the fiscal discipline and the fiscal ability for the government, that will be a challenge.

Next is reducing emissions and fighting climate change, and of course Canada's position in the world. I am going to take my remaining time to talk about things I think we need to be really focused on as a Parliament in the days ahead. First of all, concerning regulatory reform modernization and non-cost measures, we need to really start talking about things that do not cost money that can help us to achieve the results and outcomes that we, as parliamentarians, or the government, may wish to see because there is going to be a real challenge on the fiscal position in the days ahead. This could include interprovincial trade.

A Senate report suggest that 2% to 4% of GDP is being left on the table. If premiers want more money for health care, that is fine. First of all, they need to stop the fakery around the idea of national sharing of data and having the results, and get out of the way to make sure we can grow the economy so we can have a sustainable way to pay for it.

I would like to see us move away from command and control regulations. We are one of the worst in the OECD in this regard. That is really important. As well, I would like to see things like a presumptive health approval, and I have said this in the House before. If an applicant comes to Health Canada and already has approvals from a jurisdiction such as the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, jurisdictions that we trust their processes, why would we not give them a presumptive approval to operate in Canada until such time that Health Canada either can approve them outright or found a reason as to why they could not operate in the country?

I want to ask my colleagues if we have given thought to how we are going to double or triple energy generation in the country. As we move to EV vehicles, and as we try to move to a low-carbon economy, we need to have serious conversations on how we are actually going to generate that electricity. I submit to the House that nuclear energy needs to be a big part of that conversation. We have a tremendous opportunity in Canada to be a global leader, and we are already are. We are recognized as being one of the best as it relates to nuclear energy. When we look at a zero-emission opportunity to generate electricity, we need to get more serious on it. I would like to see the government introduce nuclear as part of its green bonds initiative.

I hear too much of colleagues in the House who talk about net-neutral and getting to our 2050 goals, but that are not talking seriously about the technologies that are available before us right now and how we get there.

I would be remiss to not talk about the Atlantic loop. I hope to see in budget 2023 a firm commitment from the government to make sure there is money on the table to drive this initiative. I will go on record saying I am disappointed in Premier Houston's government and the fact that Bill 212 at the Nova Scotia Legislature is creating real challenges for Nova Scotia Power and Emera to actually raise the equity to make this happen. It is unfortunate, and I really hope he can get to the table with our provincial utility to make sure we do not squander this historic opportunity to help get Atlantic Canada off coal.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, and I appreciate having this opportunity to speak today.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I spoke a bit about the shortcomings of the government's economic statement.

Today, I will speak about a particular measure found in Bill C-32 that I think is very important, because it is a matter of justice in the current economy. I am referring to the Canada recovery dividend.

We know that at the start of the pandemic, the big banks and financial institutions received a lot of support from the government. However, in light of the consequences of the pandemic and how well those same financial institutions performed during the pandemic, we can see that they did not need that assistance, or at least not as much as they were offered. The amount of assistance they got may even have put added pressure on the housing market.

Over the course of the pandemic, we saw financial institutions get a lot of liquidity support very quickly. We can see, if we look at their record of performance over the pandemic, that this help really was not necessary or certainly not to the extent it was delivered to them, because they made record profits. When most Canadians were worried about losing their homes and experiencing a significant decrease in their own household revenue, financial institutions were making even more profit than they did before the pandemic began.

There is some evidence, sometimes it is exaggerated to some extent, that this help did increase inflationary pressure within the housing market. There are other important factors, when we look at the housing market, that are driving that inflation. If we look only at the assistance that was provided to financial institutions and banks during the pandemic, we miss a very important part of the story about inflation in housing, which was happening at breakneck speed even before the pandemic. I do not want to minimize the impact of that, but at the same time, if we exaggerate that impact, we do not put ourselves in a good position to address the real structural challenges within the housing market that preceded the pandemic and continue even today.

One measure in the bill that is really important from a point of view of addressing that problem, which is also a problem of fundamental economic justice, is the pandemic recovery dividend. This is about assessing a one-time tax on the profits of banks and financial institutions in excess of one billion dollars. Before anyone freaks out about how this is a tax and that it will hurt the economy and everything else, it is only being applied to banks and financial institutions just on their profits over a billion dollars.

I think most Canadian business owners, if they are listening, would think that if they had a year where they had revenue over a billion dollars to tax at an exceptionable rate, that would be a pretty good year. If banks and financial institutions want to object that some kind of unfairness is going on, that is a sign of how out of touch they are with the real lives of Canadians and the people they are supposed to serve. I would also say that any politician in this place who wants to pretend that somehow this is an unfair tax, some kind of horrible socialism or some act of tyranny, is likewise out of touch.

I will talk a bit in a moment about how some of these measures, like the permanent increase on the corporate tax rate, are well warranted, and certain measures like the pandemic recovery dividend ought to be expanded to other industries through a windfall tax.

What has surprised me about the debate around the pandemic dividend is that I have not heard that term out of the mouth of a Conservative in the debate so far. It could just be that I missed it, so I apologize to any Conservative member who did talk about it. However, I have listened to a number of Conservative speeches now and it certainly is not a common theme. I find it strange that the Conservatives are not talking about it, because for a long time all their leader wanted to talk about was the role big financial institutions were playing in jacking up the prices in the housing market, because they had received too much accumulated capital from government during the pandemic, as he said.

Here is a measure that would actually address, specifically, undoing the harm that the leader of the Conservative Party has made the key plank of his leadership campaign, and now a central plank of his party's strategy in critiquing the government, and he has nothing to say about it.

This is an example of doing something to go after gatekeepers in the financial industry, who are jacking up prices for Canadian working families that are thinking about getting their first home or are trying to figure out getting another home to move to, if they cannot afford their current home, and all the chaos we know is happening for Canadians within the housing market. This is a way of rectifying that and helping to pay for certain things. The Conservatives often ask where we will get the money to pay for this, that money does not grow on trees. It does for the big banks and financial institutions apparently.

The leader of the Conservative Party is willing to talk about that as a problem, but when we get to talking about solutions, suddenly we cannot find him. Maybe he is under his desk right now or hanging out in the lobby. I do not know where he is but he is not talking about a potential solution. This is at least a beginning, to say that a perversion of the pandemic was that these large banks and financial institutions, which already make a ton of money, made even more money.

Assessing a one-time 15% tax on that extra profit above $1 billion, and this is not a low threshold by any measure, is a perfectly reasonable way of trying to get some of the money that we need to pay for things, like the doubling of the GST tax credit, when people are trying to figure out if inflation will mean they cannot buy food for their families or cannot make rent.

The banks and financial institutions are not going to miss that extra money. They may on their balance sheets, and I am sure they will shed a few tears around the boardroom table. I wish them well in their journey for catharsis, but I do not think it is a reason not to do it. They have the money to spare and that money is very much needed to accomplish things for Canadians, who really are in dire straits. They cannot just worry about whether they will post $2 billion in profit or $1.85 billion in profit in their next shareholder report at the end of the quarter.

This is a significant reason why New Democrats are supporting Bill C-32. We think that it is about time we start talking about the people who are making incredible money in this moment of extraordinary challenge for Canadians. Where we think the government has fallen short on this, and we have talked about this a lot on many opportunities, is that outside of financial institutions and banks, other companies are doing very well and posting record profits.

We have talked about Loblaws. This is an example within the grocery world where companies are making huge profits. We know that oil and gas companies are making huge profits in this moment when Canadians are struggling with the rising cost of energy. Those profits would not be growing if they were only increasing their prices to account for their increase in costs. They are not only passing the cost onto consumers, which would mean their profits would stay the same, all things being equal. They are raising prices that go above and beyond the increase in cost. That is how they are achieving record profits in a time of serious strife.

That is why we believe there should be a windfall tax, like the pandemic dividend, along the same structure, that applies to oil and gas companies, grocery retailers and big box stores, which also did very well during the pandemic while mom and pop businesses struggled because they could not offer the same level of service to people in extraordinary times. This has meant that some of those businesses have closed their doors and they are not necessarily coming back. There has been a permanent structural change in certain industries that has favoured larger companies. It makes sense that they would pay more tax on that extraordinary profit.

I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight what I think is a central issue with respect to Bill C-32, one that has not received enough attention to date.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite differences of opinion on certain aspects, I believe that we can agree that Bill C-32 dusts off some old legislation and also proposes new measures.

That said, our role is also to highlight the bill's shortcomings, and one of these shortcomings is the money for people aged 65 to 74. The hon. member opposite said that seniors would soon get an extra $220 or so. However, I have questions about this “extra”, seeing as pensions have not kept pace with rising consumer prices. I wonder why this amount is considered “extra” when the government created two classes of seniors. I wonder how this amount can be “extra” when more than 70,000 seniors who applied for their pension on time are still not receiving their money.

It is good that the government is implementing measures, but it needs to think of seniors, because they are the ones who built Canada and Quebec as we know them today, and they deserve our full consideration and support.

When will seniors aged 65 to 74 get this consideration and get proper financial support?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on that theme of housing. If we listened to the Conservative leader, we would know that as long as there is this much capital in the market for bidding on new homes and new units of various kinds, we will have to build a lot of units to ever see the price of housing come down.

One thing in Bill C-32 is a pandemic dividend, or the Canada recovery dividend. It is really about going to the very same financial institutions that the Conservative leader has rightly complained about, which got a lot of liquidity support during the pandemic, and taking some of that money back into government coffers for it to be put out on things like the doubling of the GST rebate, the dental benefit and the Canada housing benefit.

I found it odd not to hear any support from the Conservative leader for the pandemic dividend, because it seems to me that it is very clearly an issue of justice, as we are talking about who should bear the cost of the moment we are in, in light of what has gone on in the pandemic. It also seems to be a pretty important tool for trying to right one of the structural problems in the housing market right now.

I wonder if the member might offer his thoughts on the pandemic recovery dividend.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-32. The opposition's role is to point out what the bill is lacking. So far, it appears that the government's role is to boast a lot and not listen.

We are here to point out the flaws, the jurisdictional issues and the agreements that are not being honoured. Among those agreements is the one on infrastructure, which my colleague mentioned earlier, but there is another one that has not been respected for a very long time. It is the Constitution.

Strangely enough, in the last election, The New York Times said that the party that respected the Canadian Constitution the most was the Bloc Québécois, the separatist party. We are asking that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces be respected in accordance with the Constitution.

Since I am talking about agreements we want the government to respect, I would like to point out that the 1867 Constitution, the only one that Quebec has signed, has yet to be translated, despite the 1982 agreement to translate it within six months.

When will this finally happen, and when will the government respect its own Constitution? It is about time it did.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act.

At the outset, one of the things I find extremely confusing, and I heard the Bloc say it this morning, is that the government has not tried to help Canadians during such a difficult time to deal with inflation, the inflation we are seeing not just in Canada but indeed throughout the world.

I will speak to that, but before I do, I want to read a quote. It says, “government is ruining the Canadian dollar, so Canadians should have the freedom to use other money, such as Bitcoin.” Are there any guesses where that quote came from?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the government's Bill C‑32.

Regular people will probably have a better idea of what I am talking about if I refer to it as the economic update. For most people, “Bill C‑32” does not mean much at all.

Typically, an economic update tweaks the budget tabled earlier that year. Early in the year, in March, the government announces measures for the coming year. Over time, it becomes clear some small adjustments are needed. That is why we get an economic update in November. We expect those announcements to be on a smaller scale than those in a budget.

The Bloc Québécois brought up three major priorities it wanted to see in the economic update. One of these priorities was an unconditional increase in health transfers; it is not there. Another priority was an increase in old age security for people aged 65 and over; it is not there. The third was a comprehensive reform of employment insurance because, as we know, people suffered immensely during the pandemic and because there were already problems with the program before COVID-19. That is not there, either, and yet we are slipping into a recession.

It is sad to see how the government was unable to hear these three major priorities put forward by the Bloc Québécois, priorities on which the vast majority of Quebeckers agree. However, there is something else I will focus on. In the economic update we see yet another example of the federal level's contempt or arrogance in an area of infrastructure that is very important to Quebec.

I will give a brief overview. The federal budget announced last spring contained a little line of text that went virtually unnoticed. A budget often has 300, 400 or 600 pages. It takes a long time to read. When we need to comment on the document, we obviously focus on the key elements. Afterwards, we look at the details to see whether something was missed.

That may very well have been the government’s intention. In fact, that little line in the budget has big consequences for Quebec. This part of the text essentially says that, under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, the deadline for submitting projects, initially March 31, 2025, is brought forward to March 31, 2023. That means two years less to submit important infrastructure projects that are a priority for Quebec and the other provinces—except that, in the case of Quebec, there is something more.

The federal government and the Government of Quebec signed a bilateral agreement. The parties negotiated how this money would be allocated, since 90% of infrastructure assets belong to Quebec and its municipalities. It is clearly a Quebec jurisdiction, and that is why an agreement had to be negotiated.

These few words in the budget made us realize that the federal government could decide not to honour the agreement it negotiated with Quebec. We then went fishing and talked to the Bloc Québécois’s research department. We were told that it was probably not true, that the federal government would not do that, since it had a signed agreement with Quebec. We were told that it must apply to the other provinces, but that, since the federal government had a signed agreement with Quebec, it would surely honour it.

Despite everything, we still had concerns, and we wanted to know more. It is important to understand that this is an infrastructure agreement worth $7.5 billion, which is a lot of money. When we found out about the deadline change, $3.5 billion in the total envelope had not yet been spent, and we knew that an election was coming. With the fall election, we would end up in November, and there would be only a few months to submit billions of projects. That would be virtually impossible. It is a bit like having a gun to one's head.

Since the federal government and Quebec had an agreement, we figured that it must not be true. We asked the minister some questions in parliamentary committee. I asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities what the deal was. We were concerned.

He told us quite candidly that he would take the money back if it had not been spent and the projects were not submitted to the federal government by March 31, 2023. He said that, in any case, other provinces wanted the money and that they too had projects. If Quebec did not submit the documents on time, that would be too bad, it would lose billions of dollars. That is what the minister told us in committee.

The worst part is that there was another component. There was still $342 million unspent in phase 1 of the agreement. According to the agreement, if the money for public transit was not spent in phase 1, it could be used in subsequent phases. I asked the minister what would happen with the $342 million, since the signed agreement says that we can use the phase 1 money in subsequent phases. He said that it would be returned to the consolidated fund.

The money was returned to the consolidated fund, and $342 million was essentially stolen from Quebec, without a word. If we had not seen those few words hidden in a corner of the budget, no one would have ever known. Unbelievable. That is how the hypocrites across the aisle work.

When we learned of this, we were obviously livid. We contacted the Quebec office in Ottawa so that it could notify minister Sonia LeBel. We spoke to our mayors, who were very upset. I must say that they could not get over the fact that the federal government had done something so disgraceful. We also spoke to the Union des municipalités du Québec, or the UMQ. Everyone was angry, everyone said that it was outrageous. The UMQ made a public statement asking the federal government to honour its word, to honour its signed agreement with Quebec. I spoke about this to Sonia LeBel, who was then the minister responsible for government administration and chair of the Conseil du trésor. She told me that she would continue to negotiate with Ottawa. She was hopeful that we could reach an agreement by working together. She told us she would not back down.

The same thing is happening again with the economic update. Despite all that was said by the Union des municipalités du Québec, the Bloc Québécois, the Quebec government and our municipalities, which will lose billions of dollars for infrastructure projects, the federal government arrogantly says that it is going ahead and that the municipalities will lose the money.

That attitude is completely mind-boggling, and I do not understand the reasoning behind it. I am certainly eager to hear what explanation the government gives me in the question and answer period that is coming up later, because I really cannot imagine what it could be. The only possible explanation I can see is that the government is basically on a power trip.

It wants to prove that it is the boss. Everyone else can drop dead. They have to do what the federal government tells them to do. It is going to show them who is in charge and put them in the corner.

That attitude is simply disgusting. An agreement was signed. Two partners sat down at a table and made a commitment after hours or days of negotiations. They signed an agreement and shook hands to seal their commitment to that agreement. Then the federal government ditched the agreement and did as it pleased, because it is the boss. That is the message the federal government is sending. It takes the money that is paid by Quebec taxpayers and intended for Quebec infrastructure projects, and then it threatens to send the money elsewhere.

I am sorry, but Quebeckers pay income tax like everyone else, so they are entitled to their share. This type of behaviour is totally unacceptable. In my eyes, it is theft. The federal government is acting like the mafia, like gangsters. There is a word for what it is doing, and that word is racketeering, meaning extortion through threats. That is what it amounts to.

The government told Quebeckers that they had two years left to submit projects, but now they only have six months and they just have to deal with it, because the federal government is the boss. That is the message the federal government wants to send, despite the fact that municipal infrastructure falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and its municipalities, and the federal government has nothing to do with it. Why does the federal government persist in sticking its nose where it does not belong? Why is it incapable of sticking to its own jurisdictions?

If we Quebeckers cannot get our own money, the money that is due to us because we pay income tax like everyone else, the only way to get our money and our share is to control the funds ourselves, and that means forming our own country. I hope Quebeckers will remember this. I hope the municipalities will remember this. I hope the federal government will finally listen to reason.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act. More specifically, I will be talking about a very exciting research institution that should have been mentioned in the fall economic statement but was not.

The Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment, or CIPSRT, is headquartered in my riding, at the University of Regina. However, before I get into the details of the vitally important work that CIPSRT is doing, I would like to invite my fellow MPs to imagine themselves as witnesses to a number of tragedies that recently occurred across our country.

On November 10, 2021, a cyclist was killed after being run over by a dump truck. He was the fifth cyclist in that city to be killed that year, on top of numerous other car crashes. This happened in Montreal, in the Prime Minister's riding of Papineau.

In May of this year, following severe thunder and lightning storms, a 59-year-old man was killed when a tree fell on him. This happened right here in Ottawa, in the official opposition leader's riding of Carleton.

In 2018, a driver heading westbound on a highway lost control of her vehicle, veered into the eastbound lanes and was struck by two other vehicles. The out-of-control driver was killed, and five others were injured, including a young child. This also happened in Montreal, in the Bloc Québécois leader's riding of Beloeil—Chambly.

In May of last year, a 23-year-old man was shot dead in a violent gang attack at a shopping centre that saw two other people wounded and sent patio diners ducking for cover and using tables as shields. That happened in the NDP leader's riding of Burnaby South.

Last but not least, there were the horrifying events from the Labour Day long weekend, in which an ex-convict armed with a knife went on a stabbing spree in his hometown and a neighbouring community, leaving 10 dead and 18 wounded. I am, of course, speaking of the events at the James Smith Cree Nation and the village of Weldon in my home province of Saskatchewan.

I could go on for hours, citing tragedies in every single riding in this country, from coast to coast to coast. However, the question I would like members of the House to ask themselves is this: If they had witnessed even one of these events, which we all easily could have, how would they be affected? I bet we would all feel stressed out. Many of us would probably have nightmares. Some of us would even come away with a sort of PTSD that we would experience the next time we were driving down a highway, walking through a shopping mall, cycling past a dump truck or maybe even just walking by a tree during bad weather.

Keep in mind that I am speaking of the sorts of psychological scars that we would carry from just one single event, but our frontline public safety workers, including police, firefighters, paramedics, soldiers, border services, correctional services and many others face this type of trauma every single day, often multiple times per day. For our safety and well-being, frontline public safety workers not only face daily physical risks, but also live in a constant state of psychological siege that does not end when they punch the clock at the end of the day. It follows them home, affecting their health, sleep, relationships and more.

Several members of the House had the opportunity to meet and talk with representatives from CIPSRT at their breakfast reception here on Parliament Hill earlier this month. Dr. Nicholas Jones and Dr. Nicholas Carleton, affectionately known as “the two Dr. Nicks”, brought MPs up to speed on a number of shocking facts about the psychological fallout suffered by public safety workers. For example, studies have shown that fully one-quarter of all paramedics have had suicidal thoughts over the course of their careers, and the profession has a rate of suicide attempts roughly double that of the general population.

The two Dr. Nicks also told me that a significant part of the problem is the mental health culture within many of these professions. For police, firefighters, soldiers and others, there is often a tough, “suck it up” attitude about mental health that in the long run only serves to make the problem worse.

It can be difficult to break through this frame of mind. After all, the people in these professions are trained to be tough, to be authority figures. They are trained to be the people who remain calm and in control when others are panicking, and so one can easily imagine how very difficult it must be for these people in these professions to let their guard down, to allow themselves to be vulnerable and to ask for help when usually they are the ones providing help to others.

When speaking about social problems, advocates often like to use the word “epidemic” to describe them. This word most certainly applies to the mental health challenges faced by public safety workers, yet despite the growing extent of the problem, relatively few public resources have been invested. This is where CIPSRT comes in.

Founded in 2018, the institute was established as a knowledge hub, working in conjunction with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to investigate the treatment of post-traumatic stress injuries for the country's public safety workers. While CIPSRT may consist of a multidisciplinary research team, it does not merely conduct studies and gather reports. Instead, it is actively engaged in developing practical, real-world tools to assist public safety workers.

It is unfortunate that one of the rules of the House is that we are not allowed to use props, because I would love to demonstrate one of the very innovative solutions that CIPSRT has developed. One of these innovations, which the two Dr. Nicks demonstrated to me at the University of Regina earlier this year, is a daily stress monitoring device and app.

Essentially, the public safety worker uses a stress monitoring device once per day. This device collects data about the person's blood pressure, heart rate and other physiological signs. The device is sophisticated enough to distinguish between physiological changes brought on by stress and those brought on by, say, going for your morning jog. All of this data is then fed into an app that the public safety worker and his or her therapist can monitor over time. If those stress levels are starting to go off the charts, or off the app in this case, then those public safety workers can ask themselves what was happening at those times that triggered that stress. Likewise, the therapist can start to work on intervention strategies to bring down those stress levels before they get to dangerous levels.

CIPSRT has accomplished all of this and more through the frugal use of their initial funding of $5 million plus a few project-specific grants along the way. Sadly, all of the good work that CIPSRT has done, and all of the good work that it could potentially do is in jeopardy. Its initial five-year funding commitment from the federal government expires on March 31 next year, just four short months from now. No federal funding has been committed after that date. Furthermore, due to the ethical code of conduct to which researchers are bound, they cannot begin research with new subjects unless there is enough time left for the subjects to also finish the program. That means CIPSRT will not accept any new public safety workers into their program after Christmas.

I was particularly disappointed that the finance minister did not mention this research institution in her 10-minute speech to the House on November 3. There was no mention of CIPSRT in the 96-page fall economic statement, or in the 172-page implementation act that we are debating this morning.

I would like to urge both the government and every member of the House to take a closer look at the Canadian Institute for Public Safety Research and Treatment and the solutions it can provide to this country's public safety workers and their mental health challenges.

The House resumed from November 16 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion that we are debating in this meeting.... By the way, I have to say it is kind of surreal. I'm looking across the room—for all those who might be watching the live feed—and there are nine empty chairs where the Liberals normally sit. It is too bad that they're not here so that we could try to get on with the important study of the fall economic statement.

Having said that, the motion that's before us, I want to read it into the record again in case some people might have just tuned in since it was read in last time and did not have the opportunity to hear what it is that we're discussing. The motion says:

That the Chair schedule meetings to initiate a pre-study on the Act to implement certain provisions of the fall Economic Statement and that the first meeting takes place on Monday, November 14, 2022, should legislation be presented in the House by that time and, that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance be invited to appear with her officials on the bill; that all evidence gathered as part of the pre-study be considered as evidence in the committee's full study of the bill; and, should the bill be referred to the committee by Thursday, November 24, 2022: a. Clause-by-clause study of the bill commence no later than Wednesday, November 30, 2022; b. Amendments to the bill be submitted by 5:00 p.m. EST Thursday, November 24, 2022; c. and that the committee immediately proceed to this study and hear from officials from the Department of Finance.

There are really two parts to this motion, from what I can see. The first part relates a prestudy. I think I'll talk about that part first.

The very first line says “That the Chair schedule meetings”. One of the pet peeves I have with the motion is how imprecise it is. This is a bill that, by all accounts from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, increases spending by at least $50 billion over the next five years, and yet it just says “meetings”. It's very open-ended. It doesn't say how many meetings. Is it one meeting? Is it five meetings? When are the meetings going to be? It just doesn't tell us. It's hard to vote for something when you don't know what you're voting for, Mr. Chair.

It goes on to say, “should the legislation be presented in the House by that time, and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance”. Just so those who are watching understand, that is one person. It's Minister Freeland, and she holds both of those positions. She is both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. I'm just saying that, because I don't want anyone who happens to be watching to think that we're talking about two separate people. It's only one person we're inviting to come before the committee.

It goes on to say “with her officials”, but it does not say for how long the minister is invited to appear or even how many times, how many meetings she will attend. Will she be here for 15 minutes, 60 minutes, an hour or maybe a couple of different meetings for an hour or more? There's lack of clarity in the motion. It's just astounding.

It even goes further. It says she's invited to appear “with her officials”, but, again, it doesn't tell us which officials. We have no idea who is going to be appearing before the committee, because the motion just says “her officials”. We don't know who they're going to be or who she might bring. When I'm voting for something, I certainly would like to know what it is that I'm voting for, but I can't tell, because the motion doesn't give that information.

Just on the face of it, the first part of the motion around the prestudy is so vague and imprecise that it would be hard to support under any circumstances.

The second part deals with a situation where we're out of the prestudy. What's supposed to happen, just to clarify it for those people who are watching, the normal process, is that a bill is debated in the House of Commons and as many MPs as want to get up to speak to it. In fact, there are people speaking on the bill all this week.

I spoke on Monday night about Bill C-32, but once that's done, there's a vote in the House. If it passes in the House, then it is referred to committee. The second part of the motion that we're talking about right now talks about that event: “should the bill be referred to the committee by Thursday, November 24”.

By the way, I just want to backtrack to the first part of the motion. I forgot to mention something.

I also find it interesting that we're not inviting other ministers. For example, given the increases in revenue that are set forth in the tables of the fall economic statement and the commensurate increases in spending and the increase in our debt, which is now $1.2 trillion, I thought it would have been a nice idea if the motion had actually included an invitation to the Minister of National Revenue.

Certainly, the Minister of National Revenue is an important piece to this study, I believe, but it would be easier to discuss this if our Liberal colleagues were actually in the room. They're on a TV monitor right now. They're not really available. In any event, hopefully, in the next meeting they will actually be here.

Why not the Minister of National Revenue? We could ask her all kinds of questions. How much additional personal income tax revenue is she anticipating on an annualized basis, year over year, between 2022-23 and 2027-28? We could ask her how much of an increase in corporate tax revenue the agency is considering over that period of time.

We could ask her how much additional revenue—this would be very interesting information to have—if she were invited to appear, as to, for example, how much additional revenue the tripling of the carbon tax is going to generate and whether or not, as the government says, Canadians will in fact be made whole. There's obviously a big question as to whether the amount of carbon tax Canadians are paying is actually commensurate with the rebates they're getting. We could ask her about the GST as well and what the forecasts are around GST revenues.

At the end of the day, whatever you want to call it, the fall economic statement or a mini-budget, it's a spending bill. It's a money bill. I think it's just insufficient to have just the Minister of Finance. In fact, you could have other ministers appear. For example, the fall economic statement talks about the creation of a Canadian innovation and investment agency. I'm not sure which minister would be overseeing that particular agency, but it would be interesting to hear from those ministers.

Again, the motion itself is just so vague and ambiguous it's impossible to vote for, because we just don't know exactly what it is that we're voting for.

Going to the second part of the motion, again, this is the part that the House has now debated. Every member of Parliament has done their duty in the House. If they wanted to speak to the bill, they've done so, and the House actually voted. The House voted to refer it to committee. That's not a sure thing either. I realize the NDP is propping up the Liberals right now, but stranger things have happened. I remember very well—I was 17 years old—when Joe Clark's government fell on a budget bill, in I think November of 1979, and they didn't expect it.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this fall economic statement would pass the House. I don't want to prejudge the will of Parliament, but that's what this motion does as well. It prejudges the will of Parliament by asking for a prestudy. In any event, as Conservatives, we're willing to consider a prestudy, but again, the motion is so ambiguous it's hard to know exactly what that prestudy would entail.

Again, this bill assumes a lot. It's assuming that the House has now passed it, but okay, so be it. The bill is now before the committee.

Then the motion goes on to say in point a. that “Clause-by-clause study of the bill commence no later than Wednesday, November 30”. Well, this is November 16, and this is a massive spending bill at a time.... The point has already been made. We asked the government not to increase spending and not to increase taxes, and they did both of those things.

Given the magnitude of spending, the increases in tax, the share buyback tax and all these things, I'm not sure that November 30 gives us enough time.

As I said, there are a number of ministers who really ought to come before the committee so that we can ask questions of them. There are other expert witnesses who can testify to the economic considerations around the passage of the fall economic statement by this committee and what amendments we might consider.

I am not really convinced that November 30 gives us enough time.

As I said, there is at least $50 billion in new spending. The fall economic statement bumps up the deficit to over $1.2 trillion, so this is not a matter to be taken lightly.

I don't know why this motion wants to.... I fear that in its haste, we might miss important information that would inform us on how we should vote on such an important matter.

We then have b., which says that “Amendments to the bill be submitted by 5:00 p.m....Thursday, November 24, 2022”. That's even sooner. Again, I'll say—and I want to make sure that I am speaking directly to the motion—this is the 16th. I don't know how we could possibly hear from all the different ministers and witnesses we would need to hear from before that time to have well-considered amendments proposed to the bill, which hasn't even passed the House yet.

It then says, “and that the committee immediately proceed to this study and hear from officials from the Department of Finance.” Again, I get back to the same point I made earlier on the first part of the motion, which is, which officials? Who are they sending? It would be helpful to know, so that we could prepare our questions in advance and we could potentially ask for other officials, for example, from the CRA.

Why is it just officials from the Department of Finance? Why wouldn't the Minister of National Revenue come with her officials as well? Given the magnitude of the spending and taxation in the bill, I am dumbfounded, frankly, as to why the Minister of National Revenue is not being invited.

There are a number of problems with the bill.

The fall economic statement was just introduced by the minister on November 3. I think it's important, because a lot of times, people don't realize that there is correspondence that goes back and forth between the leader of our party and the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.

Our leader sent a letter to the Minister of Finance on October 30, which was four days before the introduction of the fall economic statement. In that letter, he set out some very important concepts.

I'm going to take just a minute. It's not very long. It's about a page and a half. I'm going to read it into the record, Mr. Chair, because I think it's going to be very important to have this information on the record, so that we can properly consider how we might move forward with this matter.

It's dated October 30 and it's addressed to the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of the House of Commons.

It says:

Dear Minister Freeland,

Canadians are struggling. Many are barely hanging on. This week's fall economic statement comes at a critical moment. As leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I write to make clear our expectations from the statement.

But first, let's assess the situation we're in, and how we got here.

Inflation is at a 40-year high. Interest rates are increasing at the fastest rate in decades. The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. Justin Trudeau's inflationary deficits, to the tune of half a trillion dollars, have sent more dollars chasing fewer goods. This bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Inflationary taxes increase the cost of making those goods. The more government spends the more things cost. Justin Trudeau has doubled Canada's debt and added more debt than all other Canadian Prime Ministers combined.

Paycheques don’t go as far as they used to. Canadians are cutting their diets. We recently learned that Canadians visited food banks 1.5 million times in a single month. That’s a 35% increase since 2019. Mothers are putting water in their children’s milk because they cannot afford 10% yearly food inflation. Seniors can’t afford to heat their homes, and winter is coming. Home prices have doubled, so 35-year-olds live in parents’ basements. According to Bloomberg, Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world. Monthly payments on mortgages are rising even as house prices are dropping. Canadians are out of money. Consumer debt has skyrocketed. Rising interest rates caused by inflationary deficits means that this debt costs even more now.

The bubble is finally bursting and the bill is finally coming due. For years my warnings that out-of-control spending would balloon inflation, and then interest rates, were ignored. Now in a leaked letter the government seems to agree with me. Even the Prime Minister now talks of “fiscal responsibility.”

If the reversal is sincere, there is one way to prove it: stop.

...Stop the taxes: No new taxes. This includes canceling all planned tax hikes. Cancel the tripling of the carbon tax.

...Any new spending by ministers must be matched by an equivalent saving.

I look forward to reading the fall economic statement this week, Minister Freeland.

It's signed by the Honourable Pierre Poilievre, Leader of the Official Opposition.

What's interesting, now that I think about it, is that there was never a letter sent in reply from the Minister of Finance to the Leader of the Opposition, which would have been a nice courtesy.

Now, the reason I read the letter into the record is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that, basically, it was increasing the money supply and massive deficit spending that really caused inflation. Taxes just make things even more expensive. That was the medicine he prescribed to the Minister of Finance. They're very reasonable suggestions. Most average Canadians, average middle-class Canadians and those working hard to join the middle class, I think would agree that those are very reasonable suggestions. Of course, it's the middle class and those who are working hard to join it who are the most disappointed people in this country right now because of how this government has managed their hard-earned tax dollars.

Mr. Chair, there is so much to say about this. I would like to say more, but I think I will cede the floor at this time. I'll ask to be put back on the speaking list so that I'll have the opportunity to revisit this issue and bring forward sofme other important revelations with respect to Bill C-32 that I really believe need to be put on the record at this very important time.

Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chair. I cede the floor.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a true privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Vancouver Kingsway to reflect their realities in the House and urge policies that I think will be of great impact and assistance to them. I think what they would first want me to point out to the House is that at this point in history, we are facing difficult economic times. People are really struggling, and that is very much the case in Vancouver Kingsway.

The prices for everyday staples such as food, gas, rent, energy and utilities, and for cars, are up. People cannot find affordable housing. This has been a crisis for many years in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver, but it is particularly acute now. I think the word “crisis” is not a hyperbole to describe a situation where people cannot find a secure, dignified and affordable place for themselves and their families.

I would point out on housing that, of the many financial issues facing people, some are foundational, and I think housing is one of them. Housing anchors us in our community and it is what connects us to our neighbours. It is that from which we launch our connections to school and work, where we build relationships with neighbours and where we express ourselves as people. When we cannot find affordable housing and when we are constantly having to move because of renovictions and rising prices, that is destabilizing in a manner that is truly profound.

Wages are not keeping up with price inflation, and I am going to touch on this a bit, because I think understanding the true causes of the current economic situation is vital to getting the policies that will address them correctly. This is particularly difficult for those on fixed incomes. Many of us who are working have access to regular salary increases, but seniors or those who are at the lower income levels, especially if they are not unionized, often have to contend with these dramatically rising prices with fixed incomes. It is important for the House to recognize how difficult that situation is for them.

Food bank use is up. We are hearing reports that families are even reducing their meals. Can members imagine that in a country as wealthy as Canada, a G7 country, in the year 2022, citizens actually have to reduce their calorie intake because of the economic situation?

I just want to mention small businesses. In my riding of Vancouver Kingsway, we are really powered by small businesses, and small businesses are having a particularly difficult time as well. Their input costs have gone up, and although they are raising their prices, there are limits to how far they can go. I think it is particularly important for us as a federal Parliament to craft policies that recognize the difficulty that small businesses are facing and that acknowledge the vital importance that small businesses and medium-sized businesses have in our economy. Let us craft policies that are responsive to their needs so that we can empower them and provide the context and opportunities they need to grow.

The causes of the current situation are varied, and we have heard a sample of them in the House. Some in the House blame government spending. Others say this is the result of government deficits. For us in the New Democratic Party, we believe that if we look at the data and look at the actual evidence before us, it is clear that the current situation is the result of several factors. For one, there are clearly supply chain interruptions that really took off when the COVID pandemic hit in early 2020. They clearly have played an important role in driving up the price of goods. We also have the war in Ukraine. Whenever we have a major global destabilizing event like this, there are inevitably negative economic ripples, and I think it must be acknowledged that this is playing a role.

However, I think uniquely in the House, the contribution the New Democrats are bringing to this economic discussion is one that, frankly, the Conservatives deny and the Liberals ignore. It is the impact of corporate price increases. In other words, it is the gouging that is going on by the corporate sector in many cases. The greedflation that is being caused has to be acknowledged, I would think, as not only a major cause of the current economic travails that are affecting our country, but the major cause of them.

In my view, and in the view of many economists like Jim Stanford, corporations are using the cover of macro-events, such as the global issues around supply chains and the war in Ukraine, as an opportunity to drastically increase their prices and blame that on other factors. I think that is quite clear. If we asked any worker in this country if their wages have gone up by 7% this year, we would find out very quickly that the current economic situation is not caused by a rapid increase in wages. If we go to a store and see the prices on the shelves, we will find out very quickly what is causing the increase in prices.

Let us look at this with a bit of a sectoral analysis. The oil and gas industry last year racked up $140 billion in profits in one year alone. It was the highest profits in a year on record for the oil and gas sector. We have the FIRE industry, the finance, insurance and real estate industry, where profit margins, which I will talk about in a brief second, have gone up by a factor of threefold. We also have the food monopolies. There are three major food chains in the country, and their profits have increased dramatically, in some cases by an additional $1 million per day. One of those companies, Loblaws, outperformed its best years ever in both Q1 and Q2 of this year.

While Canadians are suffering and struggling, those corporate sectors are prospering like they have never done before. That is an economic imbalance the New Democrats believe has to be acknowledged and addressed.

I want to speak just for a moment about profit margins, because some apologists for the corporate sector deny this reality. They say that profits are up because input costs are up and that profits are in line with what is normally expected. That is empirically wrong. If we look at profit margins, which are not about gross profits but the percentage of profits these sectors have made, invariably they are up dramatically in almost every major sector in this country. That speaks to companies that are taking advantage of the current situation for their private interests.

If we do not get the diagnosis correct, it is very difficult to get a proper treatment. The Bank of Canada is attempting to treat the current situation by offering the solution of increasing interest rates. Unless I have missed it, I have not yet heard a word from the Bank of Canada about how we address or curb excessive corporate profits. Their approach is an outdated one. Basically, they want to use the club of interest rates as a cudgel to pound down inflation.

When we raise interest rates, as they are doing, there are obvious economic impacts and we see what they are. It increases the cost of housing. It increases mortgage rates for all those hundreds of thousands or millions of Canadians who currently hold a mortgage that is going to come due. They will pay more. Of course, if we increase mortgage rates, there is a derivative effect: We end up impacting and increasing rents, because landlords who own properties and have to pay more on a mortgage need more in rent. Raising rates also increases the cost of loans and credit cards. In other words, what they are trying to do is suppress employment and wages, and I think that is improper.

Bill C-32 is worthy of support because it has some salutary benefits. It would remove the interest on the federal portion of student loans and apprentice loans, something the New Democrats have long called for. It has the Canada recovery dividend too, which would make banks and life insurance groups pay a temporary, one-time 15% tax on taxable income over $1 billion over five years.

We want this legislation to pass but we want much more. We want to see the Canada recovery dividend extended to big box stores and oil and gas companies and want a permanent surtax on the profits of the oil and gas industry. We want to see the government finally go after the offshore tax evasion that costs to the tune of $30 billion, and we want to see employment insurance reform. Furthermore, we want policies that help working Canadians, not the big corporate sectors that the Conservatives and the Liberals have been favouring in the House for decades.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge and the city of Vaughan, who in my view are the most entrepreneurial and generous in the country. I may be biased, but I think it is true.

I rise today to speak to the government’s fall economic statement and Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2022, at a critical juncture for Canada and, frankly, the world. Broadly speaking, I wish to highlight three themes in the fall economic statement.

The first theme is that the fall economic statement is a fiscally responsible and balanced document that would ensure that Canada’s strong financial position and fiscal framework anchors are maintained. In economist speak, it means our AAA credit rating is left intact, as noted by Moody’s, which recently affirmed our AAA rating, reflecting high economic strength, a very strong institutional and governance framework and, in addition, fiscal policy effectiveness. That is check mark number one.

The second theme is that we, as a country and as a government, undertake the necessary investments in our people to help make life more affordable and to assist the Canadians most impacted by inflation, with measures such as doubling the GST rebate, increasing old age security by 10% for three million seniors, which we did in the summertime, and enhancing the Canada workers benefit for low-income workers, which will provide an additional $4 billion in payments over the next six years for people who qualified for the benefit in the previous year, through advance payments.

The Canada workers benefit is something that we have adjusted, strengthened and improved three times now. It helps millions of Canadians and Canadian families from coast to coast to coast; it is lifting people out of poverty, and it is a really effective tool to help Canadians impacted by inflation. I was very glad to see it in the fall economic statement as an enhanced measure. We are providing $500 lump-sum payments to approximately 1.8 million Canadians. The GST rebate, as I mentioned, will assist over 11 million Canadian households. The first step in the Canada dental benefit is $1,300 for individuals who do not have private insurance coverage for their kids. All Canadian kids should be able to go to the dentist.

The third theme in the fall economic statement, in my view, is a focus on wealth creation by responding to the environment we, as a nation, find ourselves in. Let me explain. In today’s world, relationships between countries are being and are now reshaped; economies are being repositioned due to the realignment in the global economy; there are associated competitive challenges and even threats and security challenges, and the world’s quest for security and affordability of energy and food have never been more prominent.

The war in Ukraine, the ongoing ascendancy of China economically and militarily in many parts of the world, the climate change crisis and a renewed and reawakened United States post the Trump presidency require an unequivocal, firm policy response from our government, and the fall economic statement lays a path for that response.

Specifically, we need to respond to the competitive challenges laid out by the Biden administration. The measures quite deftly passed by the Biden administration, I believe, put the economic leadership of the United States front and centre and, frankly, change the world economic game. The Biden administration’s passing of the infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act, by some estimates, will put investment at nearly $2 trillion in clean technology and clean energy measures over the next 10 years. The CHIPS and Science Act, which is reshaping science and technology in the United States, specifically on the chip manufacturing front, and a majority of the fiscal policy in the prior administration, which was left intact, required a response by our government.

The decision we make as legislators today will put in place a direction for our economy and for our country’s future and will have a profound impact on the living standards of Canadian citizens for years to come. Today, more than ever, responsible and focused leadership is demanded. That is what our government is committed to doing, and that is what is contained in the fall economic statement.

The fall economic statement responded with measures to ensure Canadian businesses and workers have the tools to not only compete but also succeed in the global economy and, yes, to benefit from the ongoing transition to a net-zero economy, which is happening at an accelerating pace not only here in Canada but throughout the world.

One of these measures that I would like to touch upon in the remainder of my time is an investment tax credit for clean technologies: a refundable tax credit equal to 30% of the capital cost investments in electricity generation systems, stationary electricity storage systems, low-carbon heat equipment, and industrial zero-emission vehicles and related equipment.

Another is an investment tax credit for clean hydrogen production, as we know that Canada can be the premium supplier of energy in a net-zero world, and clean hydrogen is a part of the solution.

A third is accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy with the launch of the Canada growth fund. We know there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars of private capital that will be put to use in the transition to a net-zero economy, not only today but going into the future. These private investment dollars will create the good jobs and the prosperity for Canadian workers here in Canada that a net-zero economy will bring.

Canada is an open economy. We succeed when we trade, when we attract investment, when we compete and yes, when we win. That is most certainly what we are doing these days. The aim is simple. We need to ensure an environment that harnesses private sector capital, works well with the public sector, creates good middle class jobs and assists those wanting to join the middle class. We want to ensure that economic growth, which we have seen a lot of, is inclusive economic growth, so that all Canadians benefit from strong economic growth in our country. We are uniquely positioned in the world.

The Canada growth fund would utilize public funding to attract private capital and create jobs with a mandate to reduce emissions and achieve Canada's climate targets; accelerate the deployment of key technologies, such as low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture and utilization; scale up companies that would create jobs and drive productivity in the clean economy; and, most importantly, capitalize on Canada's abundance of natural resources and strengthen its supply chains.

The growth fund will be launched by the end of 2022 and begin immediately to make the critical investments needed to meet Canada’s climate and economic goals.

Another pillar of growing Canada’s economy is investing in Canada’s advanced manufacturing competitiveness, with consultations currently taking place and measures to be laid out in budget 2023.

I also wish to speak to Canada as a place in the world for electric vehicles. I am the chair of the Liberal auto caucus. I meet regularly with the Global Automakers of Canada, or the GAC, and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association. I meet with the parts suppliers and all stakeholders, including the Mining Association of Canada, and infrastructure participants that include charging stations and the key technologies that will transition what I would call the auto caucus and what in the future will be the electric vehicle caucus.

That is where the world is going. That is where Canada is going. We are uniquely positioned, with our human capital, our people, our know-how, our entrepreneurial spirit and the natural resources the country is blessed to have.

With that, it was great to see yesterday, in the business meetings that were a prelude to the G20, that in Bloomberg's annual ranking of the battery supply chain, the crucial components going into electric vehicles, Canada had moved up the rankings to number two, in front of the United States, in front of Finland and slightly behind China.

Our government is making progress. We have collaborated with industry. We have collaborated with stakeholders. We are uniquely positioned. We are using our comparative advantage, and I love the words “comparative advantage” as an economist, to make sure Canadian workers and Canadian industry are positioned for electric vehicles and the production thereof. Quoting Bloomberg:

“Canada’s recent investment in its upstream clean energy supply and increasing demand in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) region increase the country’s competitiveness,” wrote BNEF in a release accompanying the new report.

Published at the BNEF Summit Bali, the ranking sees Canada rise to the second spot this year, which reflects its large raw material resources and mining activity, as well as its good positioning in environmental, social and governance factors (ESG) and infrastructure, innovation, and industry.

Those are all words I love to repeat.

We have work to do. Another thing I wish to touch upon is our government's work with organized labour through UTIP, the union training and innovation program. Not to be slightly partisan, but we know the members on the opposite side love to attack Canadian workers and love to attack Canadian unions.

We repealed the anti-union legislation in 2015, and we will continue to stand up for union workers across this country, including those receiving their training in my riding at the Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 or LiUNA Local 183 Headquarters in my riding, which is moving its training facility. We will be there. We are investing in the union training and innovation program, and we will continue to do so. We are targeting 20,000 more apprenticeships. The UTIP program is transformational. I have been at the training facilities, where youth are receiving their training to build the communities we all live in.

The House resumed from November 15 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to Bill C-32, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2022.

I hope that we will pass it quickly through the House because it includes much-needed supports for Canadians during these challenging times. The last few years have not been easy. We have gone through a global pandemic. Many of us have lost loved ones. The economy shut down overnight. We witnessed horrific conditions in long-term care homes, and many of the existing divides in society were made visible, including inequalities that have gone ignored for too long.

Since March 2020, the world has changed. I know that many Canadians are struggling with illness, job loss and isolation. Frontline workers have physically risked their own lives and mental health to be there for others, domestic violence has increased and teenagers have missed a key milestone in their formative years.

Now, when everyone wants to get back to normal, we are faced with inflation and the rising cost of living. Our government will continue to be there to help Canadians and build a strong economy for the future.

Just as it seems like we may be putting the pandemic behind us, the world is facing a rise in tyranny and authoritarianism with emboldened dictators around the world acting more aggressively, triggering conflicts and egregious human rights violations. The most alarming of which is Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine. This has shaken a world already reeling from the pandemic with supply chain disruptions; global food insecurity, which has left 50 million people in 45 countries on the brink of famine; and energy shortages, which have led to a global inflation crisis.

At the same time, the world continues to face a climate emergency with extreme weather events that have led to devastation, as we saw recently in Atlantic Canada with hurricane Fiona and, earlier this year, the rare derecho that hit parts of Ontario and Quebec, including my riding of Ottawa West—Nepean.

Canadians are resilient, but these have been trying times. Most of my constituents just want life to go back to normal. We are all exhausted, worried about our quality of life and uncertain about the future, but these are exactly the times when we all need to pull together the most. Through all of this, our Liberal government has been there, responding to keep Canadians safe and healthy and to mitigate against the worst effects of these crises.

I am not going to stand here and pretend that everything is going to be okay tomorrow. According to the fiscal update, while we will see improvements, we will likely still be battling inflation and possible economic slowdown for potentially another 18 months or more as the global economy corrects itself. There are two things we can do. First, we need to keep putting in place the building blocks for Canada to not only recover, but also prosper and lead the world in the new economy. Second, we need to ensure that those who need it most are able to make it through, and that the opportunities we create will benefit everyone.

Let us start with a few facts. One of our key economic goals during the height of the pandemic was to avoid major layoffs, business bankruptcies and high rates of unemployment coming out of it. In this, we were successful. There are 400,000 more Canadians working today than before the pandemic. We have recovered 116% of prepandemic jobs and our economy is larger than it was before.

At the same time, the fall economic statement is fiscally responsible. Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7. Our inflation rate is lower than the G20 average, the European average, the U.K. and the U.S. As, well, both Moody's and Standard and Poor's have confirmed Canada's AAA credit rating with a stable outlook. We are also investing in skills training, tax credits and a Canada growth fund for the new green economy, both to tackle climate change and the costs of climate-related disasters and to make sure Canada is well positioned to benefit from the economic opportunities of a net-zero economy.

However, none of this changes the fact that people are hurting right now. That is why the fall economic statement includes supports targeted specifically for those who need it most. We are doubling the GST rebate for the next six months. In fact, last week, 11 million Canadians automatically received hundreds of dollars in their bank accounts because of this.

About 4.2 million low-income working Canadians are receiving an extra $1,200 a year through the Canada workers benefit. With this fall economic statement, they will receive this four times a year instead of having to wait until tax time.

About 1.8 million low-income renters will receive a $500 top-up through the Canada housing benefit. Families with children under 12 will be eligible for up to $1,300 to cover dental care. We are also eliminating interest on all federal student and apprenticeship loans permanently. This is in addition to previous measures such as increases to the OAS and the GIS for seniors and the Canada child benefit, which have already lifted 1.3 million Canadians out of poverty, including 435,000 children and 45,000 seniors.

Also, we are addressing issues that contribute to the wage gap between women and men, including pay equity legislation, and are cutting child care fees by 50% and ultimately to $10 a day. This is putting thousands of dollars back into the pockets of Canadian families and allowing more women to stay in the workforce.

On top of that, we are making sure that in these uncertain times, vital programs such as employment insurance and the Canada pension plan will be there when Canadians need them. Let us get the facts straight. The opposition is referring to the regular annual increase to EI and CPP premiums as payroll taxes. This is misleading. Putting money away for retirement or in case people lose their jobs is not a tax. It is a safety net and it is essential.

With respect to the so-called taxes on groceries and home heating, what the opposition is talking about is the price on pollution. This is a revenue-neutral tax, which means that every single dollar is returned to Canadians in the province where it was collected. Because everybody gets the same amount back, it means the people who spend the least and need the most will get more. In Ontario, eight out of 10 Canadians are benefiting, getting more in the rebate than what they will pay. If they are seniors or students living in a one-bedroom apartment and taking public transit, they will pay far less for the price on pollution than the amount they get back. Therefore, as this so-called carbon tax goes up, the amount people get back will also go up. This will help not only the people who need it, but also the people who are doing their part in their households to fight climate change.

There are those on the other side of the House who say that a few hundred dollars here and there make no difference, so I want to talk about a young woman who called my office a few months ago. She was very embarrassed to say that she had resorted to using food banks. They only allow people a certain number of points and she had run out of points for the month. This call happened to be the day after the climate action incentive was distributed and I mentioned this to her. While she was on the phone with me she checked her bank account, and she said there was money in her account and that she could now get groceries.

The amounts that our government is providing make a real and tangible difference, and I hope all members will vote for this.

While it cannot solve all the problems in the global economy, the fall economic statement lays the groundwork for a strong recovery. This includes hundreds of additional dollars by doubling the GST/HST rebate, an additional $500 for low-income renters, $1,300 for dental care for children under 12, and an additional $300 every three months for workers under the Canada workers benefit.

We have been there for Canadians during the pandemic and we will continue to be there.

The fall economic statement not only includes vital supports for the most vulnerable Canadians during these difficult times, but also lays the groundwork for stability and future prosperity, a prosperity that we will make sure is shared by everyone. I know that after the last two years, it is very hard for many Canadians to be optimistic, but our economy is strong, our position is secure and our government has Canadians' backs.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I am sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑32, on the 2022 fall economic statement. Unfortunately, this bill seems more impressive in form than in substance. Bill C‑32 contains maybe 25 various tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. It may seem like a lot at first glance, but these are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are just minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis, while others were already announced in the spring budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June, Bill C‑19. In cooking we call that leftovers.

Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, Bill C‑32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. This is a completely missed opportunity for the federal government. This bill will not exactly go down in history and its lack of vision does not deserve much praise either.

However, it does not contain anything “harmful” enough to warrant opposing it or trying to block it. The government often tends to bury harmful measures in its omnibus budget implementation bills, hoping they will go unnoticed, but that is not the case here. The bill contains no surprises, either good or bad.

As my colleagues can see, I am trying very hard to show some good faith. Bill C‑32 contains some worthwhile measures, but they were already announced in the last budget. I will go over them briefly.

An anti-flipping tax has been implemented to limit real estate speculation. That is a good thing. A multi-generational home renovation tax credit has also been created for those who are renovating their home to accommodate an aging or disabled parent. The Bloc has been calling for such a measure since 2015, as have many seniors' groups that have contacted me many times about this issue. I commend the government for introducing it.

There is also a first-time homebuyer tax credit to cover a portion of the closing costs involved in buying a home, such as notary fees and the transfer tax. It is hard to be against apple pie. There is also a temporary surtax and a permanent increase to the tax rate for banks and financial institutions, as well as the elimination of interest on student loans outside Quebec. Quebec has its own system, so it will receive an unconditional transfer equivalent to the amount Quebeckers would have received had they participated in the federal program.

In addition, a tax measure that supports oil extraction has been eliminated. It is just one drop in the bucket of subsidies, but it is a start. A tax measure is being implemented to promote mining development in the area of the critical minerals that are needed for the energy transition. In addition, assistance can be provided to a particular government. That is interesting. A total of $7 billion to $14 billion will be available for all foreign countries, when previously, it was $2.5 billion to $5 billion. While we are still far from the United Nations goal of 0.07% of gross GDP, the government is enhancing Canada's international aid, something the Bloc has been calling for for some time. As the status of women critic, I am regularly reminded that Canada can and must do more and better to safeguard the health of women and girls internationally.

Bill C‑32 sidesteps the big challenges facing our society, but there is nothing bad in it. It puts forward a few measures and does some legislative housekeeping that was necessary under the circumstances.

As such, I will reiterate, half-heartedly, what other Bloc members have said: We will vote in favour of Bill C‑32 even though the economic statement was disappointing. We take issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 115 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people and no new solutions despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. The government seems to think everything will work out with an “abracadabra” and a wave of its magic wand.

Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget, even though the Bloc Québécois did ask the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people.

For the rest of my speech, I will therefore focus on the lack of increased health transfers, the lack of adequate support for people aged 65 and over, and the lack of much-needed genuine reform to EI, which, I should note, is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. Sadly, the government dismissed our three requests, even though they made perfect sense. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come.

First, the Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached breaking point, but the federal government is not acting. It clearly prefers its strategy of prolonging the health funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front in order to convince them to water down their funding demand. It is the old tactic of divide and conquer.

I want to remind my colleagues that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, on which I sit, during our study on the mental health of women and girls, the ministers of Women and Gender Equality and of Mental Health acknowledged that the national action plan concept, which seeks to impose national standards, was slowing down the process. Meanwhile, the women and girls who are suffering are being held hostage. The government's feminist posturing must end.

Second, people between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase to old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living in real time. They are the people most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store or the pharmacy, yet the government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the federal government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age.

Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. We cannot say that the government is treating seniors with dignity.

There is also the increase to old age security, which should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work.

Not a day goes by that I do not receive a message from citizens about this. This morning, I again received comments from important seniors' groups such as AQDR and FADOQ, and they can be summarized in one word: disappointment. I do not even want to talk about the brilliant decision-makers who want to delay the pension process for 10% of seniors.

Third, let us remind the government that employment insurance is an excellent economic stabilizer in the event of a recession. While more and more analysts fear the possibility of a recession in 2023, the Canadian government seems to be backtracking on the comprehensive employment insurance reform that they promised last summer.

Essentially, the system has been dismantled over the years. Currently, six of 10 workers who lose their jobs do not qualify for EI. That is significant, it is a majority, it is 60%. Seven years after the government promised reform, time is running out. We must avoid being forced to improvise a new CERB to offset the shortcomings of the system if a recession hits.

During the pandemic, we saw that improvised programs cost a lot more and are much less effective. Above all, the government's financial forecasts show that it does not anticipate many more claims. In fact, the government is forecasting a surplus of $25 billion in the employment insurance fund by 2028, money that will go to the consolidated fund rather than improve the system's coverage. As for the 26 weeks of sick leave, the measure was in Bill C‑30 to update budget 2021, passed 18 months ago, even before the last elections. All that is missing is the government decree to implement it, but those who are sick are still waiting.

One last important thing: Last weekend, I attended the Musicophonie benefit concert for a foundation in our area, the fondation Louis-Philippe Janvier, which helps young adults suffering from cancer. I was told that the organization does indeed have to make up for the government's lack of financial support. That adds to the unimaginable stress on those who are sick, who should instead be focusing on healing with dignity. Even 26 weeks is inhumane. A person cannot recover properly in that time frame.

In closing, the government is acknowledging the rising cost of living without doing anything about it. It is warning of difficult times ahead this winter without providing a way to get through them. It makes some grim economic predictions without ever considering any of the opposition's proposals as to how to prepare ourselves.

As a final point, I want to talk about supply chains. We learned how fragile they are during the pandemic. Last spring's budget document mentioned the problem 71 times. The budget update mentioned it another 45 times. Neither one includes any measures to tackle the problem, leaving business owners in limbo. The new Liberal-Conservative finance minister missed the opportunity to send a clear message of leadership and instead raised fears about potential austerity. The government is rehashing past measures, implementing what it already announced in the April budget, but there is no indication that it has a clear sense of direction, leaving the people who really need it out in the cold.

For those who lose their jobs, we need EI reform. For those who are sick, we need to increase health transfers. For our seniors, we need to give them more money so they can age with dignity.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a true honour for me to rise in the House today to speak to the fall economic statement, Bill C-32, on behalf of the citizens of my riding of Davenport.

I would remind those who may be watching the speech that the fall economic statement provides insight into Canada's economic outlook and outlines the government's intentions moving forward. The fall economic statement also builds on the fiscal and economic work already under way in Canada to make life more affordable for Canadians, to build a stronger economy and to prepare for what lies ahead.

It is also always good to take stock of what the current context is. We have high inflation due to two and a half years of historic turmoil, including the after-effects of a pandemic, the current destabilizing geopolitical situation as a result of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, the energy crisis and the impacts of climate change, to name just a few.

I am very proud of how the federal government stepped up to support Canadians during the pandemic. We were generous with our support. Some say it was too generous, but I feel very good about the decisions we made. I am also very supportive of the investments and additional supports to Canadians that we have been making over the last year. National child care is now in the process of being implemented, and my home province of Ontario and the city I live in, Toronto, will see child care costs reduced by 50% in December of this year, which is huge for families not only in Davenport but right across this country. We have seen an increase of 10% in the OAS for seniors over 75; and we have seen the doubling of the Canada student grant for post-secondary students, among many other targeted supportive measures.

More recently, as members will know, we have doubled the GST credit for the next six months, and 11 million Canadians received some additional funding this last Friday. We also have the dental care benefit and the housing benefit winding its way through the Senate. As well, we have announced that students who have Canada student loans will not need to start repaying their loans until they have earned $40,000, which is up from $25,000.

All these measures will go a long way toward helping Canadians who are struggling with the rising cost of living. I hear from Davenport residents every day, and they worry about the prices. They are appreciative of the support the federal government is giving, but they are also hoping the prices come down in the near future.

The fall economic statement puts forward a number of additional measures to support Canadians and to grow our economy, one that works for everyone. I wish I had more time, but I will be able to cover only two or three key measures, so I am going to cover immigration, business investment incentives and growing the clean, green energy economy in Canada.

A couple of weeks ago, the Minister of Immigration announced new immigration levels for Canada that would see us move to invite 500,000 new immigrants to Canada by 2025. This is going to help with the persistent labour shortages that we continue to have, especially in health care, construction and manufacturing. It will also help with ensuring that we continue to have a strong welfare system.

As was indicated to me, about 10 years ago we had one retiree for every seven workers in Canada, and now it is down to one retiree for every three workers. Therefore, if we want to continue to have a strong social welfare system, we have to make sure we are replacing our workforce.

The fall economic statement, more specifically, is going to increase the money to the immigration system, which will increase the capacity to ensure that applications are processed as quickly as possible and that backlogs are eliminated. It is also going to invest in the systems we need to help make sure we bring the talent and skills we need. The details are that the federal government has committed $1.6 billion over six years for the processing and settlement of new permanent residents, and then an additional $50 million in 2022-23 to address the ongoing application backlogs that I can assure members so many of our offices have. It is very frustrating to try to deal with them, but it is wonderful that we continue to put additional resources towards addressing this issue.

I would note as well that we are bringing in a historic number of immigrants and refugees. We should be very proud that over the last three years Canada has settled the highest number of refugees in the world. That's not the highest number per capita, but the highest number of refugees in the world for each of the last three years. It is something I am very proud of. We believe that diversity truly is a strength. We truly believe the increased diversity makes us a stronger and better country.

The next thing I want to talk about is something I worry a lot about. It is the lack of business investment by our businesses in Canada. I am sad to say that business investment in Canada is about half of what it is in the United States. I was reading a few reports online. C.D. Howe put out a report recently and I agree with a number of the things it says. One of the things it says is that business investment is so weak that the labour force is falling and the implications for incomes and competitiveness are ominous. Basically, it reaffirms the fact that business investment is very weak in Canada, which has huge implications for our competitiveness, both today and tomorrow.

Over the last 10 years, when we have had historically low interest rates, our businesses in general have not invested in research or innovation or in increasing wages. Therefore, the government needs to step in and take some action. One of the key things we are doing, which we are introducing in the fall economic statement, is to introduce a corporate-level 2% tax rate that would apply to all share buybacks by public corporations in Canada. This is a similar measure to the one that was introduced in the United States.

It is estimated that this measure would increase federal revenues by $2.1 billion over five years, while also encouraging corporations to reinvest their profits in workers, in innovation and in their own businesses in terms of growth. I believe this is a great first step. Far more needs to be done to ensure competitiveness in Canada, and there are a number of additional measures that we are looking at and considering as we run up to federal budget 2023. Our future economic prosperity depends on our getting this right.

The next thing I want to talk a bit about is climate change and growing—

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's debate on Bill C-32, which introduces measures in the 2022 fall economic statement and key initiatives from budget 2022. The 2022 fall economic statement includes a series of new targeted measures that would help Canada weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. They are measures that would deliver good-paying jobs by seizing the opportunities of the net-zero economy, by attracting new private investment and by providing key resources to the world.

The next few years offer a historic opportunity for Canada. It is a time when we can continue building an economy that works for everyone and create the good middle-class jobs that Canadians will count on for generations to come. However, if we are to capitalize on the opportunities before us in the years to come, we need to step up and make more smart investments today.

Today, I would like to speak to a measure in the 2022 fall economic statement and Bill C-32 that would grow Canada's economy, create opportunities for workers and continue to address Canada's challenge with investment and productivity that has stretched back for decades.

Our government knows we are at a pivotal moment. The climate crisis is more urgent than ever. Canada is already experiencing an increase in heat waves, wildfires and heavy storms. These impacts and the economic and health repercussions that come with them will continue to accelerate if we do not act now.

We know that climate change is real and the path forward is clear. To protect our planet and build a stronger economy, we must do even more on climate action. Over the past six years, the federal government has taken important steps to position Canada at the forefront of the fight against climate change while also working to seize the economic opportunities provided by the global transition to net zero.

Canada's commitment to putting a price on pollution has provided an incentive for businesses and households to pollute less, conserve energy and invest in low-carbon technologies and services. However, it is clear that Canada will need to do even more to secure our competitive advantage and continue creating opportunities for Canadian workers. This challenge has become even more pressing with the recent passage in the United States of the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA.

Since 2015, the government has been making foundational investments in clean technology, which the U.S. is doing now with the IRA. We welcome the U.S. legislation as it will play an important, pivotal role in the global fight against climate change and will further accelerate the building of sustainable North American supply chains. More importantly, the IRA's build North American policy for critical minerals and electric vehicle tax credits are also good news for Canadian workers and Canadian companies.

While the IRA will undoubtedly accelerate the ongoing transition to a net-zero North American economy, it also offers enormous financial supports to firms that locate their production in the United States, from electric vehicle battery production, to hydrogen, to biofuels and beyond. Without new measures to keep pace with the IRA, Canada risks being left behind.

As a first step in Canada's response, the government is launching the Canada growth fund, which will help to attract billions of dollars in new private capital to create good-paying jobs and support Canada's economic transformation, as well as bringing forward two new measures to support the adoption of clean technology across Canada. Today's legislation would authorize the Minister of Finance to requisition up to $2 billion from the consolidated revenue fund in order to provide an initial capitalization to the Canada growth fund. The legislation would enable the minister to purchase non-voting shares in the corporation in exchange for capital.

Canada's road to achieving our climate targets, creating and maintaining good-paying jobs and building a net-zero economy that works for everyone will require the transformation of our industrial base, specifically the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon technologies and resources and the continued growth of clean technology businesses across Canada.

We have an opportunity to lead the way on the road to net zero and ensure that Canadian workers can benefit from good jobs for decades to come. However, this will require investment on a scale that government alone cannot provide. There are trillions of dollars in private capital waiting to be spent on creating the good jobs and prosperity for workers that a net-zero economy will bring. Canada is competing with other countries to attract the private investment we need.

To succeed, Canada needs to address two challenges. First, we need to incentivize companies to take risks and invest in cutting-edge technology in Canada. Second, we need to keep pace with a growing list of jurisdictions that are using public financing to attract private capital and create the jobs and prosperity for workers that accompany it, from the United States to the European Union and beyond.

In budget 2022, we announced the government's intention to create a Canada growth fund that will help attract private capital to invest in building a thriving, sustainable Canadian economy with thousands of new, good-paying jobs. It will also help Canada keep pace with a growing list of jurisdictions that are using innovative public funding tools to attract the significant private capital required to accelerate the deployment of technologies required to decarbonize and grow their economies.

Since Canada's economic prosperity has traditionally been built on natural resources and other emissions-intensive industries, a substantial transformation of our industrial base will be required to meet our climate targets and ensure long-term prosperity for Canadians and the Canadian economy.

Canada needs to build the technology, infrastructure and businesses to reduce our carbon reliance, but this will not occur without rapidly increasing and then sustaining private investment in activities and sectors that will strengthen Canada's position as a leading low-carbon economy.

Today, while companies and investors are aware of opportunities to commercialize and deploy emissions-reduction technologies, they are often restrained due to investment risks that are frequently associated with these investment opportunities. That is why the fund is designed to invest in a manner that mitigates the risks that currently limit private investment and unlock the domestic and foreign capital that Canada needs now.

The 2022 fall economic statement outlines the design, operation and investment strategy of the growth fund. The mandate of the growth fund will be to make investments that attract substantial private sector investment in Canadian businesses and projects to help seize the opportunities provided by a net-zero economy.

This includes investments that will help reduce emissions and achieve Canada's climate targets; accelerate the deployment of key technologies, such as low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture, utilization and storage; scale up companies that will create jobs, drive productivity and clean growth, and encourage the retention of intellectual property in Canada; and capitalize on Canada's abundance of natural resources and strengthen critical supply chains to secure Canada's future economic and environmental well-being.

In the challenging economic landscape that Canada and the world are contending with, there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown. The measures in Bill C-32, such as the Canada growth fund, will build on actions the government has taken to make sure that Canadians and the Canadian economy come through this challenging economic period as quickly as possible, and that we are ready to thrive when we do.

I encourage all members of the House to support this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is somewhat related to Bill C‑32.

I would like to talk about Bill C‑31, because I have never had the opportunity to ask my NDP friends a question about something that puzzles me. Bill C‑32 contains some mini-measures on housing, but they do not really address the housing crisis.

There is an important measure in Bill C‑31, a $500 cheque to help people. I have spoken to every housing agency in Quebec and they were just about beside themselves when it came to Bill C‑31, which hands out so much money without building a single thing.

People had expectations about the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals. They thought that the NDP would be able to push the government to build housing. Does it not seem to my colleague that the NDP members sold their souls for a bowl of lentils with their agreement with the Liberals?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a great honour to rise today to speak to the government's bill, Bill C-32, which is an act to implement some of the measures announced in the fall economic statement just a few weeks ago before we were all home for the week of Remembrance Day in our respective ridings.

Many of my colleague from all parties have spoken about this, but this comes at a time of great struggle for constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. Overwhelmingly, the correspondence I get in my office regards the high cost of living and the fact that their wages are not keeping up.

We know that the increase in food prices is forcing families to make very difficult decisions at the grocery store. For that reason I am very glad to have won the unanimous support of the agriculture committee to commence a study into that and to have also had a unanimous vote here in the House of Commons acknowledging that this is a very real problem and supporting our committee's work in the weeks ahead. I, for one, am looking forward to hearing representatives of large grocery stores speak to what their companies are prepared to do to address this issue.

There is, of course, the high cost of fuel. The war in Ukraine has sent shockwaves through the energy world. We know this because Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas. Through their geopolitical manoeuvring and attempts to punish countries that are supporting the Ukrainian people in their fight for freedom and in their fight to halt Russian aggression, we have a situation where fuel prices for all sorts of fuels have spiked dramatically.

We have a very real problem of private companies involved in those industries engaging in what I would, frankly, call war profiteering. They are taking advantage of geopolitical tensions to rake in billions of dollars of profit, at a rate that we have never seen in this country before.

As for our health care system, and I think that this is the big sleeper issue in Canada that is only just now starting to get the attention it deserves, it has gotten so bad in my riding that, while it falls largely under provincial jurisdiction, constituents are now coming to me as a federal member of Parliament and pleading with me to do something.

We need to have a nationally focused amount of attention on this crisis. We need to have a Canada where people can be assured that they can have access to primary care when and where they need it. We need to find innovative solutions to help this crisis and address it. I am disappointed that the recent meeting between provincial ministers and the federal minister has yet to result in anything concrete to address the crisis.

Of course, while Canadians are struggling, they see a situation in which it was reported that we collected $31 billion less in corporate taxes than we should have last year. At a time when Canadians are struggling with costs to make their own family budgets work and are seeing more and more of the burden falling on their shoulders, they see Canada's largest and most profitable corporations getting away with it, through innovative tax schemes and hiding their wealth offshore to escape the burden of paying their fair share in this country. That is an issue that we absolutely must pay attention to.

In response to these big issues, my friends in the Conservative Party have focused a lot of their attention on the carbon tax. Yesterday, at the agriculture committee, I agreed with my Conservative colleagues in taking a small step to address some of the challenges that our agricultural producers are facing. We will be reporting Bill C-234 back to the House.

However, on the larger issue, I think that what is ignored by my Conservative friends is the fact that the federal carbon tax does not apply in all provinces. What they are advocating for will have no effect on residents in my province of B.C. because we, as a province, have chosen not to have an Ottawa-knows-best approach on pricing pollution.

We, as a province, have preferred to retain autonomy, so our policy is determined in the B.C. legislature in Victoria under the good and sound guidance of the B.C. NDP government. It allows our province to basically take that revenue and distribute it in ways that it sees fit because we, as a province, do not think that Ottawa should have control over that policy, so we, as a province, have decided to retain autonomy.

The Conservatives' fixation on the carbon tax does not take into account the fact that the inflationary pressures we see in the world are the result of things that are largely beyond the control of Canada as a country. In the United Kingdom, the Labour opposition is blaming a Conservative government for the same thing Conservatives in Canada are blaming a Liberal government for. This is a problem we see in many of the G7 countries. It is not limited to one side of the political spectrum or the other.

Again, if one is going to talk about inflationary pressures and completely ignore the massive profits oil and gas companies are making, one is doing a disservice to one's constituents. One is not addressing the elephant in the room here, which is that corporations are using inflation to hide and to pad the massive profits they are making. We need to have a serious conversation about that.

If we truly want to help Canadians with the unexpected costs that come with heating their homes and fuelling their vehicles, we need to develop policies to get them off fossil fuels. It has always been a volatile energy source. If we go back to the 1970s when OPEC, as a cartel, decided to cut production, we see what that did to North America. It has always been volatile, and as long as we remain dependent on it as an energy source, no matter what the tax policy is, we are going to suffer from that volatility. If we want to truly help Canadians, we need to encourage things such as home retrofits, and encourage programs that get them on different sources of energy.

In the meantime, if we want a policy that is effectively going to help Canadians no matter what province they live in, why do we not go with the NDP policy of removing the GST on home heating fuels? That, in fact, would benefit residents in British Columbia, unlike singly focusing on a federal carbon tax.

When I look at Bill C-32, there are certainly a few good things. I appreciate that the Liberals are starting to see things such as a Canada recovery dividend are necessary. They are limiting it to the large financial institutions. We would like to see such a model be not only not temporary but also extended to oil and gas companies and to the big box stores. This is about putting fairness into the system because right now the free market, the so-called free market, is largely failing Canadians. The free market is trying its best, but the wages are not keeping up with rising costs.

One thing members have not yet mentioned either is that there is a critical mineral exploration tax credit in Bill C-32. Canada has a very troubled history with mining, and any projects that go forward need to absolutely be done in conjunction and in consultation with first nations. If we are truly going to transform our economy into the renewable energy powerhouse it should be, those critical minerals that Canada has an abundance of are going to be key to developing that kind of technology.

What I have often found with the Liberals over my seven years of being in this place is that there are a lot of good ideas but they are not fully fleshed out. They do not go as far as they could have potentially gone to make the full impact we wish they would have done.

There is a lot in Bill C-32 for the committee to consider, and I hope it takes a lot of feedback from a wide variety of witnesses. There are measures here that are building on what we, as new Democrats, have been able to force the government to do, such as doubling the GST credit, providing an interim benefit for dental care and making sure there is help for renters.

I am proud that a caucus with less than 10% of the seats in the House of Commons has been able to achieve these things. This is what I came to Ottawa to do. I came to deliver for my constituents and bring tangible results that make a difference in their lives. Through this and other measures, I will continue to do that, to make sure they are getting the full benefits and assistance they need to weather these tough times so they can come out even more prosperous on the other end.

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

Madam Speaker, it is rather fascinating to listen to my colleague. The Liberal government is pleased to be pleased. It is pleased to be pleased on housing.

In the statement we are looking at today, the first-time homeowner tax credit has been doubled. That increases demand.

Last year, the president of the CMHC said in committee that the first thing to do to help with the housing crisis in Canada is to increase supply. We need 3.5 million housing units in Canada over the next 10 years. We are halfway through the Liberal government's national housing strategy and 35,000 housing units have been built. Bill C‑32 does not provide for any more, either.

Is my colleague truly satisfied with her government's record on housing over the past five years?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that I am here to represent my constituents, who were frustrated when Bill S-207 was rejected but are happy about Bill C-32, which we are discussing today.

They are happy because this government bill contains precisely the measures my constituents need across every sector. For example, we are delivering on our commitment to make home ownership more affordable for young people and new Canadians with a new tax-free first home savings account that will make it so much easier to save for a down payment. That is very important for young Canadians.

We are delivering on this commitment by doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit to help cover the closing costs that come with buying that first home of one's own. We are delivering a multigenerational home renovation tax credit. That is something I am very much looking forward to myself. This will help families across Canada afford to have a grandparent or a family member with a disability move back in if they want to.

We are working to make sure families do not have to choose between taking their child to the dentist and putting food on the table. We are establishing a new quarterly Canada workers benefit, a little-known but important measure for low-income workers. This measure will deliver advance payments and put more money, sooner, into the pockets of our lowest-paid and often most essential workers.

We are providing hundreds of dollars in new targeted support to low-income renters and doubling the GST credit for the next six months.

We are working to deliver lower credit card fees. This is very important for our SMEs, which are often family businesses. That way, they will not have to choose between cutting into their already narrow margins and passing fees on to their customers.

We are taxing share buybacks to make sure that large corporations pay their fair share and to encourage them to reinvest their profits in workers and in Canada.

We are tackling housing speculation and making sure that homes are for Canadians to live in, not a frequently flipped investment asset. That is proof of our respect for the citizens of Canada and Quebec.

That is what we are dealing with, and that is why we must work together here in the House of Commons. That is what Canadians expect of us and why they elected us. They do not want to see frivolous quarrels and they do not want pointless drama. No, Canadians expect us to work together to take concrete action to improve their quality of life.

Bill C-32 includes measures that Canadians are eagerly awaiting, in my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle and across the country.

I was in Lacolle last weekend, and the mayor asked me a question about Bill S-207. That said, I do not want to stray from the topic at hand.

In my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle and across the country, people are counting on the government to help them through these tougher economic times. Everyone is feeling the crunch. We are fortunate to have numerous organizations we can count on, such as the Châteauguay Community Centre, La Rencontre châteauguoise, Entraide Mercier, Sourire sans fin and the many volunteer-run centres and services in the region. These organizations help the most disadvantaged on a daily basis. There is also the Société locative d'investissement et de développement social and the Fédération régionale des OSBL d'habitation de la Montérégie et de l'Estrie, which work to offer affordable housing. Some wonderful projects have been implemented in my riding recently thanks to the tireless efforts of these people who work in the field of social housing. That being said, even these organizations are swamped with a growing number of requests from citizens in need.

We need to be there to help our fellow citizens. Canadians expect us to help them by investing in quality of life and by supporting SMEs so that they can continue to operate in a stable environment.

In my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, we are very proud of our spirit of entrepreneurship. These SMEs are our partners. They support millions of Canadians by providing jobs that allow them to support their families. Canadians would not want to see us squander our nest egg on cryptocurrency.

What is it with bitcoin? It makes me mad. That is what some members have proposed here in the House and elsewhere.

Our government is aware of the challenges Canadians are facing. Right now, Canadians across the country are feeling the effects of inflation thanks to increased food and rent prices, but they are also worried about the future. It is our role as members of Parliament to reassure them by implementing measures like those in Bill C-32.

We want to continue making life more affordable for people and building an economy that works for all Canadians. It is not complicated. We invest in Canadians in need and ask the wealthiest, especially companies, to pay their fair share. That will help everyone.

The 2022 fall economic statement is focused on building an economy that works for everyone and ensuring that no one is left behind. The investments we are making today will make Canada more sustainable and more prosperous for generations to come.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C‑32. The economic statement presented by my colleague, the member for University—Rosedale, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, earlier this month once again demonstrates how committed our government is to helping those most in need, to helping Canadians deal with the rising cost of living and the housing crisis, just as we are helping Canadian businesses. This is exactly the kind of bill my constituents want from our government.

It is actually a bit like a bill I introduced in the House, namely Bill S‑207, which sought to change the name of my riding from Châteauguay—Lacolle to Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. Some members in the House told me that they understood my constituents' frustration and they supported my efforts to change the name. Then they voted against the motion, for reasons that I will never understand. They voted against the very will of the people of my region. Others claimed that I was not using my time wisely by wanting to correct a mistake that was affecting my constituents, and that I should have introduced different legislation.

It is not just the fact that I was elected here to represent—

The House resumed from November 14 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 second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Taxation

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, as the Canadian economy faces a period of slower economic growth due to the global challenge of high inflation and higher interest rates, our government understands that many Canadians are worried. They are certainly not relieved by the speech they just heard, but it is important to remember that inflation is a global phenomenon. It is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic.

Despite the Conservative leader's continued attempts to minimize the effects of the war in Ukraine, inflation has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and by the supply chain challenges that are affecting people and businesses, frankly, right around the world. Fortunately, there is no country better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown and thrive in the years ahead. Indeed, Canada has the strongest economic growth in the G7 so far this year, and we have maintained our position as the G7 country with the lowest net debt and deficit-to-GDP ratios. Our country has a AAA credit rating, a recognition of our strong fiscal position. Canada also has an unemployment rate near its record low, as 500,000 more Canadians are working today than were before the pandemic.

While Canada's inflation rate is less severe, at 6.9%, than that of many of our peers, like the United States, at 7.7%, the United Kingdom, at 10.1%, and Germany, at 10.4%, we appreciate that this will continue to be a difficult time for many Canadians. That is why we are moving forward with our affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. It is already putting more money back into the pockets of the most vulnerable Canadians and those who need it the most. While the Conservatives continue to oppose these compassionate measures, we will continue to be there for Canadians with support that has been carefully designed to avoid making inflation worse.

For example, individuals and families receiving the GST credit started receiving an additional $2.5 billion in support earlier this month. Despite Conservative efforts to oppose and block our compassionate plan, with Bill C-31, we are proposing to create the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 and families with annual incomes under $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. Following the fall economic statement, we are also moving forward with Bill C-32 to make the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprentice loans permanently interest free, including those currently being repaid.

Canadians can count on our government to continue running a tight fiscal ship. I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that all of these support measures are targeted, fiscally responsible and continue to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio.

When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while putting money back into the pockets of most Canadians. I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that unfortunately climate action is no longer a theoretically political debate. It is an economic necessity.

Canadians all know that the Conservatives do not have a serious plan to tackle climate change, which means they also do not have a plan to grow the Canadian economy. Earlier this month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published an analysis showing that climate change has negatively impacted and will continue to negatively impact the Canadian economy. Our plan makes life more affordable, grows the economy, fights climate change and puts Canada in a great position to benefit from the growing global opportunity that is clean growth and from the creation of hundreds of thousands of good-paying, sustainable jobs.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, seniors are impacted even more so, especially during these trying times with Liberal inflation and the lack of respect and attention they have been given in Bill C-32. When we look at the visits to food banks, in the territories we are getting close to the 10% mark. Seniors are part of that group. It is sad to say that the government simply does not respect them.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to debate Bill C-32, the fall fiscal update, as Canadians are hearing it. Sadly, the Liberals had a huge opportunity to help northern Canadians heat their homes and stay out of the food banks, but unfortunately, it does nothing to help northerners stay warm or buy groceries.

Let us start first with Yukon. The Yukon Party up there does a great job of really keeping its own Liberal government to account. A member of the Yukon Party, Wade Istchenko, speaks to what we have been saying in the House on the Liberal carbon tax. He said, “while this Liberal government promotes their federal counterpart's crippling carbon tax, everyday Yukoners sitting down with their families are trying to figure out how to finance this month's oil bill and buy groceries at the same time.”

The member from Winnipeg North says that everything is grand, and he even repeated it for me, but clearly it is not in the territories.

Cutting Disney+ does not do much to cover the $1,800 home heating fuel bill, so Yukon has become an unaffordable place to live under the Liberal government. I would like to mention that $1,800 is the first payment of many to heat our homes for the winter. It is not just Conservatives in Ottawa who are saying this. Members of the Yukon Party are agreeing that it is a huge problem to pay bills in the north. The Liberals have done nothing to address that with Bill C-32.

I will move now to Northwest Territories. We hear that the carbon tax is great. We even heard this evening that Canadians get thousands more back than they ever contribute. It is hogwash, and we all know it.

Another article's headline reads, “Bill to change N.W.T. carbon tax rebates would hurt remote communities the most, say MLAs.” Again, it is supposed to all be coming back, and more, but here is the truth on the ground in Northwest Territories.

The article continues, “The change comes in order to comply with new federal regulations that, in addition to increasing carbon prices, prohibit carbon tax rebates that directly reduce the impact of the carbon tax.”

I heard a member say, “What?” Again, Liberals talk a big game about supporting folks and how they are going to see most of their money back, and more, but they are actually getting in the way of a rebate that would see some of this federal carbon tax money get back to residents of Northwest Territories.

The article goes on, “Questioning the minister, Jackie Jacobson, MLA for Nunakput, said he understands 'the federal government is forcing our government's hand,' but argued 'there has to be a way that the [Government of Northwest Territories] can draw a line to stop rising costs for the residents in Nunakput.'

This is quite a different story than what we have heard. We are hearing from these guys on a daily basis that things are grand, and the NDP beside us here just goes along with it and says that everything is grand, while it is clearly not on the ground in the north. It is not good on the ground across the board in Canada for all Canadians, but especially in the north.

I will talk a bit about housing. In a recent announcement in Yellowknife, the Liberals announced more money for housing in the north. It sounds great on the outset, but how many times have we heard the announcements made but saw zero outcomes on the ground?

I was up in Nunavut and Inuvik, where I asked about this, and I have asked this question in the House before. I asked how many houses had been built this year, after the promises made by the Liberal government. How many houses were built in Nunavut? Zero were built.

We have announcement after announcement after announcement, yet zero houses and residences are getting built for the people in the territories. Promises do not matter. The member across the way from Northwest Territories will know that promises do not go very far when it is -20°C, -30°C or even worse, -40°C, especially when one does not have a place to live.

The promises come, but the impacts of just inflation are real on the ground. We see promises made for houses to get built, but this is what happened in Nunavut. An article from the CBC, related to inflation, states that in one case, inflation led to delays and to a contractor “backing out of a 10-unit Taloyoak project because the housing corporation took so long to award the contract, with building costs spiking in the meantime” due to inflation.

The article continues, “Kusugak also insisted the $10-million bid for a 16-unit project in Iqaluit was, in fact, withdrawn by the company that placed it.” Why was that contract retracted or rescinded? “All housing tenders this year have been cancelled because of high costs”, or inflation.

This is all while the member from Winnipeg says that there is nothing to see here and everything is grand. Well, it is not. Whether it is carbon tax and home heating or it is lack of housing in the north, the Liberal government is absolutely failing.

For my final couple of points, we talked about the cost of living. I got to see this first-hand. In a grocery store in Nunavut or Inuvik or wherever we go, a jug of milk costs us a lot of money. It is seven to eight bucks, and up there it is 20 bucks. That is just a carton of milk. We can look at ketchup or Kraft dinner, and Kraft dinner is almost $4 a box, but everything is grand according to the Liberals across the way.

Another article is entitled “Northerners are hitting the cost of living breaking point”. This is in Northwest Territories. The article says, “The Salvation Army in Yellowknife says it has helped 1400 more people this year compared to 2021”. It is kind of puzzling because, again, according to the Liberal government, everything is great, while we have seen this massive spike in people visiting food banks across the territories.

The article also quotes the organization's executive director:

The general comment is that food price increases, along with other household costs, [are] making it increasingly difficult to maintain bill payments.

As recently as today, I have heard from other non-profits that are expressing the same concerns. They too are seeing an increase in the need for food among other supports.

I will repeat it: If everything was grand, why are we seeing more visits to the food banks? It is not just in urban settings. I am talking about the territories specifically, and I will get a bit more specific with the numbers. We are almost getting to the 10% mark with respect to residents of the territories having to visit a food bank.

The final article that I will quote is titled “'A really alarming crisis': Iqaluit's food bank now feeding 500 people a day, many of them children”. It states:

In October of last year, the Qajuqturvik Community Food Centre was serving about 150 meals per day. Blais, the food bank's executive director, says they're now serving more than 500—well beyond their capacity.

The article goes on:

Food Banks Canada's latest report estimates more than 6,200 people across the three territories accessed their local food banks in March 2022 alone, and nearly a third of them were children.

They were at 6,200, and that was in March. We know things have gotten a lot worse. Even the Deputy Prime Minister is acknowledging that we are in for a tough road ahead. Many of our northerners are already seeing this. That number of 6,200 alone, as of March, pointed to a 36% increase in the number of people who have needed to access a food bank.

I started off by saying that Liberal promises in this economic update do not help northerners. The update simply does not help them stay warm; it does not help them buy groceries, and I wish it would.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the needs our communities have, and if we want to be able to assist young people, one of the best ways we can do that is to take a look at the loan capacity students have had to go through over the last number of years.

We want to say to our students that we will directly help them by not having them pay interest on loans. That is going to give students and apprentices in every region of our country the opportunity to save money. That money is going to assist them, not only with the issue of inflation that we are dealing with today, but also into the future. We are making schooling that much more affordable.

We have a responsibility to work with provincial jurisdictions. Supporting students by coming up with this particular fall economic statement and Bill C-32 is one of the ways Ottawa can demonstrate leadership.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I acknowledge that, in principle, Bill C‑32 is about implementing economic provisions. First of all, I want to say that my colleague's comments towards his opposition colleagues are mean, nasty and pure rhetoric.

The opposition members are clearly stating that the government is missing some good opportunities and avoiding big challenges that it could have attempted to address. I will give one example found in this statement, an example of a ridiculous measure that demonstrates it has failed to address major challenges. The statement indicates that the government will work on a Canada-U.S. agreement for compensation for government employees who go to the moon. What a fine and urgent priority.

Does my colleague believe that it is important and pertinent to work on an agreement on compensation for government employees who go to the moon?

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your help in circumventing the rules. That is very kind and much appreciated.

They are here for a cure and for more funding so we can get the cure for juvenile diabetes. This is extremely important and we welcome their presence on Parliament Hill. This is a sign of the kinds of investments that need to be made, but they are, sadly, not being made through the fall economic update.

There are a number of things in the update that I think we can all support. First is the NDP drive for years to take the interest off apprenticeship and student loans. The NDP has pushed on this for years. Members will recall that when COVID hit back in 2020, on March 13 I was pleased to rise in the parliamentary press gallery to push the government, along with my NDP caucus colleagues, to remove the interest on student loans and to freeze repayment during the COVID pandemic.

To the government's credit, it did move in that regard, but it had not taken the move that so many student groups and students across the country, as well as the NDP caucus, the member for Burnaby South and I, had been pushing for years: that the government should not be profiting anymore from student loans. This is the debt that students undertake in this country for apprenticeship and student loans to gain the skills that will contribute to a vital economy in this country. The government should not be profiting from that, and it is something the NDP has been pressuring this Parliament and the government on for many years. We have finally achieved it, and the interest on the federal portion of student and apprenticeship loans will be eliminated. That is a welcome action, subject to the NDP pushing this consistently and constantly in Parliament.

Also, the government finally took action on what has been a profound loss on behalf of Canadians, and that is the massive amounts of money made by large corporations and the ultrarich in Canada that is taken overseas. The member for Burnaby South, who is our leader, and the NDP caucus have been calling for years for the government to put in place fair tax rules so that everybody pays their fair share. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that it was $25 billion a year under the former Harper government and is now over $30 billion a year. That is money that could be spent on so many other things, but instead it goes to overseas tax havens and tax loopholes.

For Shay, Andrei and their parents, imagine the investments we could make to find a cure for juvenile diabetes. Instead of having $30 billion going offshore, we could have substantial investments in our health care system and in research. This would make a big difference in finding a cure. It would make a big difference in the quality of our health care system. It is $30 billion that is lost, and this is a minimum. As we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which always admits there is a certain margin, the conservative figure, meaning a modest underestimate of the final amount of money that goes to overseas tax havens and tax loopholes, is now over $30 billion a year.

Given that context, what would the government do? Would the government step up and curb that? The member for Burnaby South called for an excess profits tax, such as we had in the Second World War. During COVID, this was something the NDP repeatedly raised. In the Second World War, at the height of crisis, an excess profits tax was put in place that allowed companies that were benefiting from increased profits to pay their fair share in contributing to the war effort.

As a result of that, Canadians were able to play such an important role in bringing an end to the massive hatred and genocide that was engendered by Nazism and fascism in Europe. That was absolutely fundamental.

The NDP have called for an excess profits tax. The NDP have called for a windfall profits tax, as we have seen oil and gas companies making windfall profits. The big grocery giant chains have been making windfall profits with inflation, raising their prices far beyond, which has engendered the term “greedflation”. That is a result of the fact that we have companies now profiting from inflation by jacking up their prices even more than what the inflation figures would actually justify. That greedflation has promoted and forced incredible hardship on Canadian families from coast to coast to coast.

We called for an excess profits tax. We called for a windfall profits tax. Ultimately, Liberals stepped up in this fall economic statement. They stepped up. Again, the figure is over $30 billion a year. Given the hardship that Canadians are facing and the importance of putting in place investments that will make a difference in their lives, in this corner of the House, the NDP have been fighting hard.

We have succeeded in getting dental care in place, and we know now that families will be able to pay for their children's dental work for kids 12 and under. Next year it will be youth 18 and under, seniors and people with disabilities. We forced a rental supplement that will be paid out to well over a million Canadians who are struggling to pay for their rent right now, and we forced a doubling of the GST to make sure that over 12 million Canadians who have lower incomes will actually have the wherewithal to put food on the table. These are all things that we forced.

We believe that our role is to continue to push Parliament and the government to provide supports to Canadians who are really struggling at this tough time. To do that, we need to make sure we close the loopholes and stop the hemorrhaging of tax dollars by big corporations and the ultrarich's overseas tax havens. As I mentioned, the figure is $30 billion.

I am asking a rhetorical question, but what percentage would colleagues think a responsible government, in a time of crisis, would actually start to curb that hemorrhaging of money to overseas tax havens, those windfall profits, those excess profits? What percentage would it be?

Mr. Speaker, if it were you or I running our household expenditures, I do not think we would be talking in the single digits. I think we would be talking about the idea that we all need to contribute, at this critical time, to the effort to provide Canadians with supports, including those for seniors and people with disabilities. The disability benefit and all of those things need to be put in place. At $30 billion, one would want to take a substantial proportion of that because that is money that could be helping Canadians but is being taken from Canadians and taken overseas.

Did the government take 20%? No, it did not. Did it take 15%? No, it did not. Did it take even 10%? That would be a very modest amount of money, which should be paid into public coffers to help all of us, the commonwealth in this country.

The fact is that Canadians pay their taxes assiduously, honestly, with integrity every year. Small businesses file their tax returns. People with disabilities file their tax returns. Families file their tax returns. People file their tax returns. They pay their fair share to provide that support that all Canadians can hopefully benefit from. Big corporations and the ultrarich do not do this.

One would think that 10% would be a relatively small amount but the government did not even go there. It did not go to 9%, 8%, 7%, 6% or even 5%, 4% or 3%. The sum total of the government's attempt to curb massive overseas tax evasion, windfall profits by the banks and big corporations, is a tax that will bring in about 2% of that amount. It applies to banks and life insurance groups, and that is it. It is 2%.

There is a real problem with Bill C-32. Yes, there is the NDP influence. New Democrats pushed proposals that would make a difference in the lives of Canadian students, and there are the other elements that we brought to bear over the course of the last few weeks, including the doubling of the GST credit, ensuring dental care and ensuring rental supports. All of those things do make a difference.

However, above all, this fall economic statement is a lost opportunity. It is a lost opportunity for Shay and Andrei and all of those activists in Kids for a Cure, who are looking for support for Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. It is a lost opportunity for those seniors who are struggling to make ends meet and really need support for an increase in their pensions. It is a lost opportunity when we compare, as far as student loans are concerned, the significant measures taken by the Biden administration in the United States to what we see here. Eliminating interest is an important NDP initiative, but it falls far short of what is actually needed.

Last spring, in the budget, the NDP forced significant investments in housing so that they start to build the housing required to make sure that every Canadian has a roof over their head at night and has that right to housing, and we are going to see the product of that in the coming year or two. However, we still have a long way to go. This fall economic statement is, again, a lost opportunity because there is not that increase in investments that could have made such a difference.

It is a lost opportunity when it comes to taking the GST off home heating. Members will recall that just a few weeks ago, on a Conservative opposition day, we proposed an amendment that would have taken the GST off of home heating. To the surprise of all of us, because in 2019 the Conservatives campaigned on taking the GST off home heating, when the NDP made that proposal for the amendment, they said no, which kind of flies in the face of it. When they make commitments on the campaign trail, they should keep them in the House of Commons. The Conservatives chose not to keep that commitment in the House of Commons. Therefore, this was another lost opportunity in the fall economic statement.

Above all, the issue of tax fairness in this country is becoming a huge and growing problem. We have needs to be met. We have an infrastructure deficit. We have Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. We really need to have a tax system that ensures that everybody pays their fair share. We know that regular families do. We know that seniors do. We know that people with disabilities do and students do. They file their tax returns. They pay what they owe. We grumble sometimes when we do that, but we understand that there is something better and that is why we make those contributions.

We want to build a better country. We want a country where everybody can benefit and where nobody is left behind. We want to build a country where there is housing for everybody.

The member of Parliament for Nunavut has been an incredible campaigner and incredibly outspoken on the dearth of housing in Nunavut and the housing crisis up there. For a fraction of that $30 billion that goes offshore every year, we could be providing supports so that the people of Nunavut actually get the housing they deserve. These would be supports for housing for people right across the country and indigenous-led housing developments right across the country because, in so many first nations communities, housing is simply not there. We can provide housing for everybody in this country.

We can provide supports for everybody, including a disability benefit, which the NDP campaigned on. We continue to push the government to actually establish that benefit, and not just talk about but put in place, so it starts helping people today, including people with disabilities.

As members know, as we have seen the growing food bank lineups across the country, more than half of those people who are lining up are people with disabilities. We can provide those benefits now with tax fairness. We have the wherewithal to make those investments in housing and to make those investments to ensure that people get a basic level of income to allow them to live in dignity. We can provide the supports for our health care system so that we can ensure we are moving to an even better health care system.

The architect of our health care system, Tommy Douglas, always believed that it was the funding that was so essential. What we have seen under previous governments, both Conservative and now the current Liberal government, is an erosion of that funding, which has led to a deterioration of our public health care system, an institution that Canadians hold dear. We have to make sure that we are reinvesting in health care, and that includes reinvesting in research, which brings me back to Shay Larkin and Andrei Marti, who are here on the Hill to talk about more money for research to find a cure for juvenile diabetes.

There are many other advocates who come to the Hill who need funding, and sometimes remarkably small amounts compared with the $30 billion that we blow away every year to overseas tax havens to help the ultrarich and big corporations increase their profits. However, often for a very small fraction of that money, we could have breakthrough cures for a whole range of diseases.

We can do that in this country. We should be able to do that in this country. We should be able to provide the funding to renew our infrastructure across the country. We should be able to find the funding to ensure that we can provide post-secondary education and apprenticeship training in the whole range of areas where we have skills shortages. We should be able to do all of those things, but that starts with tax fairness. Other countries have put in place windfall taxes and excess profits taxes. They have closed loopholes. They have ensured that they actually cut off that flow of money out of their country, which is really, in a sense, the theft of taxpayers' money.

The money that we keep as a commonwealth, that we put together collectively to ensure the health and well-being of all of our citizens, should be used properly. It is not supposed to be on a beach in the Bahamas. That money is supposed to be helping that senior in Smithers, British Columbia. That money is supposed to be helping in Iqaluit with the dearth of affordable housing that we have. It is supposed to be funding the Nanaimo infrastructure that we are seeing. It is supposed to be funding, in New Westminster—Burnaby, supports for the Royal Columbian Hospital and Douglas College. These are all the things we can achieve when we have fair taxes.

Are there good things in the fall economic statement? Yes, and the NDP is proud to have pushed for those things and succeeded in getting them. However, does this fall economic statement fall short of what is needed? Absolutely, and there is a need for tax fairness that goes far beyond taking 2% of what is going to overseas tax havens. We can do that. One day there will be an NDP government in this country. When there is, we will see the kind of fair tax system that can make such a difference for all Canadians.

The House resumed 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Today, during the debate on Bill C‑32, the Conservatives proposed getting rid of the carbon tax on home heating in order to make life more affordable for Canadians.

In Quebec, where the majority of heating is electric, this would have almost no impact on families who are struggling to make ends meet.

Does my colleague agree that eliminating the GST on home heating would be a better way to help Quebeckers and Canadians?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, part of an MP's job is to acknowledge the achievements of people from our riding. I am going to take a few seconds to talk about an important event that took place on the weekend.

There was a tournament of our national sport, the Canadian Hockey Enterprises Canadian Cup, in Saint-Constant, in my riding. Teams from Ontario and Quebec came to play, along with a local team, Arsenal Cadet D2 from the Jacques Leber school. Under the masterful guidance of Yann Hallé and Matt Grenon, our local team won the tournament. That is outstanding news.

I could list the players who truly put all of their talent on display, but it was a team win. I would first like to say that the goalies really put up a brick wall, letting in just two goals in five games and posting three shutouts. The defence held firm. No one was getting by them. The offence used all their energy to create scoring chances. All this combined helped Arsenal win. The players lifted the trophy in front of parents and friends who were extremely proud of their heroes. Congratulations to the Arsenal players for playing so well.

Now I will turn to Bill C‑32. That is what we are here for, and I get the feeling people are eager to hear what I have to say about it, so here goes.

I want to go over what led to the introduction of Bill C‑32. They say that opportunity makes a thief. They also say that heroes are born in times of crisis, and history has proven that to be true. We have witnessed truly difficult times, and we have seen extraordinary people, in both thought and deed, emerge.

To be honest, I am a very hopeful guy. I am optimistic by nature. People even stop me on the street to say so. I have pondered this difficult economic situation, with inflation at its highest point in 30 years and the looming threat of recession. People who take an interest in economics know how rare it is for these two conditions to occur simultaneously. It is very rare, and the situation is critical.

The health care system is broken everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec. ER doctors recently said we have hit the breaking point. This is serious. ER doctors on the ground working with people say things are really bad.

The rigours of inflation have hit seniors especially hard because they are on fixed incomes. These people were expecting help.

In addition, six out of 10 people do not have access to employment insurance. This system is so bad that CERB had to be created during the COVID-19 crisis because the system was unable to fulfill its mandate. In addition, employment insurance is what is known in economics as an automatic stabilizer. That means that when the economy is bad, employment insurance helps people who are in financial distress. We thought that the Liberals were actually going to do something about it and that the stage was set.

We were looking forward to the economic statement. Someone said to me that it was going to be as sensational as a kangaroo on a trampoline. It was set to be quite a show. I asked him if he was sure. Well, so much for the kangaroo. These are extraordinary times, but the statement was a massive flop. That reminds me of something else.

I went to a baseball game this summer. There was a peewee player who weighed at least 200 pounds and had a moustache. When he went up to bat, the pitcher threw some balls and everyone was sure he would hit one out of the park. He took a swing, hit a 10-foot grounder and basically staggered to first base. The defence was not at its best, but when the player got to first base, no one told him that he had not done well. He was patted on the back, and what he did was somewhat comparable to what the government has done.

The Bloc Québécois has taken stock of what the government has done, the short 10-foot ground balls, and we do have to pat it on the back, not because it has impressed us, but because what little it has achieved is not so bad.

Given the circumstances, we expected 100% and we got 3%. Hooray for the 3% and for the effort. That is what we can say to this government.

What is in this document? Nothing spectacular, but the government does use the word “inflation” 115 times. It was excited. It decided that it was not going to do anything about inflation, but that it was going to do an incantation. The government decided to talk about inflation so much that people would think that it is going to do what needs to be done about it. That is an old, outdated strategy, but the government thinks that it is enough to say “inflation” while gathering around the fire.

In the end, we see that nothing is happening. Simply saying a word over and over is not going to change anything. The government needs to take action, but as we have seen, it is not doing so. The government is staying static, and it is business as usual. That is what this government always does. Regardless of the situation, regardless of whether the issue falls within its jurisdiction, the government does nothing. Things have gotten to the point where, when it finally does do something, we are shocked because we are not used to it.

We can see that the government has dusted off some legislative standards and is serving up the same old thing when it talks about giving back money through the goods and services tax credits. It says that is good news. Last week in the House, the Liberals were applauding and cheering, and one of them even almost sent his glasses flying in the excitement.

That is an okay measure, but the Bloc Québécois had been calling for this to be done for a whole year. The Liberals dragged their feet, but at least they did it. It is the least they could do. It is a grounder, but it is still worthwhile.

What did the Liberals do for seniors? I did not say that because we are also dealing with a shortage of workers. We are not asking them to do something about the shortage of workers because they are way too mixed up. The Bloc Québécois is saying that we need to encourage those who are retiring to re-enter the workforce and give them tax exemptions. We need to tell them that if they want to go back to work, we are there to help, but that they are not being forced into anything. If they do not want to go back, that is not a problem.

What they are doing, what they have said several times, is that they will solve the worker shortage in a very simple way, namely, by giving nothing to seniors aged 65 to 75. Sooner or later, those seniors will have so little money that they will be forced to go back to work, and that will help solve the worker shortage. That is pure nonsense. That is not how it works. It must be an incentive. It should not be forced on them because these people do not have enough money to make it through this period of high inflation. The government does not understand this.

The Liberals have been telling us for seven years that something needs to be done about EI, that we have to wait and something is in the works. We have been waiting for seven years, but nothing has been done. They will not tell us anything. It seems that something is brewing, but no one will tell us what that might be.

It would have been easy to fight inflation intelligently. Inflation, among other things, is a result of supply chain issues. It is a result of our dependence on fossil fuels. That is a problem for us, which means that we are dependent on the fluctuating prices of fossil fuels, including oil. That is very easy to understand. We need to move toward clean energy, but the Liberals are incapable of doing so. They are encouraging oil companies to continue to produce. Canada is the only G7 country to increase its greenhouse gas emissions and they are happy.

I will end with something very simple. I was saying that we expected a lot and that the Liberals did nothing about employment insurance and health transfers. They would rather bicker. It is futile and they are bickering. A fat lot of good that does us.

However, they did do something very important and I am sure that, when I talk about it in my riding, people will say that this is quite the government. The Liberals implemented a Canada-United States agreement on the treatment of public servants who go to the moon. It seems that this is a far-sighted government that talks about what will happen on the moon but has no idea what is happening on earth.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When I first saw that this motion had come up for consideration, it was quite confusing. I'm part of the class of 2019, so I've spent half that time, or close to it, Zooming in, but in my understanding, from the time I have been here, legislation has a process that it follows. It gets introduced, it gets debated in the House and then it gets voted on to go to committee.

Now, I guess the trouble I'm having with this motion is the fact that we have not, in the House, voted to send this Bill C‑32 to committee, so I'm not quite sure why we're having this motion. In fact, it is somewhat offensive in this sense. Canadians have voted in two elections, one in 2019 and the unnecessary election in 2021, which both brought forward minority Parliaments. They voted—both those elections cost hundreds of millions of dollars—and they sent us here to consider legislation.

I think they would have a lot of trouble understanding why this committee would presuppose that Bill C‑32 would actually pass in the House. I think that's the underlying message of this motion. You're asking the committee to study something which is not been sent to committee by the House.

I find it quite unusual. It's not following proper process to try to bring this motion to committee before a vote has been taken place.

I want to give a real-life example of this. Many of you are familiar with my private member's bill, Bill C-256. Many of the Liberals are. I spoke to many of them about Bill C‑256. Some of them are here today in this committee meeting.

Bill C‑256 was what was called the “supporting Canadian charities act” and was designed to build on existing law that would give a waiver of the capital gains tax to private shares and real estate similar to what currently goes on with publicly traded securities. Now, for example, if you want to make a contribution of your publicly traded stock to, in the Winnipeg context, say, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, you can do that, and you'll get a tax receipt for the full amount of the contribution and you'll get a waiver of our capital gains tax. That's been the law of the land for over 20 years. My bill wanted to expand that to the sale proceeds of private shares and real estate.

Now, the reason I'm bringing it up is that I went through all the proper processes. I had the bill drafted, I introduced it into the House, we had our first hour of debate and we had our second hour of debate. I spent months talking to colleagues and all parties of this House, from the Green Party to the NDP to the Bloc, to the Liberals, in trying to gather support for this bill.

I did all the things that we are supposed to do as legislators to bring my legislation forward. Then, after the second hour of debate, it was brought up for a vote. This is not sour grapes, this is fair enough, and I accept the will of Parliament, but Parliament did not vote to send Bill C‑256 to committee. In fact, it would have come to this committee had it passed.

Looking back on it now, if this is the way things are to be, the next time I bring up a private member's bill, I'm going to bring a motion to the finance committee every time, and I would encourage every member to do that. Just bring a motion and have it considered by committee before the House even votes on it. Why bother with inconveniences like a vote in the House of Commons? Let's just skip that step altogether, bring it to committee and consider it here.

What would have happened, I wonder, if I had done that and this committee had agreed to hear Bill C‑256 before the vote in the House? What if we had agreed to have a study about it and we had spent weeks doing clause-by-clause, hearing from witnesses from the various charities across the country, hearing from tax accountants who could give us advice on the bill and hearing from the public service, who could give us advice on the bill? What if we had done that in advance of the vote in the House?

You know what would have happened, Mr. Chair. We would have wasted a pile of time.

I don't think the underlying flaw with this motion, Mr. Beech's motion, is that it presupposes the will of Parliament. It's asking to study a piece of legislation that we have not voted on to send to committee, and that is a fundamental flaw.

Now, I do want to talk a little bit about some of my experience on this committee. Some of you may remember that I was on this committee in my first year here, and then I went over to the foreign affairs committee. The year I was there, we were able to talk to the governors of the bank. The outgoing governor, Mr. Poloz, was here, and the incoming governor, Mr. Macklem, was here. This was in May and June of 2020. I had rounds with both of them. The funny thing is that I look back on those rounds quite often now because they are very interesting.

The round with Governor Poloz went something like this. Don't you think that this program of quantitative easing that you're engaged in of increasing the money supply might trigger inflation, and that inflation might trigger an increase in interest rates? I gave him historical examples, for example, what happened in the Weimar Republic after World War I, when the Government of Germany started printing money in order to fund war reparations and hyperinflation took hold, in fact, and people were literally going to the markets with wheelbarrows full of cash, not knowing how much things were going cost.

Do you know what Mr. Poloz's response was to whether it would cause inflation or interest rate hikes? He said no, that we were in such a deep hole that parliamentarians should be concerned about deflation, that it would be the worst thing that could happen. He said that we were not going to have inflation and that interest rates, if they went up one day, would be a nice problem to have.

You guys go back and listen to that tape. That's exactly what he said. It's a very interesting conversation.

Do you know what? A month later, Governor Macklem came, and I asked him the same thing. I asked if this program of quantitative easing that he was embarking on was going to have some effect, that increasing the money supply from $1.8 trillion to $2.3 trillion, almost 25%, might have an effect on the cost of goods in our economy. Well, do you know what he said? He said no and that we were in such a deep hole that they were not worried about inflation, that it wasn't going to happen and that they were not worried about interest rates going up. He said that, if interest rates went up, and maybe they would, that would be a good problem to have.

These guys both said that.

Fast-forward to today, when interest rates have gone up from the basis point of a 0.25% overnight rate to 3.75% in about six months. People's mortgage payments have quadrupled on top of the tripling of the carbon tax. People's mortgage payments are literally quadrupling almost overnight.

Now fast-forward to today. What are these same folks saying? We have Mark Carney saying that he thinks that Bank of Canada went too far and that they should have curtailed its quantitative easing program sooner. We have Deputy Governor Beaudry, who is at the bank as we speak, saying similar things. Even Governor Macklem is saying these things now. It is quite concerning that this has all gone on.

I'll just add one other thing. I want to talk about Prime Minister Paul Martin for a second. Before Paul Martin was prime minister, when he was finance minister in 1995, he brought down what was the most draconian budget in the history of this country. If you aren't familiar with it, I would urge you to go back and read about it. What he did was he cut transfer payments. He cut transfers to provinces for health and education. Can you imagine a government today trying to do that? He did it. Why did he do it? That's a rhetorical question, because I have the floor, so please don't answer it.

Why did he do it? Why did he cut transfers to the provinces? Did he just wake up one morning and think that this would be a good idea, that maybe we would balance the budget a little more quickly? Did he do it because he wanted to? Well, no. We know he didn't do it because he wanted to; he did it because he was forced to.

Why was he forced to? It's because big government spending had forced up interest rates in the 1990s to 6% or 7%, debt service had become a massive proportion—does any of this sound familiar?

Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question, as well.

Government deficits, debts, had grown, interest rates had gone up and debt servicing was a massive part of the government's financial obligations, just like it's becoming now. The conservative estimate, which I think comes out of the fall economic update, is that next year the debt service will be $40 billion, up from $23 billion, almost doubled and almost as much as the health transfer.

But that's not exactly why he did it. Do you know why he did it? He was forced to. He was forced to because the bond rating agencies downgraded Canada. The Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post—one of those papers—called Canada an economic basket case on the verge of being third world status, which was the terminology they used back in that day.

Paul Martin didn't do it because he wanted to, because it made him happy to do it, he did it because he was forced to. I worry a lot—and I've talked about this before in my speeches in the House—that we are heading down a similar path. I cautioned about it in the past because I lived through the years of high interest rates.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to go off topic just for a second if you'll bear with me. When I bought my first place back in 1989 in Winnipeg—it was a condo in Osborne Village—it cost $86,000. I had a $75,000 mortgage with TD Bank. Do you know what my interest rate was? It was 12.75%. It was a first mortgage. That was a good rate. That was a very good rate to get. I was lucky to get it.

We are heading down a very dangerous path and this statement does the two things that are going to make it even worse. It's just bad medicine. It's bad medicine for the economy. What are those two things? They're increasing spending by at least $20 billion over the next five years, and they're increasing taxes. They're increasing taxes on Canadians through the paycheck taxes.

My pet peeve is the excise tax. They actually want to charge more—6% or 7% more—for a beer. That's sacrilege in Canada. Leave the beer alone. Let people have their beer. That's what they want to do. They think that's the solution.

Now they want to tax share buybacks. What I find interesting about that is that when they brought in the TOSI rules one of the things they changed was they said, if you're going to keep income in your company that you're not using for business purposes—what they called passive income—we're going to increase the tax rate to your nominal tax rate, and essentially what you would pay if it was considered to be personal income. The interest that you earned, or the dividends you earned, on the passive income inside a company, that was going to be taxed at a higher rate.

Why did they do that? It's because they wanted that money out of the company and in the economy doing something. That was the tax policy reason for it and so business people all over the country started to shed their passive investments and remove them from their company so that they could reduce the tax burden that the government had suddenly imposed on them. I say suddenly because that's exactly what happened. There was no consultation around that at all.

Now, fast forward to three years later and they bring in a policy, ironically, that's designed to do the exact opposite when it comes to publicly traded companies. The purpose of a 2% tax on the share buybacks is to force companies to keep their passive income inside their companies. Companies, whether they're privately held or publicly held, are not being treated the same.

You're saying to privately held Canadian corporations, no, you can't have passive income in your company. You're going to pay a penalty for that. They say to publicly traded companies, no, you've got to keep that money in your company because you might need it to expand your operations.

Government shouldn't be telling publicly traded companies what they need to spend their money on. That is an intrusion of the state that should never, ever happen. These companies should be able to decide on their own whether they need that capital in their company or not, but that's a whole other story.

So I am disappointed. That would be a kind word to express my feelings about this fall economic update, but, more than that, about the underlying procedural unfairness of this motion to presuppose the will of the House, to assume that the NDP is actually going to vote with the government when it comes up for a vote at second reading.

They haven't stood up and done that yet. They might not. Maybe some of them will finally see the light and realize the error of their ways, see how they've gone down the wrong path with this government. The fact of the matter is that we don't know. This motion assumes that this is in fact the case, and that's just wrong. It's wrong, but if this motion actually passes, I'm going to be doing this all the time. I'm going to bring motions on my private member's bill. I think we should all consider bringing motions on bills we're interested in to have pre-studies on them before they pass the House. Why not?

We're doing it here. I guess things have changed around here.

So with that, I am very, very concerned about this change in process, which I think can have only a deleterious effect on how we consider...by the way it also presupposes that when we're debating a bill in the House, it doesn't matter. I hear that all too often about time allocation. Time after time after time, the government cuts off debate in the House. “Those MPs—they couldn't possibly have anything useful to say. Let's get it to committee where there can be a real discussion about it.” It doesn't matter. Why are we spending billions and billions and billions of dollars on this place? Why are we spending billions of dollars renovating the Centre Block when time after time after time the Liberal government basically says it doesn't matter? It doesn't matter. MPs don't need to speak in the House on this. Let's send it to committee before it even passes, before you even know what the will of elected officials is. Let's send it to committee before the votes even happen. That's just not right.

So with that, I think I have made my point. I'm going to cede my time and the floor at this point, Mr. Chair, but I would ask to be put back on the speaking list just because I may have other important revelations that will be of the utmost importance for consideration here at this committee today.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the costly coalition strikes again. The fall economic statement gave us a window into the government's ongoing spending problem and the uncertain economic future that Canadians are bracing for. Liberal-made inflation continues to be a reality for Canadians and their families, while Liberal spending continues at a record pace.

After this Prime Minister spent more than all prime ministers before him combined, the finance minister had an opportunity to get her government's spending under control, listen to Canadians, stop new taxes and cancel the tripling of the carbon tax. There was hope that the finance minister would hear the plea to follow the wisdom of the Conservative leader that a dollar of savings would be found for every new dollar spent.

This update shows that the Prime Minister's addiction to spending shut her down. What is unfortunate is that it means Canadians will continue to pay record prices for groceries, gas and home heating. It means mortgages, loans and rent will all cost more, and it means Canadians continue to fall further and further behind.

It is like our country is being pulled back into the days of Pierre Trudeau, a prime minister who also inherited an excellent fiscal position and stable economy but then spent everything in the treasury and more, adding billions to the national debt. One deficit after another increased Canada's debt by 1,000%, and the deficit in his last year in office was over $37 billion, which is roughly $90 billion in today's money and eerily like last year's deficit. Canadians were also hit with high Liberal-made inflation and high interest rates caused by that spending. As a result, it took 13 years for the federal government to be pulled out of the deficit tailspin left by that government.

We are seeing the same pattern re-emerge as this Prime Minister adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt. Liberal-made inflation continues, and interest rates caused by his out-of-control spending are rising. The Liberal government took over from the Conservatives, who balanced the budget and left the finances in good shape. Conservatives shepherded Canada through the 2008 recession without record-high spending or inflation. The inflation rate under the previous government never reached 4%, despite the recession and wars in the Middle East.

In contrast, before even one COVID case was detected in Canada, the Prime Minister had already added $110 billion to the debt. He then proceeded to spend and spend and spend, to the tune of half a trillion dollars in just the last two years. Liberals told Canadians that their enormous spending spree was to protect people from COVID. We learned that almost half of the $500 billion was actually not even related to pandemic measures and supports. Even the part of those hundreds of billions of dollars that was COVID related is also very questionable.

In budget 2022, the government continued to add to the debt with a $90-billion deficit as it announced $30 billion in new spending. This was at a time when inflation was at 6.7% and climbing, and stakeholders such as the Conference Board of Canada warned that new spending on this scale would add further fuel to this inflationary fire.

Since fiscal year 2014-15 and all the way to 2020-21, the government's program expenses have increased by 113%. The bureaucracy has also grown to almost 400,000 employees, costing taxpayers $60.7 billion. The government loves to claim it was creating jobs, but it turns out it did it for its bureaucracy, using money it got from Canadians struggling with Liberal inflation. What the government's economic update does not show Canadians is how the Liberals plan to return to fiscal stability or how they will rein in their spending. It instead reannounces several billion dollars from the 2022 budget and adds over $6 billion in new spending.

The PBO, economists and the Conservative leader have all warned the government that its out-of-control spending is driving up inflation. Now Canadians are getting hit from the left with inflation, as well as being squeezed by higher interest rates hiked by the same Bank of Canada that has kept printing money for the Liberals to spend.

Hard-working Canadians and their families are not even getting by, and any support the government proposes is evaporated by inflation, taxes, and higher mortgages and rents. Grocery inflation is at a 40-year record high as prices increased 11.4% in September. That has led to one in five Canadians skipping meals and forced 1.5 million people to visit a food bank in just one month. One-third of those food bank users are children.

It is not only grocery inflation that is eating up Canadians' paycheques. Home heating bills are also soaring. Natural gas prices were hit with 37% inflation, and other fuels increased by 48.7%.

The solution proposed by the finance minister is for families to cancel their Disney+ subscription. How out of touch does one have to be to tell Canadians that billions and billions of inflationary spending is a good thing and they should not worry if they cannot afford to eat, heat their home, or go to work, because cancelling their $14-a-month subscription will fix everything.

This is from a minister who makes way more than the average Canadian, kept her job during the lockdowns, voted to keep COVID measures in place long after the rest of the world opened up, and fed the Prime Minister’s spending addiction with taxpayers’ money. People in my riding and many parts of Canada cannot even afford Internet, let alone Disney+. They choose between heating their homes, feeding their kids, and paying for rent or their mortgage.

I grew up in an immigrant family that had very little. We knew, though, that if we worked hard and kept dreaming of a better future, we could one day achieve the Canadian dream. I know that through hard work and the grace of God, I am lucky to be standing here in this place, representing the community I grew up in and knowing my family is going to be okay.

That is not a luxury that many other Canadians and newcomers have. In a developed country like Canada, it should be possible for anyone, no matter where they come from or what their last name is, to work hard and get back what they are willing to put in. Unfortunately, the reality today is that dream is gone.

Conservatives have stood in the House week after week, demanding on behalf of Canadians that the government stop new taxes and cancel its plans to triple the carbon tax. Even after the Bank of Canada's governor said the carbon tax added to inflation, and even after the inflation numbers showed home heating costs increasing by ridiculous amounts, the costly coalition voted against our motions and responded to questions with condescending statements that ignored Canadians’ pain.

Liberals insist that spending more money and raising taxes is the solution to the fire they started. The left also loves to talk about so-called greedflation, but the real greed here is the profits the government is making off the empty stomachs of Canadians. The government is now making more revenue as inflation drives up the tax dollars the government brings in.

Canadians are hurtling towards a long, cold and hungry winter, and the other side does not look encouraging, yet the minister wants everyone to believe that Canada will be fine while all the spending, inflation and high interest rates wreak havoc on our economy. The government and the Liberal insiders might be fine, sitting on all the taxpayer money, but the people who paid those taxes are already paying the price.

Even more frustrating for Canadians is that this update had the opportunity to do what is right and stop the out-of-control spending, the taxing and the virtue signalling, yet none of that was done. Savings were not found to pay for new spending. The tripling carbon tax, payroll tax, second carbon tax and inflation tax continue targeting Canadians while loading up government coffers.

It is time to stop flooding the economy with government money and create more of what Canadians’ money buys: more homes, more energy and more food here at home. With the Conservative leader as prime minister, a Conservative government will remove gatekeepers. We will build more homes and affordable energy projects and let Canada’s world-class agriculture sector grow the food the world needs. Canadians are out of money, and the costly coalition is out of touch. While the Liberals continue to fail Canadians, Conservatives will fight to restore the Canadian promise and make hard work mean something again in this country.

For these reasons and more, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to 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, because the bill brings in new inflationary spending that is not matched by an equivalent saving, and does not cancel planned tax hikes.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting her finger on the number one question: How soon can we get this legislation passed through the House?

We can see that in the new year, probably April, and moving forward, we will no longer have student loan interest on the federal portion of student loans and apprenticeship interest. This would benefit not only students at Conestoga, but students at universities, colleges and technical institutes across the country. I met with Polytechnics Canada last week, and they were thrilled to hear that this was our plan and that it was going to be part of Bill C-32.

To all the businesses operating in my hon. colleague's riding and to all members of the House, we are going to work with the banks to make sure that credit card fees get reduced. If the banks do not come to the table before the end of December this year, we are going to pass legislation in the new year to get credit card fees reduced, because it is what small businesses are asking of us. We are responding to post-secondary students and to small business owners.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see members after the constituency week. I hope everyone had a good constituency week in their ridings.

I think this is a really important issue that we're debating right now. I think, as we're all aware, there are a number of important components in this bill with a number of important deliverables for folks. I think it's important that they be delivered to folks in a timely way.

I'm thinking of things like the permanent elimination of student loans. I'm thinking about a range of home affordability measures—for example, the creation of a new tax-free first home savings account, a doubling of the first-time home buyers' tax credit, and ensuring that property flippers pay their fair share. These are the kinds of things I hear about all the time, especially the property-flipping, from folks in my community.

Another piece that I think is important is enhancing the Canada workers benefit to ensure that payments are delivered quarterly for low and medium-income Canadians. I think there are a lot of people around this table who are really concerned about the inflation that Canadians are struggling with and the cost of living, especially for the low and medium-income Canadians. This is an example of something that I think is really important.

I think that, in light of what's happening with the rising cost of living that people are facing and in light of the measures that are in this bill and the impact these could have on folks, we have to take it upon ourselves to study this legislation in an expeditious manner. I think that's what our constituents would expect of us.

It was my hope that we would adopt the motion at our last meeting so that we could hear today from officials on Bill C-32. Unfortunately, we're not able to do that. To be frank, given that we haven't gotten to that place yet, I'm just concerned about our ability to study this in a timely manner. Ultimately, if we don't do that, then we're not going to get the supports to the people who need them in the time frame in which they need them.

I'm, therefore, proposing the following amendment: that after the words “be invited to appear with her officials on the bill”, we delete the word “and” and add the following after the words “in the committee's full study of the bill”. It would read:

and, should the bill be referred to the committee by Thursday, November 24, 2022: a. Clause-by-clause study of the bill commence no later than Wednesday, November 30, 2022; b. Amendments to the bill be submitted by 5:00 PM EST Thursday, November 24, 2022; c. and that the committee immediately proceeds to this study and hear from officials from the Department of Finance.

I'm happy to circulate the language to members of the committee, but in the end, the purpose of this proposed amendment, really, is to ensure that we study this bill in an expeditious manner and deliver the help to folks who need it in an expeditious manner and on the timelines they would expect us to.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate on Bill C‑32, which seeks to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement and budget 2022.

As in countries around the world, the Canadian economy is facing a period of slow economic growth. The global challenge of high inflation with higher interest rates and cost of living increases have left many Canadians worried. Some are worried about whether they can continue to pay their bills, and some are wondering whether Canada's future will be as prosperous as our past. Our message to Canadians is simple. We hear them, and we stand with them. We will get through this difficult period together, and we will come out the other side stronger, together.

The good news is that no country is better placed than Canada to weather the coming global economic slowdown. We have an unemployment rate near its record low, with 500,000 more Canadians working today than before the pandemic. We have the strongest economic growth in the G7 this year and the lowest net debt and deficit-to-GDP ratios in the G7. Less than two weeks ago, we saw our AAA credit rating reaffirmed. We have a talented and resilient workforce, and we are a country to which skilled workers around the world want to move. On top of that, we have key natural resources and innovative ideas that the global economy needs. These are the foundations of strength on which we will get through this difficult time.

However, in this period of uncertainty, it is important to exercise restraint and remain cautious budget-wise. That is why our government continues to pursue a tight fiscal policy to keep reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio.

Even as we face global headwinds, the investments we are making today will make Canada more sustainable and more prosperous for generations to come. We are working hard to make life more affordable for Canadians. Building on our affordability plan, which was announced this summer, we are putting money back into the pockets of those who need it the most.

With Bill C-32, we are moving forward with an important measure to make life more affordable for a group of Canadians heavily affected by rising prices: post-secondary graduates with student loans. With the passing of this bill, the federal portion of all Canada student loans and Canada apprenticeship loans would become permanently interest free, including those being repaid. This measure would provide financial relief to young Canadians across the country, helping them to make ends meet and ensuring that their investment in themselves and their education was the right decision to make.

I am already looking forward to the effect this measure will have on young Canadians. There is no doubt that it will help many young people balance their budgets and invest in their future. It will also help give our businesses and business owners the skilled workers they need to continue to prosper.

Last week, I met with student apprentices, and they were delighted to hear about this move that we are making in their future.

Another area where I know Canadians are looking for support is the cost of housing. No one will be surprised if I say that our government believes that everyone should have a safe and affordable place to call home. Unfortunately, that goal is increasingly out of reach for far too many Canadians.

Housing prices have skyrocketed over the past few years and many people are concerned that rent will also go up because of the impact high interest rates will have on the mortgages of rental property owners.

We know that some Canadians need help. That is why, with Bill C‑32, the government is introducing an ambitious range of measures designed to build more houses and make housing more affordable across the country.

We are lowering taxes for new homebuyers so they can put their money in a place to call home. To help young Canadians afford a down payment faster, Bill C-32 would move forward with the new tax-free first-home savings account. This account would allow prospective first-time homebuyers to save up to $40,000 tax-free toward their first home. Bill C-32 would also double the first-time homebuyers tax credit to provide up to $1,500 in direct tax relief to homebuyers starting in 2022.

We would introduce a refundable, multi-generational home renovation tax credit. We are also moving forward in Bill C-32 with measures to crack down on house flipping. By doing so, we would ensure that investors who flip homes pay their fair share, which will play a role in lowering housing prices for Canadians. In short, we have a plan to make home ownership in this country more affordable, especially for young people.

As we continue to provide targeted support for Canadians, we are also hard at work to advance a robust industrial policy that will deliver stable, good-paying jobs. We have to seize opportunities in the net-zero economy, attract new private investment and provide the key resources the world needs.

Without a doubt, an investment in our country's future is also an investment in our workers. That is why the 2022 fall economic statement makes investments in workers to grow Canada's economy, create good-paying jobs and tackle Canada's investment and productivity challenges.

For example, we are proposing to expand the accelerated tax deductions for business investments in clean energy equipment. This will be important as our government moves forward with Canada's first critical mineral strategy. This strategy recognizes that critical minerals, including those found in my own home province of Alberta, are central to major global industries and clean technologies. To build on this, we would also introduce a new 30% critical mineral exploration tax credit for specified mineral exploration expenses incurred in Canada.

There is also a measure in Bill C-32 that I am particularly proud of, and that is the creation of the Canada growth fund. We first announced this fund in budget 2022, and we are now taking concrete actions to make it a reality with Bill C-32. With it, we could help attract billions of dollars in new private capital required to fight climate change and create good jobs at the same time. The $15 billion from us would attract in $45 billion, for a fund of $60 billion, and this growth fund would also help to attract scale-up companies that will create jobs, and drive productivity and clean growth. It would encourage the retention of intellectual property in Canada, while capitalizing on Canada's abundance of natural resources.

The fund will be launched by the end of this year, and the government will take steps to put in place a permanent, independent structure for the fund in the first half of 2023.

It is also important to continue supporting our small businesses, which create jobs across the country. That is why we are proposing through this bill to cut taxes for Canada's growing small businesses by phasing out access to the small business tax rate more gradually, with access to be fully phased out when taxable capital reaches $50 million rather than $15 million.

While we support our growing small businesses, we are also moving forward with the Canada recovery dividend to ensure large financial institutions that made significant profits during the pandemic help support Canada's broader recovery. With the passage of Bill C-32, we would impose a one-time 15% tax on taxable income above $1 billion for banks and life insurers' groups because it is important to ensure that large financial institutions pay their fair share.

In a time of great challenge and uncertainty in the global economy, it is important for Canada to have a clear plan for moving forward.

That is precisely what we have with the 2022 fall economic statement and Bill C-32. This bill includes great measures to build an economy that works for everyone, to create great jobs and make life more affordable for Canadians.

My call to all members of the House is to come together and support the positive, constructive and necessary measures in this bill, support tax relief for home owners, support financial relief for post-secondary graduates and support a strategy to grow our economy and maintain Canada's competitive advantage. Canadians are looking to us to put politics aside and ensure the quick passage of this important legislation.

Ways and Means

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

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 first time and printed.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Thomas Simpson]

Absolutely. Thank you very much for that, Mr. Morrice.

As I shared earlier, while HUMA, in Bill C-81, was studying the legislation, the disability community sought out timelines for which regulations would be developed. I think it's very apt here that we learn from the same success.

The minister spoke today of her wish for the regulations to be done within a year. Why not legislate that within the framework that is here in front of you as Bill C-32?

I'm no lawyer. I'm sure you can figure out where it fits properly.