Chrystia Freeland Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is, or will soon become, law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations in order to
(a) introduce a new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses on qualifying ventilation expenses made to improve air quality;
(b) expand the travel component of the northern residents deduction by giving all northern residents the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses even if the individual has not received travel assistance from their employer;
(c) expand the School Supplies Tax Credit from 15% to 25% and expand the eligibility criteria to include electronic devices used by eligible educators; and
(d) introduce a new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.
Part 2 enacts the Underused Housing Tax Act . This Act implements an annual tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. It sets out rules for the purpose of establishing owners’ liability for the tax. It also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. Finally, to promote compliance with its provisions, this Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions aligned with those found in other taxation statutes.
Part 3 provides for a six-year limitation or prescription period for the recovery of amounts owing with respect to a loan provided under the Canada Emergency Business Account program established by Export Development Canada.
Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools.
Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) proof-of-vaccination initiatives.
Part 6 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $1.72 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests. It also sets out reporting requirements for the Minister of Health.
Part 7 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Shelby Kramp-Neuman Conservative Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Madam Speaker, I have two girls, one in grade school and one in high school, and the work their teachers do is admirable. I respect them for that.
I reject the member's comments that Conservatives are not necessarily supporting it. At this point, I would encourage the hon. member to get involved in her local provincial campaign and address those particular types of issues.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, and my comments will focus on part 5 of Bill C-8. This is the government's effort to double down on its failed strategy of mandates and in fact try to push provinces, which are all moving away from mandates, to try to bring them back. Specifically, part 5 of the bill says:
The Minister of Health may make payments to the provinces and territories not exceeding $300 million in total for the purpose of supporting their coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) proof-of-vaccination initiatives, with the amount of each payment to be determined by the Minister of Health.
This is the context in which we are living: Provinces are recognizing and moving away from these mandate policies, and the federal government is doubling down on its failures.
Members who travel back and forth to Ottawa will see the realities of how the federal mandates conflict with the provincial mandates and really how absurd it is. This weekend, I was at a trade show in my riding, and in keeping with the provincial rules in Alberta, anybody could come to the trade show without needing to present proof of vaccination. I think that is a good thing. People are not required to wear masks, which is positive and reasonable as well.
I was at this trade show meeting with constituents who were coming through, shaking hands, kissing babies, talking to people about the issues on their mind. None of these requirements were in place at the provincial level. Then, when I go to the airport and get on an airplane, all of a sudden I am in federal jurisdiction, which means that all of a sudden the pandemic is back once I arrive at the airport. I need to wear a mask, and I need to provide proof of vaccination to get on the plane. There are all these new requirements in place.
Then I get to Ontario and leave the airport. In Ontario, people do not have to present proof of vaccination to get into restaurants. They do not have to wear masks in restaurants. I get off the plane, come downtown and go to receptions. There are all these receptions being hosted off the Hill in restaurants, and I see Liberal, NDP, Conservative and Bloc staff and members at these receptions not wearing masks. No proof of vaccination is required. They are in a restaurant and it is all fine, apparently. Then, when they get on the Hill, they are back in federal jurisdiction and the government insists that proof of vaccination is required and they have to wear a mask.
I try to make sense of the science behind the apparent conclusion that COVID-19 can only be transmitted when we are in places regulated by the federal government. How does it make sense scientifically for Liberals to say we need these mandates in these small, limited areas of federal jurisdiction, even when provinces are lifting these mandates? It is perfectly okay for Liberal members and staff to go to parties and restaurants in Ottawa outside of the parliamentary precinct and there is no risk from COVID, apparently, in those places. However, when they come to the Hill, apparently we need to ban any person, staff member or member of Parliament who is not vaccinated and require people to wear masks. It does not make any sense. These rampant inconsistencies do not make any sense at all.
This is what has frustrated so many people throughout COVID-19. They are being told they have to follow the science, and then they are being faced with these obviously radically inconsistent rules that are applied in different ways. Insofar as there are things that make sense scientifically, they should be in place across jurisdictions. If the same people are going to events in their ridings and going to restaurants, out and about where they are not wearing masks and the government is not insisting that there be proof of vaccination in those places, and then it insists on the continuation of discriminatory mandates in areas of federal jurisdiction, we should note and call out how absurd that is.
We should also know that these federal mandates that are being promoted in Bill C-8 are applied regardless of the risk of transmission or exposure. One would think that the government would be happy to include an exception for those who take a rapid test. If people have just completed a negative rapid test, they are obviously at much lower risk of having and transmitting COVID-19 than if they were vaccinated a significant number of months ago. I think that is fairly clear in terms of the scientific data that we have right now, and yet people who have not been tested recently can get on an airplane if they were vaccinated, but if they have just produced a negative test and they are not vaccinated, then they cannot get on the plane.
This is clearly not about risk to other people on the airplane. It is clearly not about risk to other people in that space. It is about the government trying to be as punitive as possible toward those who have made a personal choice with respect to their health.
We have federal mandates that say to public servants who work from home that they have to be on leave. That does not make any sense. Those mandates do not affect just the unvaccinated; they affect vaccinated people who rely on federal government services. We are seeing in immigration and so many other departments delays in the provision of government services and major gaps in terms of the provision of key government services. People need to wait years for their citizenship application to be processed. People who are trying to sponsor refugees in vulnerable situations need to wait three years before they can privately sponsor someone to come to Canada. It may be that a contributing factor to that is that the government has told people who work in immigration processing and other areas, even if they are working from home, that they cannot continue to work if they are making a choice not to get vaccinated. How does that make sense?
For all members of the government know, the people they are interacting with on public transit and servers at restaurants close to the Hill at the various receptions they are going to may or may not be vaccinated, yet they insist that public servants who are working from home providing vital service to Canadians in immigration processing or working on providing support to people who are filing their taxes, and other areas, have to be vaccinated or they will be put on leave, again, even if they are working from home.
These mandates clearly do not make any sense. They have never made sense, because they are not applied with a view to risk; they are applied solely with the objective of being as punitive as possible toward those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Why else would these have happened?
At this point in time, where we are today, in May 2022, let us acknowledge that any meaningful impact on vaccination rates of these coercive mechanisms has now run its course. I do not think these mandates made sense at any point in time, but certainly at this point, any people who are going to be impacted in their vaccination choices by these coercive tools have already had the opportunity to consider the impacts, and if they are not vaccinated, they have definitively, despite the coercive pressure from the government, chosen not to.
It is time now for the government to recognize that people have been presented with information and they have made the choices they want to make. Now, proposing the spending of another up to $300 million to promote mandates at the provincial level just does not make any sense. Let us recognize that at this stage, two years after the start of the pandemic, many Canadians have been vaccinated and we have worked hard to address the issues we need to address in terms of health care capacity and other things, and it is time now to try to move forward.
People I talk to across the country, including in my riding, do not want to see the permanent realization of vaccine mandates. We saw at times the government proposing funding for three years of vaccine mandates, and it is simply grossly unfair that people would be still, and possibly in the future, prevented from getting on airplanes, prevented from seeing family members and prevented from coming into Parliament in the event that they are not vaccinated, especially given that people from federal jurisdictions are going out and participating in things where they are interacting with people without masks and people who are not vaccinated.
In the time I have left, I want to comment on the principle behind vaccine mandates. It was interesting in question period to hear the transport minister say that we cannot at the same time think that vaccines are useful from a health perspective and also say that—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I believe that the button the member is wearing is in reference to what is definitely known to be a political statement in here, talking about ending mandates. We all know, and in particular this member does, that we are not supposed to be wearing any kind of buttons that promote any kind of political agenda or statement in that manner, and the member is clearly disregarding that rule. I am wondering if you could politely ask him to remove it.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I am not sure. Maybe the hon. member can tell me what his button says so in that way I will be more clear about my decision, but I want to remind members that I have asked members not to wear buttons in the House unless it is something that has been approved throughout the House.
If the hon. member can tell me what his button says, then I will be able to better say whether he should remove it right now.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge that the member might have a point. I did not intend to leave this button on for this speech. I will tell them, since members are curious, that it says “end federal mandates”. I could also table the button if—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I will ask the hon. member to remove the button. I will remind members not to wear buttons in the House unless it is something that is being supported throughout the House itself, such as the Moose Hide Campaign or the White Ribbon Campaign.
We are now at the time for closure, unfortunately.
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, certainly in light of the conversation that was just had, I would hope that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to support the message of “end the mandates” here in this place. I would ask for unanimous consent in that regard.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members
No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I just want to remind members that the House rules are that these are props and they are not to be used in the House. It is not the first time that we have had to raise that with different members of the House. I would again ask members not to wear buttons. It is certainly a conversation that we will have at the House Speakers' breakfast, whenever we have it next. There are to be no buttons at all.
I would say that if the respect is not going to be there for the Speaker's ruling, then I would ask those members not to come to the House if they prefer to wear the button.
It being 3:51 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 28, 2022—
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Speaker, I know you mentioned that the time for debate on Bill C-8 was over. My impression was that it was going until 4 o'clock, and that was counting five hours from a particular point. I just wonder if the table might be able to inform us when that clock on the five hours began and therefore when it finishes.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
After question period, there were 23 minutes left, which led us to 3:51 p.m..
It being 3:51 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 28, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment.
May I dispense?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to the House]
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.