Bill C-8

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures

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.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak as a mother right now. There have been some disturbing comments in the House today blaming senior babysitters who have had to come to the rescue of frontline workers to get them to work. There were some comments earlier about people who are restricted in their freedom, and I just want to remind people in the House that in my riding, indigenous girls who go to school are not allowed a bus pass. They get daily chits to get on the bus. Giving them a bus pass to use public transit is dangerous for them because of the sex trafficking that is going on in this country. Also, when we talk about restrictions on people, persons with disabilities who are in institutions and live in institutions are told how many times a week they can have a bowel movement. That is what is happening in our country right now.

To come back to Bill C-8 and the focus on getting help to Canadians, I want to ask the member about strengthening measures to get housing out of the investment portfolios in this country and outside of it and into the hands of Canadians. Could the member share with us something that he would like to add to Bill C-8 to ensure that housing becomes about homes and stops being about investments?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to enter into debate in this place. There are many topics, including very important issues surrounding Bill C-8 and its implications on our economy and the pocketbooks of Canadians. It is the failed fiscal policy, I would suggest, of a Liberal government that is so out of touch with Canadians that it cannot even acknowledge its failures. When the jobs report came out today, the Liberals had to amend their tired old talking points. During question period today, they amended their talking points. We are down 7% on the jobs that they claim have been recovered over the course of the pandemic, when Canadians are truly hurting.

I would like to first spend a moment to talk about the circumstances that we are facing here in Ottawa with the protests, and some other protests, convoys and whatnot across the country. Unity should be the first priority of any leader of any country, but specifically for the Prime Minister of Canada, a country that is vast and diverse, with people from all around the world and indigenous peoples who have been here far longer than our European founders.

The objective of any leader should be to unite their country. We have a Prime Minister who has been more focused on his narrow, personal political gain than on anything else. I would suggest that we see a country that is more divided than ever before. With west versus east, there is a level of western alienation. I can tell story after story of folks who are giving up on the idea of Canada. These are not separatists. These are folks who feel left behind by a Liberal Prime Minister who has divided Canadians for his own political gain.

There is urban versus rural. We see a greater level of that alienation. We do not hear that talked about as much, as about 90% of Canadians live in what we would consider major urban areas, yet the level of alienation that exists within rural Canada is very real. Policies such as the carbon tax may be great for somebody who can take public transit, yet the attitude of the government opposite is to simply suggest to my constituents, who live in a large rural area, as well as to indigenous folks who live in remote areas across the country and to other Canadians who are far away from urban centres, that they do not matter as much as their urban counterparts. It is absolutely shameful.

We see the demonization of rich versus poor. We see the Prime Minister take advantage of any opportunity he has to pit one group of Canadians against another and score cheap political points. We saw that at no time more than in the last election.

Only months before, the Liberal Prime Minister promised first that he would not mandate vaccines. The members opposite forget that. It seems they have very selective memories. He promised he would not mandate vaccines, and said it time and again in this place and in interviews. Over the course of a couple of months, that position changed. In fact, the Prime Minister actually thanked the Leader of the Opposition for encouraging Canadians to get vaccinated, and then went on to say he would never mandate vaccines.

Then, what did the Prime Minister do? He used divisive rhetoric, took Canadians down a path that he promised he would not, and he is now somehow surprised and blaming those Canadians for being frustrated with the fact that he changed his position, that he misled Canadians and that he put his political interests before those of our country. That is absolutely shameful, and I am hearing about it from constituents each and every day.

When it comes to the protesters outside, the Liberals opposite and other left-leaning partners in the Prime Minister's coalition are quick to dismiss their concerns, yet according to a poll there has been a massive shift in the last number of weeks of Canadians who want to see a path charted forward. They want a path out of COVID and the rinse, recycle, repeat of the lockdowns, job losses and economic devastation associated with the message that we had to flatten the curve. After two years of the pandemic, it is time for leadership to figure out a path forward for Canadians.

It is unbelievable for the Prime Minister to suggest what some polls say is a third of Canadians are the fringe minority with despicable views. There are those who would suggest that the many who are gathered out in the streets of Ottawa and across the country are somehow less Canadian than anyone else. The Conservatives have been quick to condemn the despicable actions of a few, but acknowledge that many Canadians simply want their voices to be heard.

We have seen folks on highways and overpasses waiting for hours on end in -30°C to simply cheer them on. I have a family member who drove across my constituency on Tuesday and called me to say she had never seen more Canadian flags flying than on that trip across my constituency. Canadians want to be listened to, and it is a failure of the government that it would rather divide, dismiss and use inflammatory rhetoric to somehow drive a political wedge instead of uniting the country and showing an ounce of humility and contrition, which could bring resolution to the fact that those folks outside and across the country simply do not feel heard. They want to be heard, and it is the responsibility of any democratically elected government to do that, to hear the concerns of its citizens.

I think the problem here is that the Prime Minister does not like the fact that he is actually accountable for his decisions. He does not like the fact that he is accountable to Canadians and would rather try to score cheap political points to try to divide and conquer, which is unacceptable.

Turning to the subject and content of Bill C-8, we see once again that the Liberals are, in some cases, simply recycling the same promises they made over the course of a number of years, so I want to talk about the housing situation in this country specifically.

There has been a lot of rhetoric and talking points thrown out by the members opposite with supposed solutions to the housing crisis. This bill includes some of that. Let us look at their record. They are in their seventh year in power. They created a mess and now they want to double down on some of those mistakes to somehow solve that problem.

I will sum it up quite simply. The Liberals brag about how much they spend and are quick to accuse the Conservatives of suggesting that we somehow like to make cuts. Here is the reality. On virtually every metric, the government and the Prime Minister, because of the unbelievable mismanagement they have presided over for the last close to seven years, are spending more but getting less. That is not good public policy.

When I first ran for nomination in 2019, and over the course of the last two elections, I talked about the need for good governance. We can virtually see that is the opposite of what the Liberal members do on a public policy basis and on an accountability basis. We can see how their failed policies are hurting the livelihoods of Canadians.

I know my time is coming to an end. I have much more to say and look forward to doing so in questions and comments, but simply let me say this. Once again, it is an honour to represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot to fight for them in this place to make sure their voices are heard within the halls of Canada's democratic institutions. I am excited to continue to do that in this sitting of Parliament.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have here with Bill C-8 is a bill that is going to, again, inject unnecessary money into the economy. It is going to further exacerbate the situation that we have with inflation, and make it very difficult for everyday Canadians to keep up with the cost of living.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. I can stand here and wait. I would like a reasonable debate on the topic at hand, which is Bill C-8.

We have time for a quick comment from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a letter sent by one of my constituents who is a young businessman trying to eke out a living and provide a living for his family and for the people he employs. This is his letter. This is not some abstract person who does not have an identity. This is a real constituent with real issues, and I am so disappointed that the member for Timmins—James Bay has been so disrespectful.

I am going to read a little further. The letter states:

“Surely you can see the incompetence of that kind of thinking. It's absolutely illogical in every sense of the term, and it's affecting hard-working, honest, productive individuals all over this country. People like me. People who are worried sick over where this is all going. People who are hoping the illogical spotlight of condemnation doesn't find them in their quiet corner of the world, where they just want to continue working and providing for their families.

“Well, that spotlight found me and every other person in the transportation industry that isn't vaccinated in an industry that is strained for workers already and could very well disrupt the strained supply chain that is struggling already. While I know that saying this isn't good for anyone on any level, maybe a severely disrupted supply chain is exactly what needs to happen to wake up the government and start thinking about the ramifications of their actions.

“I feel like people like me aren't being represented. There are no strong and audible voices being allowed to speak on my behalf. I'm dealing with the very real possibility of not being able to continue with my small business, and it feels like a blanket of defeat is starting to settle on me and I am fighting to keep from lying still and letting that happen.

“No wonder people are having depression, suicidal thoughts, a loss of purpose and feeling discriminated against. Every day is hard and all this sure doesn't help. If anyone cared about that, they'd listen and take action. I don't see that cavalry coming but it needs to. I wish I had a platform to voice all of this to politicians implementing all these mandates and rules and who could listen and understand where regular people like me are coming from, what our concerns are and take action to represent us, but I don't have that platform. Again, a blanket of defeat.

“Stop mandating and shutting everything down at every turn. Let people make their own choices. Aim to protect the truly vulnerable. Loosen the shackles on society and start opening up. Let people get back to some sense of normalcy and leave people alone who are driven to get to work and who have ambitions and provide labour and our services to others. People with pride and work ethic. People like me.”

That is a letter from one of my constituents who is just completely exasperated and feeling frustrated, feeling alone and feeling overwhelmed. We know that mental health has paid a huge toll for many folks during the last two years. His request to all politicians is that we would consider the plights of individuals like him who are being mandated to do something that they do not feel is good.

I am speaking directly to part 5 of Bill C-8, which would spend $300 million on providing proof-of-vaccination initiatives. We are looking at ways we can start to trim back our spending. Bill C-8 would put another $70-odd billion of money into the economy, which would further exacerbate the situation of inflation. It would continue to drive up prices.

We have heard, from many speakers throughout this past week, of the inflation that they are seeing at the grocery stores and at the gas pumps. At every corner, inflation is hitting them hard. This is $300 million we do not need.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things Canadians are contending with right now is massive increases in price in the housing market. In debate previously on Bill C-8, I heard a Conservative colleague of the member say that there really was not a need to see governments build more social housing units and that what was needed was to tackle the problem of money laundering. Certainly, we do need to tackle the problem of money laundering, but I think most Canadians expect that government will have to do substantially more and that the problems in the housing market are not simply a function of money laundering.

I am wondering if we could hear from the member some concrete proposals for what she believes government ought to be doing to tackle the issues in the housing market, which I would note predate the pandemic and the current government. Real estate prices have been having astronomical increases for some time now. What can government do in order to get a handle on the situation?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Mr. Speaker, I was amused, as I think everybody in the House was, to hear the funny anecdote about kindergarten. I really do struggle to see what relevance the story had to the conversation around Bill C-8, which certainly does have quite a lot in it.

I am sure you have read the bill. You say there is just nothing to see here, so I will read a quote, because I have heard the member speak about the importance of the arts: “Nice to see $60 million identified to support workers and the arts. The live performance industry has been struggling hard during COVID and we haven't seen nearly the same support that tourism and restaurants have, so they were really, really grateful for that support.”

Is the member opposite not happy to see some support for the arts and many, many other things, given that she must have read the bill before standing up today?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona the same question I asked the member for Kitchener Centre earlier.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the NDP and the Green Party that underused housing should be taxed. What rubs us the wrong way, though, is the federal government grabbing a piece of the property tax pie, the one remaining area of jurisdiction it has not yet encroached on.

I think it would be more appropriate for the federal government to work with municipalities, because they should be the ones collecting this tax and using it for their infrastructure. They could even target more people than Bill C‑8, which currently sets out a lot of exceptions. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how happy I am to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-8 today.

I will start my comments today talking a bit about how much people in Canada and around the world have been struggling during this pandemic. The past two years have been extremely hard for so many people in Canada and around the world. None of us imagined in March 2020, when we all left this place, that we would still be in a pandemic situation two years later, so I get the frustration we are seeing. I get why people want to get their lives back to normal.

I want to travel. I want to do the things we used to be able to do before COVID. Unfortunately, COVID-19 is not over, and we still need the public health measures that are so important to keep people safe and our health care system intact.

One of the things I will start with, and nobody in this House will be surprised to hear me say this, is that I am very disappointed in where we are at in this situation, because I think we have not done a very good job globally of ensuring vaccines went out to everybody around the world. I think that during this pandemic, we would not be in the situation we are in, dealing with yet another variant, if we had done global vaccine equity more appropriately.

This is concerning to me because I look at some of the problems facing humanity that are global in scope, and I see the response to COVID-19 as a precursor, and it is a worrying indication of our inability to find global solutions to some of these global problems, such as the climate crisis and increasing inequality.

As somebody who is vaccinated, I am delighted I am vaccinated. I am delighted my elderly parents are vaccinated and that my children have been able to be vaccinated. However, I want members in the House to understand that only 2.6% of people in Nigeria and only 2.9% of people in Tanzania have had access to a vaccine.

We are dealing today with Bill C-8 and some things that are being put in place to help people as we continue to go through this pandemic. However, I think it would be a missed opportunity for me to not say in this House that I blame the global response, and the inability of our government to help get vaccines into the arms of people around the world, for this variant.

I am going to talk a bit about some of the things within Bill C-8 that I like. I like that there is a tax credit for teachers in there. I like that there is a tax for housing owned by non-Canadians that is not being lived in.

I like some of the changes to EI, but the New Democratic Party would have made different choices. We do not think this does enough to help Canadians considering where we are right now. The changes to EI will not help all of the folks we need to help. It will not do enough. I know the government has the opportunity to bring forward legislation that would do more, and I would encourage it to do that.

Another thing I like within this bill is the ventilation for SMEs, small and medium enterprises, and schools. In August of 2020, I stood in this House and brought forward a unanimous consent motion asking for $2 billion to go out to the provinces to help with a safer restart of schools, and the government did that. It sent $2 billion to the provinces to make schools safer.

That was in 2020. That is when we needed to invest in ventilation for schools. That is when we needed to see that. We are going into two years now. There is no downside to increasing ventilation in our schools, as there is nothing better we could do to make our teachers and students safer when they are in school.

I will also say that, while I think it should have happened two years ago, I do not think this is enough. When I look at the amount of money there, it is going to provide less than $5,000 per Alberta school. That might work in other provinces, but in the province of Alberta, our premier is cutting funding for schools right now.

We have 2,400 school-aged children who have COVID-19 right now in Alberta. That is just the number we know about, because like other parts of the country, there is no testing happening unless people are very ill. Some people estimate the number of school-aged children in my province who have COVID-19 at probably closer to 20,000, and we do not know the long-term impacts of COVID on children.

In Alberta, we also need strings attached to programs like this, because we have seen this before. We have seen this a lot of times. Last year, we learned that the Government of Alberta was sitting on millions in unspent federal COVID emergency funding, more than any other province. There needs to be strings attached to make sure that these dollars get to the schools and help the teachers, students and support staff who need them. While I do like the ventilation piece in the bill, I think there are some loopholes there that we need to close.

I will talk about one thing that I really dislike about the bill before us. I do not know how many times members of the New Democrats have stood in the House and talked to the government about the serious attack that is happening on seniors in this country with the guaranteed income supplement, GIS, that has been clawed back from them. We know that the cost of living has hit Canadians. We know that things have gotten more expensive, but the two million seniors who live at or below the poverty line are the most vulnerable, and they have been hit the hardest.

I will tell members about some of these seniors who applied for the CERB benefit, for COVID benefits, because their Prime Minister told them to. I will tell members about some of these seniors who were eligible for it and who are now unable to pay their rent, buy their medications or buy food in this country and in my community. There are seniors like Ben who, because of a learning disability, has spent his entire life struggling to support himself doing manual labour for minimum wage, which is what he was doing when COVID hit. Now the business he worked for is gone, a victim of Alberta's economic crisis in COVID-19, and without the guaranteed income supplement he relied on, Ben's total income from OAS and CPP is less than his monthly rent, and he is facing eviction. At 73, Ben is out in the Edmonton winter in the bitter cold, knocking on doors and trying to find work during a pandemic.

The Liberals will tell us that they get it, that they heard us and that they fixed the problem. They are going to give Ben help in May. They think it is okay for Ben to be on the streets unable to meet his basic needs until May. However, the solution is so easy. The Liberals could fix this tomorrow. They could fix this for seniors across this country tomorrow, yet they are going to make those seniors wait and suffer and potentially die, because they are going to delay until May. It breaks my heart.

I can tell members about other seniors, numerous seniors, across this country and in my riding of Edmonton Strathcona. I want to raise this because it did not have to be this way. All this government had to do was exempt CERB income from the calculation for the GIS. That is all it had to do. It was so easy. The fact that it did not tells us all we need to know about the priorities of the Liberal government.

There are other things that are missing in the bill. There is nothing on a just transition for workers. In Alberta, we really need to start thinking of a plan for how we are going to help our energy workers. There is no funding for public transportation operations. There is nothing for energy efficiency retrofits for low-income households. There is nothing for dental, mental or pharmacare coverage. There are no measures to eliminate tax havens, to eliminate tax evasion or to even have better law enforcement. There is no wealth tax.

While there are things in Bill C-8 that I support, things that would move us in the right direction, the government missed an opportunity. I really hope that the Liberals will reflect on that and think about how they can fix some of the gaps that Bill C-8 left behind.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my compliments to the member, who is a colleague of mine on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He made it clear that money does not grow on trees.

Last spring's federal budget contained a surprise: measures to end lenient treatment for tax evasion. I think that is a source of revenue that Canadian tax authorities need to tap so we can do things like increase health transfers. However, the anti-tax haven measures announced in the spring do not appear in Bill C‑8. They seem to have fallen off the radar. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative right has spoken in the last couple of days. They are not going to support Bill C-8. They are going to say it is because government needs to cut back and stop expenditures. The member just referenced that.

Bill C-8 provides over one billion dollars for purchasing rapid tests. Rapid tests are absolutely essential to continuing to support small businesses and Canadians.

If Ottawa does not purchase rapid tests for distribution to the provinces and territories, who does the Conservative Party believe should be purchasing them? Should it be the provincial governments, individuals, or businesses?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place, particularly after such a great member. What a speech, and I congratulate him on it.

I believe few would dispute that we live in highly unusual times. Indeed, we are charting a path through a pandemic without a playbook. This is not the fault of the government. Every government in the world is in the same situation. We all know different governments have proposed different ways of moving forward. We must recognize this, and I say “we” because we, in large part, unanimously agreed upon most of the fiscal measures to this point. Canadians sent a minority Parliament to Ottawa, and aside from the Prime Minister's shameless attempt to stage a power grab in calling an expensive and unnecessary election, we are back again in a minority situation.

What I believe we must recognize is that, rightly or wrongly, our fiscal cupboards were literally spent dry responding to the pandemic. I am not here to debate the past; I am simply pointing out the obvious. A significant portion of Canada's fiscal capacity has been spent. It is gone. We must recognize that. Why? It is because in the event we run into another type of future emergency situation, we will have less fiscal room to respond.

Again, I do not rise and say this to point fingers of blame. I raise this because we must recognize that going forward we must be very careful on how we proceed fiscally. Let me give an example of this. If we have learned anything during this pandemic, it is that our health care system was ill-equipped to deal with stresses and demands placed on it, and more so now, when we see fully vaccinated Canadians who find themselves in our hospitals and ICUs. Every premier of every political stripe is clear that the current Canada health transfer is not enough to meet the needs of Canadians now or going forward.

Here is something I would like to share with every member of the House: The Canada health care transfer stands at just over $45 billion a year. In this current fiscal update bill, spending is forecast to increase to over $55 billion in the fiscal year 2026-27. In other words, there will be an increase of $10 billion over that time frame. I am hopeful that my friends in the fourth party heard that clearly, as they also have a bad habit of referring to increases in health care spending as cuts.

Getting back to the increase in health spending, there will be $10 billion in increased Canada health transfer spending between now and fiscal year 2026-27. However, here is the problem: Today, the interest we pay on servicing our debt is just over $20 billion. Over that same time, it too will increase. The same budget bill forecasts that these debt-servicing costs will increase to almost $41 billion by fiscal year end 2026-27.

I can already hear members of the governing party. “Debt-to-GDP ratio”, they will say. “A AAA credit rating”, they will say. However, here is the thing. Between now and fiscal year 2026-27, we know two things: that the Canada health transfer will increase by $10 billion and servicing our debt will increase by over $20 billion. There will be $10 billion on health and $20 billion on debt servicing. To be clear, our interest costs for servicing our debt are climbing at twice the rate of our increases in the Canada health transfer. Does anyone else in this chamber not see such a serious problem with this, aside from the finance minister? She made it very clear yesterday that she does not.

Let us keep in mind that the doubling of interest we are paying on our debt is based on today's interests rates, and we all know those interest rates will not stay low. If there is one thing I believe all Canadians are united on, it is how much we value our health care system, particularly now more than ever.

Everyone in this room knows health care spending is on the minds of all Canadians. Let us not forget that we have an aging population and there will be fewer working Canadians supporting an increasing number of retired Canadians. The demographics on this are clear. I raise this, aside from the reason I have already stated, because we know this bill proposes once again even more stimulus spending.

Before people start dismissing questions as a typical Conservative question, let us remember it is our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer who scrutinized these numbers. The PBO, as we know, has also come out saying that stimulus spending is not needed. Let us recognize why the Parliamentary Budget Office has said this. Unfortunately with today's job numbers, these are probably a little out of date, but previously, as of last week, the PBO pointed out that Canada had recovered 106% of the jobs that were lost at the onset of the pandemic. This is a statistic I have heard often crowed by members of the government. Earlier this week, our finance minister, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, stated:

Yesterday, Statistics Canada published new data showing that our GDP increased by 0.6% in November. That means that by the time omicron emerged, our economy had completely recovered from the COVID-19 recession.

To recap, by the government's own acknowledgement, both our employment rate and our GDP are fully recovered. Therefore, why borrow more money for more spending when the objective of the spending has largely been met? Again, this is not me pointing this out. The Parliamentary Budget Office has noted the same things. This is literally spending for the sake of spending. It is a government that claims it is all about science, data and facts. Well, the data and facts are clear here. In fact, we have heard the finance minister confirm them.

Let us change gears for a moment. We know inflation is at a 30-year high. We know that Canadian paycheques are getting smaller because Canada pension plan rates and EI deductions, which are planned to be unfrozen, are going to be getting bigger. No matter how they cut it, these two factors leave less money in Canadian households at the time when carbon taxes are going up, online streaming services are now taxed, wireless cellphone bills did not get magically cut by 25%, taxes on alcohol are increasing federally yet again, and back at the local level, property taxes are up and home insurance rates are going through the roof, especially for those in strata situations in condominiums. No matter how we look at it, Canadians are being hit hard and, it seems, from almost every angle.

Affordability is the single greatest concern now of many Canadian households. There is an elephant in the room that few want to discuss, and that is household debt. Household debt is at a record high. That matters because Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque as it is. The cost of living is basically out of control right now, and no matter how much we debate in this place who is responsible for that, that debate does not help those Canadians struggling to pay the bills.

Let me ask a question for everyone in this chamber. What happens when the interest rate increases? What happens when those rates start coming up again? That, in turn, means that payments on record household debt are also going to increase. What happens when Canadians can no longer make ends meet? What happens when their variable rate mortgage increases by $500, $400 or more a month, and they just cannot afford that?

When their fixed mortgage rate expires and they cannot afford the payments at a higher interest rate at renewal, what happens? There is certainly a growing number of citizens in my riding asking these questions, and I am sure all of the members have heard similar concerns and realities in their own ridings.

We cannot ignore that, but Bill C-8 completely does. If anything, it would only make that situation worse, and that is why I cannot and will not support this bill. Canadians need a solid economic plan for affordability in the path of increasing inflation and interest rates. Bill C-8, unfortunately, is not it. I thank all members for listening to my speech today.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook spoke a lot about what is missing from Bill C-8, namely, the labour and supply chain shortages. I would add to that funding for social and affordable housing.

The Bloc Québécois is a bit concerned about what Bill C-8 has too much of. I am talking about the fact that the government wants to meddle in property taxation. Once again, the government is infringing on other jurisdictions. What does my colleague think about the way the government is once again infringing on Quebec and municipal jurisdictions?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House, especially today to speak on Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures.

Canadians are worried and frustrated. They want a plan for the recovery. They want hope, and that is not what they got from the economic and fiscal update tabled by the government on December 14, 2021.

Canadians can feel the middle-class dream slipping away, and this economic statement and fiscal update did nothing to address what is causing them to feel that way. If anything, it exacerbated it. It did not help the young families moving from Toronto and Peel Region, predominantly, to Flamborough—Glanbrook, who are worried about the startling increase in the cost of living. It did not help the small business owners who were struggling to stay afloat, nor the farmers who are putting food on our tables, nor the seniors. There are many seniors' villages in my constituency. Many seniors built this country, and are living on fixed incomes.

Allow me to focus on four things this afternoon in this discussion of Bill C-8: one, the ballooning cost of living; two, the housing crisis; three, disrupted supply chains; and four, the lack of a coherent plan for the economy.

Let us talk about inflation. Canadians are feeling the pinch at the grocery store, at the gas station and on their home heating bill. Canadians have never felt more pessimistic about their financial futures. Take Gary from Stoney Creek Mountain, who is a senior living on a fixed income. He wrote to my office recently. He was gravely concerned because every month he sees more of his income being spent on food and fuel. Seniors such as Gary, who have worked their entire lives and who helped to build this country into what it is today, deserve to enjoy their retirement years. That is something that the reckless policies of the government are robbing them of.

Inflation is at its highest point in 30 years. Earlier this week, the Governor of the Bank of Canada suggested that inflation could remain as high as 5% for the first half of the year in 2022. That 5% does not actually tell the whole story, because the price of chicken is up 6%, beef is up almost 12% and natural gas is up 19%. As to gas for our cars, we saw the highest price ever in Hamilton and the GTA this past week. It is up 33%. Those are the things that families need and depend on every day.

What makes matters worse is that the government refuses to take any blame. At first it told Canadians that it actually was not really a problem, then members of the government threw up their hands and said there was nothing they could do about it. Young families in my riding who are paying $1,000 extra for groceries this year deserve a better answer that.

Talking of issues affecting young Canadians, which the government pretends to care a lot about, home prices across the country are up 25%. The Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington, in my area, announced yesterday that the average home price in Hamilton is now over $1 million. Under the government, my constituents have seen the housing bubble grow to be the second-most-inflated in the world. It is up 85%. How much can young Canadians see these prices go up under the government? It is no wonder that so many people under 30 years old have completely given up on the dream of ever owning a home.

Another issue I would like to address is the impact of disrupted supply chains. That is having a great impact on our economy from coast to coast, and on our trade. It is not something that was sufficiently addressed, and there were no solutions sufficiently provided in the fall economic and fiscal update. We know there are complicating factors, such as port congestion and exploding container prices. Of course, there are labour shortages everywhere across the supply chain, as well as increased inputs for all facets of production.

On top of this, the government’s dismissal of the truckers is exacerbating the problem. How can we make a dent in the supply chain backlog when a number of truckers are off the road? They are outside the walls here. They are frustrated and want to be heard, yet there is no dialogue. There is no olive branch from the government.

Here is what it means to farmers and producers in my riding who cannot get trucks to get their products to market. I will give two examples of the calls and conversations I have had in the last few weeks.

Ray, a farmer in Flamborough, grows organic grains. He grows organic corn and soybeans and mills them for feed that is provided to chicken farmers in Pennsylvania and upper New York state, who in turn sell their organic chickens to restaurants in New York City. It is a great opportunity for all because each of the participants along the supply chain earns a premium on the product, which the consumers of New York are willing to pay. It is good for everyone, but Ray is frustrated, as he cannot get trucks to get the grain out of his bins. If he cannot get the grain out of his bins, he cannot get the revenue to buy the seed he needs to plant the crop this spring for his crop this year, and he needs that cash flow.

Ray told me the whole process of trucks on his farm is contactless. The drivers are in their cabs, the process is all electronic and they do not even have to roll down their windows. It is another example of disruptions in the supply chain that are taking place across the country, which were not sufficiently addressed in the government's fiscal and economic update. The response really has been a shoulder shrug.

Another example is a large greenhouse operator in my riding, Jan. He also said he needs trucks to get his product to market, which is perishable. On top of the labour shortages that he is dealing with, the dramatic cost of freight has increased, the input costs have increased and the packaging costs have increased, and he cannot ship by truck. This economic and fiscal update offered no hope to Jan and the other producers across Canada. Urgent action is needed.

A glaring omission in the fiscal and economic update was any concrete plan for the economy. Where is the plan for economic growth? We can see the plan to spend another $71 billion that we do not have, but where is the plan to grow the economy to pay for that, to create the prosperity this country needs so we can have more money to buy more goods and alleviate inflationary pressures and to have the resources we need to invest in health care and ICU capacity, which we know from the pandemic has been clearly lacking?

It should worry all of us that the OECD published a report the same week as the fiscal and economic update that said Canada would be the worst performing industrialized economy in the world in a decade from now, 2020 through to 2030. That is shocking. The OECD is saying that Canada will have the slowest growth of all the world's industrialized economies. That is worse than Italy and Greece. With all due respect to my Greek and Italian friends, they are perennial underperformers. That is not where Canada should be.

What is even more worrisome was a report that came out in January that said Canada has had the weakest private sector investment in our economy in years. Where is the business confidence? Where is that growth potential for the future that we need? It is private sector investment that is going to grow our economy, not government spending. The fact that the fiscal and economic update ignored that does not encourage us. It is yet another reason to vote against Bill C-8.

No one works harder than Canadians, none of our OECD competitors have smarter people or people with more ingenuity and we have a great country blessed with resources from coast to coast, so the problem is not us. The problem is not Canadians. The economic headwinds we face are a problem of the government that is leading us. Bill C-8 does not offer any hope to change that. There is no plan to really unleash Canada’s economic potential in this particular piece of legislation. We can do better.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin today, I just want to take a moment to thank our former leader, the member for Durham. He worked hard for the Conservative caucus and for the country. He served in the military, and as an MP in cabinet and opposition leader. I thank him for his service and dedication to our party and country, and I thank Rebecca and his family for their sacrifices.

I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-8.

Expectations were high after the unnecessary election that cost taxpayers over $600 million, which was called during a pandemic in an attempt by the Prime Minister and his government to further their own self-interests. However, the results were clear. Canadians, 67% to be exact, voted against giving the Liberals more power and overwhelmingly against the corruption scandals and overreach by the Liberals by a 2:1 margin.

What have we seen since the election? The Prime Minister took a vacation during the first National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. He delayed the return of Parliament by 60 days and he broke his promise to deliver action in the first 100 days. Instead of rebuilding the country at a time of crisis, the Prime Minister has repeatedly alienated western and rural Canadians. He has played the worst kind of divisive politics and attempted to label those who disagree with him as being hateful. No responsible person, let alone the leader of our country, should ever throw around words like “misogynist” or “racist” so casually and recklessly.

No one knows how easily the Liberals will sacrifice good, hard-working people than Albertans. Almost every year, the Liberals have squeezed more and more of Alberta's jobs out of the province. They then killed four pipelines with their no more pipelines act. They have ignored the cries of indigenous communities who rely on resource development agreements. They have created political problems with key trading partners that hurt farmers in the west and have sought to fight Alberta's provincial government at their return. The irony is that their drive is to make a green, clean energy grid, but the likelihood is of that is delayed, even by a decade or more, as many energy companies who invested heavily in renewable energy and new technologies left the country or simply pushed their investments to another location.

While providing some money in the economic and fiscal update for COVID testing, for business loans and school ventilation was good, the update was silent on the top demand from provinces for the last two years. They needed new funding for health care. The pandemic has strained health care workers, hospitals and the overall system to the point of near breaking, with thousands if not tens of thousands of delayed surgeries and procedures. There is no doubt that there will be many more preventative measures that have been missed and undetected illnesses that will demand emergency action instead of early intervention. All of that will drive up health care costs, with health care costs all but guaranteed to increase.

Provinces are on even more shaky financial ground. For example, Newfoundland has already had a bailout of sorts while other provinces could even be headed towards economic crisis after the debt piled on during the pandemic. With the excessive spending before and during the pandemic, the federal government is not well positioned to help. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, one-third, or about $177 billion, of pandemic spending was unrelated to the pandemic response plan, which is about six years of military spending, six years of health care in Alberta or more than double provincial and territorial transfers.

I come from a riding with a large rural economy where farmers have endured extreme hardships from a severe drought and the impacts of the pandemic. Our agricultural sector is critical to our trade, our international relations, our domestic economy and our rural economy for that matter.

Farmers and rural Canada were ignored in the throne speech, and we do not know why. For the last five years, they have paid enormous carbon tax bills, some in the tens of thousands of dollars. Their costs have been driven up, and the costs of food products in Canada are continuing to rise.

These costs hurt farmers who cannot compete with America or other countries in costs. The prices hurt Canadian food manufacturers who want to use Canadian farm products, but they also have to do with the high cost of buying from U.S. competitors. They hurt small business owners who face higher downstream costs, as well as continually higher costs from employment taxes, the GST, etc. Who do they pass those costs on to? It is to consumers: to families, with higher grocery bills.

The government made a promise to improve, and to help farmers and everyone who consumes Canadian farm products. Conservatives provided a clear policy option in Bill C-208 that would have eliminated carbon taxes for on-farm activities. That exemption would not have required new administration costs. It would not have increased costs for businesses to track and calculate those expenses.

The Minister of Finance, who is from downtown Toronto, had a better idea. Instead of a simple solution that was easy to understand, practical to implement and would cut costs, she would create a complex tax regulation that could change on a political whim. It would not reduce costs at all and would ultimately keep prices higher for consumers, while providing little to no relief for farmers.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, instead of tens of thousands of dollars less in taxes, farmers will get a rebate of between $1.47 and $1.73 per $1,000 spent on eligible farm activities. The generosity of the government to the farming community is amazing. Who determined those eligible farming activities? It was the government. What is eligible? We do not know. It is entirely up to the minister and the government.

There are many serious issues facing Canada right now that need immediate action. We have a drug addiction crisis. We have a violent crime and criminal gang shooting crisis. Canada is increasingly alienated by our allies, while facing greater global pressures and hostility. Our military is lacking key trades, trained personnel and equipment, and plans to meet its increased mandate.

Inflation is quickly eating away at working-class and lower-income Canadians. Anger, resentment and division are increasing at an alarming rate across the country, spurred on by the indifference and rhetoric from even our Prime Minister. Small businesses are struggling to hang on, and are unable to find workers. Canadian shelves are emptier and have fewer options than ever before. Worker losses and capacities increase and decrease the supply of goods.

Private-sector investment has dropped massively since 2015 and has hit records lows, suggesting Canada could face significant competitive challenges in the years ahead. Our consumer energy prices are among the highest in developed countries, and our housing prices are some of the top in the world.

We need better from the government. We need the government to swallow its pride and stop slapping band-aid solutions onto its broken policies in an attempt to address the problem. Crime is up, and the witch hunt on law-abiding firearms owners, while ignoring gangs and gun smuggling, needs to end before we can actually address crime. Inflation is up, due in large part to unchecked, uncontrolled and wasteful spending by the Liberals. We need a plan to get back to balance and to manage spending properly.

If we fix the policies that created these issues, we can begin to solve the problem. However, without acknowledging their mistakes and their failures, the Liberals will never be able to govern Canada to better days. They will be forever stuck trying to distract Canadians with social media campaigns, hashtags and undelivered commitments.

Better is possible. The people of my riding, and all Canadians, deserve to be heard and respected by their government. They deserve a clear economic recovery plan for their communities and our country. They deserve a plan to manage inflation, reduce crime, reduce everyday costs and deal with our national security. Canadians should not have to wait the better part of a decade for that to happen.

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

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking for the first time at length in this 44th Parliament representing the citizens of Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

Before I go on to make some comments on this specific legislation, I want to congratulate two of those citizens, my parents, as today is their 61st wedding anniversary.

With respect to Bill C-8, it should come to no one's surprise that I will be opposing this legislation and these additional spending measures. Why? It is because they are adding more fuel to the inflationary fires. The recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer states that more stimulus spending will only stoke these inflationary fires, resulting in an inflation tax. Asked at the finance committee if government deficits contribute to inflation, the PBO stated very clearly that, yes, they can.

How much money are we talking about? Another $71.2 billion in spending is referenced in the economic and fiscal update, and since the beginning of this pandemic, the government has introduced $176 billion in new spending that is unrelated to responding to the pandemic. Our interest-bearing debt is approaching $1.4 trillion.

I will borrow some descriptions my colleague from Edmonton West used yesterday when he outlined what that means. We understand what $1 million looks like. It is a one and six zeroes, but $1.4 trillion is $140 million millions. Folks should think about that. Yesterday during question period, the finance minister stated that 8 out of 10 dollars spent as a COVID response have come from the federal government, even if they have been delivered provincially, so the accountability for this spending lies with the government.

Let me mention two areas where Canadians would have been better served by a government being more proactive, which would have lessened the need to be so reactive to pandemic effects. The first is securing rapid tests. Conservatives supported the sourcing of rapid tests well before we had vaccines, almost two years ago now. Late in this pandemic, the government seems to have seen the light and now wants more rapid tests. After five waves of infection and the economic carnage that lockdowns bring, we are now finally seeing an effort being made.

The second is ICU capacity. Lockdowns have been invoked by provincial governments largely in response to the fear that critical care capacity will be overwhelmed during peak infection periods. It is not that often that my colleagues agree with opposition colleagues in this chamber, but on the point of increased health transfers, we do agree. In particular, while in some places we lack bricks and mortar in our health care system, we primarily lack doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. It is the critical care capacity deliverers that we need so many more of.

While this is of course a provincial responsibility, in my federal role I have been closely monitoring the local health care capacity in my riding at Erie Shores hospital in Leamington and at Chatham-Kent hospital, especially because of the overlap of providing this care to our citizens combined with care for the guest worker community of the agricultural sector in my riding. I could spend 10 minutes just talking about the experience there in the last two years.

I did not realize that Canada only has one-third of the health care capacity of our neighbour to the south. I did not know that until we got into this pandemic. That is why such a low percentage of people who are critically affected by COVID so quickly overwhelm our health care capacity. These are the two areas where, especially early on in this pandemic, it would have been far better to respond proactively.

However, the cumulative effect of government spending in areas responding to, rather than preventing, the economic damage of COVID have led to a very predictable outcome: inflation. This form of taxation, and that is what inflation is, affects so many areas of our lives. It affects those particularly who can least afford it more than those with assets who can actually benefit from it.

Let me touch on just two areas. The first is housing and the crisis in housing inflation. The injection of so many printed dollars into our economy has exacerbated the rise in the cost of housing. While in Chatham-Kent—Leamington the average costs are not as high as national averages, the rate of increase, particularly on the lower end of the spectrum, is even higher. With the interest rate now below the rate of inflation, because it is rising, this provides a further incentive to bid up prices.

We have not yet seen the end of this inflationary housing bubble. The end is not written. The Bank of Canada has signalled that interest rates will rise. How many people will face an even greater pressure on their personal finances when it comes to renewing their home mortgage? The main solution of course lies in the basic laws of supply and demand. We need more houses built, not more taxes, and not more spending, which only drive the inflationary cycle.

Second is food inflation. Anyone who eats or, more specifically, buys groceries understands the rising cost of food in Canada. Prior to having the honour of standing in this place today, I actively farmed and produced food for most of my adult life. I also had the opportunity to be involved with the business of representing food producers at negotiation tables and in industry circles.

I understand that the broad inflation is not the primary driver of the cost of raw product of food prices in Canada. Weather events, geopolitical tensions and other trade issues impact the cyclical nature of these markets more than broad inflation, but, and this is a big but, I am speaking of raw food pricing. What the Canadian consumer experiences at the grocery aisle is only minimally impacted by the price of what a farmer receives. In most food stuffs, the percentage cost represented by the raw component is very small. The labelling, packaging, transportation, processing and preparing are cost components that dwarf the raw component, and of course, these are all cost drivers that are affected by inflation.

In conclusion, what would it take to get us out of this mess? First, the government needs to reorient its approach. It is encouraging to hear from our health care leaders, and in particular I want to point out Ontario's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kieran Moore, who support our need to learn to live and work with COVID. We need to move from a pandemic state of COVID to an endemic state. The vast majority of Canadians have done what we have asked of them. They got vaccinated and observed public health measures.

We have the tools, the vaccines and the rapid tests, or we should have the rapid tests. Now we need to learn to live with COVID, and we need to open up.

Second, we need to rein in government spending. We need to tamp down inflation, and we need to blunt the trend of rising interest rates, which inevitably result from inflation. It appears that the government's tax-and-spend approach, which resulted in inflation, is almost intentional. This is its way of inflating its way out of massive debt.

Lower taxes, less spending, leading to lower inflation and more economic growth is the only way out for all Canadians.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a question. I appreciated the member for Yorkton—Melville's speech, as she brought up some important points.

We see in Bill C-8 a doubling down on the failed economic policies of a government that has led our economy into a challenging state between large inflation and economic metrics all over the map.

Could the member for Yorkton—Melville comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, today in the debate on Bill C-8, we see the Conservative Party taking a very hard right turn. I am surprised and quite disappointed that the Conservatives seem to want to defeat a very important piece of legislation.

In Bill C-8, we are seeing over $1 billion going toward rapid testing. Does the member believe that Ottawa should not be paying for rapid testing? Does she want the provinces and territories to be paying for it? Who should be paying for it, if not Ottawa? Who does the member suggest should pay that bill?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to a bill that would implement certain measures of the November economic and fiscal update. Although these are trying times for our country, I have every reason to feel hopeful, but it is not because of this legislation. On January 25, I stood at the side of the road in Whitewood, Saskatchewan, as truckers drove away from their families toward Ottawa. By now, every member of Parliament, and I am sure almost every Canadian, has seen and heard what these peaceful protesters are asking for. They are in our capital because a whole two years into the pandemic, the Prime Minister has decided to put our supply chain at further risk with a punitive vaccine mandate for our cross-border truckers. These are the same truckers who have been going above and beyond to keep our grocery and retail store shelves stocked over the past two years with no issue.

At the start of the pandemic, politicians of all stripes, including the Prime Minister, encouraged Canadians to thank truckers as some of the unsung heroes of the pandemic. Now, a whole two years into the pandemic, his vaccine vendetta will disrupt supply chains further and raise the cost of everyday goods more, impacting our economy and quality of life.

Already feeling the pinch of what bills like Bill C-8 are doing to our economy, these truckers are losing their means of providing for their families. They are joining doctors, nurses, police, firefighters, teachers, lawyers, members of our armed forces, miners, factory workers, public servants and so many others whose income has been or will be cut off because of their medical choices. They are not encouraged by bills like this one, which promise even more money for proof-of-vaccination requirements across the country. It sends completely the wrong message to our economy, to our trading partners and to Canadians. That is why they are standing up.

This convoy has exposed many of the frustrations truckers, farmers and hard-working families are feeling with the Prime Minister and his government. They are tired of overburdensome taxes and reckless spending. They are tired of heavy-handed limits on their ability to provide for their families. They are tired of a government that is intent on driving Canadians apart.

I am pleased to see that the convoy, which was initially focused on ending a punitive vaccine mandate for truckers, has evolved and bloomed into a voice for all Canadians who fundamentally believe in personal freedom. To see people standing up for their rights and freedoms makes me so proud to be Canadian—

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Jonquière on his speech and I would like to ask him a question.

We have heard so much about health care, which is of course very important to the Conservatives as well. I think that was made quite clear during the last campaign. However, I would like to hear from my colleague on Bill C-8.

I did not hear him say much about inflation. Is inflation not a problem in his riding? Does everyone have enough money to pay for their housing and groceries? Is everything just fine and dandy there?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-8, even though it is not exactly my favourite subject. I would like to talk about health transfers, and I hope this subject does not get overlooked.

To begin my speech, I want to come back to the subject of the emergency funds and programs the government put in place. The wage subsidy and the rent subsidy in particular come to mind, because flexibility was a huge problem with those programs. Anyone who started their businesses after March 2020 is ineligible.

In my riding, Daniel Bolduc, the owner of Auberge Les Deux Tours, meticulously follows all public health rules. He purchased an inn that was already an existing business, but is getting zero support from the federal government.

I find it quite ironic that there are other entrepreneurs who sometimes post some rather questionable things on social media with respect to compliance with public health rules, yet they still get support from the government. Sadly, some folks who follow the rules scrupulously are left with nothing.

Mr. Bolduc invested his life savings in this inn and now he is in a difficult situation. I know he appealed to the Deputy Prime Minister through the Association Restauration Québec. Dominique Tremblay, director of public and government affairs, sent a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister on this matter.

I want to take a couple of seconds to encourage Mr. Bolduc. We speak frequently. I know he is motivated and wants to resolve this situation. I wanted to indulge in a little aside here to tell him that I support him.

I would like to talk about Bill C‑8 and, especially, about what is not in Bill C‑8. In the economic update, which we could describe as pretty anemic, what I think is most surprising, especially in the context of a pandemic, is the fact that it contains nothing for health up to 2027.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising a number of issues in the context of this debate.

The member spoke of bringing a bucket of water to a fire that is raging out of control. One of the big problems that is not on the horizon anymore, but is bad and getting worse, is the problem of climate change and the climate crisis that we are facing. This is the first big opportunity since the election for the government to show its tangible intention when it comes to fighting the climate crisis. When we look at Bill C-8, which is the legislative piece of the fall economic statement, we really do not see much at all about climate change.

Does the member want to take some time to speak to what is required in order to combat the climate crisis? Are there some things that the government could have done in this bill in order to start getting serious about that, now that it is about as far away from an election as this government is going to get in Parliament?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning to offer some reflections with respect to Bill C-8.

I would like to start with some points I appreciate in this bill. Specifically, I think we can all agree that, in the midst of a pandemic, adding more ventilation and more supports is a good thing. In this bill is $100 million to improve ventilation in schools. There is also a refundable tax credit on taxes payable for up to 25% of ventilation expenses for small businesses.

In addition, I really appreciate that the bill includes $1.72 billion for provinces to allocate rapid tests to expand school and workplace testing. In the Waterloo region, for example, the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce shared last month that it was short on 200,000 rapid tests. This is the kind of support I know businesses in my community will really appreciate.

When it comes to housing, house prices in Kitchener went up 35% last year alone. In 2005, the average house price was around three times the median income. In the last year, it rose to 8.7 times the median income. There is no doubt that house prices are skyrocketing out of control. Young people are concerned they might not ever be able to purchase homes of their own. Seniors on fixed incomes in my community are anxious about whether they will be able to stay. I spoke to a nurse last summer who shared that her rent is going up too, and she wondered if she would be able to stay in our community at all.

We need policies that address this crisis head-on. Homes should be for people to live in, and not commodities for investors to trade. One of the problems we have in this crisis is the number of vacant homes across the country. A recent study showed that 1.34 million homes across the country are sitting empty because speculators bought them with no interest in ever living there. They were simply speculating on the value. That is 8.7% of the housing stock. At our current rate of construction, it would take us six years to build the housing supply we already have in vacant homes.

Now, we have solutions that work. For example, Vancouver has gradually raised its empty homes tax to 3%. In doing so, it has reduced the number of vacant homes by 25%. It has added at least 18,000 units back onto the market, and generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue for new, affordable housing.

If we turn back to this bill, there is what is called an underused housing tax. It is set at 1%. For speculators who are earning returns well over 8%, my concern is that this level will not meaningfully discourage the speculation from investors we are currently seeing in the market. Not only that, but almost everyone is exempt from this tax. Canadians are exempt. Permanent residents are exempt. Every corporation is exempt. It applies only to a small fraction of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned vacant homes.

It feels to me like we all know the house is on fire and someone has called the fire service, but the fire service arrived with a bucket of water. I wonder why the governing party will not move more quickly to bring on the variety of tools we know we need to address this crisis, such as new investments in non-market public subsidized housing and co-op housing.

I noticed that there was a promise in the platform of the governing party to consider introducing an end to the blind bidding process. There are so many tools we can and should consider, and I strongly encourage the governing party to look into doing so.

If the Liberals are serious about addressing the housing crisis and they are looking to set the priorities, I would encourage them to at least look at the tax in this bill to consider if we could be more serious about ensuring that this is a tool that would address the reality of the crisis we are facing across the country. Certainly in Kitchener, it is hitting home across our community.

I am also disappointed that there were two other opportunities in Bill C-8 that were not addressed. I would like to bring those forward here.

The first is with respect to the crisis in long-term care. This past summer I spoke with a woman whose mom had been waiting in a hospital for three months. She was in tears as she shared with me that she wondered if her mom would make it to long-term care before she passed.

She was one of 52,000 people on the wait-list, as of this past summer, for a spot in long-term care. The solutions are self-evident. Last year, the former MP for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Paul Manly, introduced Motion No. 77. That motion offered a number of potential solutions, including national standards for long-term care and an end to for-profit care; ensuring that personal support workers were not providing four minutes of care a day, but four hours of care a day; eliminating the wait times altogether, and ensuring adequate pay so that PSWs would not have to run from one care home to the other in the gig economy.

Thankfully, the Parliamentary Budget Officer costed the plan out. The good news is that for less money than we currently offer to oil and gas companies every year, $18 billion, we could be taking better care of our seniors.

Finally, another disappointment for me that I would encourage the governing party to consider prioritizing, if not in this bill than in another, the introduction of a national pharmacare program. We have been hearing promises about pharmacare since 1997. It has been 25 years.

This past summer, I spoke with a woman who shared with me that, given the cost of her medications, she needed to intentionally take less than she required every day so that her medications might last longer. This is in a country where we claim to be proud of truly universal health care. Obviously that is not the case.

Because we have had this many years of study, we know that currently Canadians are spending $24 billion a year on pharmaceuticals. We also know that we would save money by having a national program. Not only is it more compassionate and a moral imperative, but economically, we would collectively save $4 billion a year by introducing a national pharmacare program.

I would encourage the governing party, and all parliamentarians, to continue to advocate for Canadians across the country who deserve access to truly universal health care. One element of that is ensuring we have a national pharmacare program.

In closing, there are elements of good propositions in this bill. I am glad for those, specifically around rapid tests. Those will really help in my community.

However, if we are going to be serious about the housing crisis, and we are going to follow through on promises that have been made over many years, I would encourage all parliamentarians to continue not only to advocate for improvements in long-term care and a national pharmacare program, but also to meaningfully address the housing crisis that we find ourselves in.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is such an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-8 on behalf of the good people of northwest B.C. This evening, I would like to talk about people in small communities and at the end, if I have time, I want to touch on an issue facing some of Canada's largest municipalities.

At heart, I am a small-town boy, so I will start with the rural communities in the riding I represent. The largest community in Skeena—Bulkley Valley has only about 12,000 or 13,000 people. The rest of the residents live in very small communities, villages and rural areas, and it is their concerns and their needs that I would like to begin with tonight because this legislation includes changes that affect them in many ways.

The ones I want to focus in on are the proposed changes to the northern residents tax deduction, a part of the Income Tax Act that is intended to account for the higher cost of living in Canada's northern, rural and remote communities, the farthest flung places in our country. For a long time, the system in the Income Tax Act had a very complex formula for determining the remoteness of these places in the north. In the 1990s that formula changed and essentially the federal government drew an arbitrary line across the map of our country. If people are above the line, then they get the northern residents deduction. If they are below the line, they do not get it.

This affects a lot of people in the place that I get to represent. In the bill before us the government has seen fit to make changes to the travel portion of that northern residents deduction. That is certainly a welcome change, making it more flexible in the eligibility criteria so that residents within one of those northern zones are able to claim more of the expenses they pay out for travel. However, it does not get to this underlying problem with the fairness of that arbitrary line on the map.

This is an issue that has been raised by my constituents for a long time, going back well over a decade. My predecessor, Nathan Cullen, who sat in the House, brought this up and tabled a private member's bill on behalf of the good residents of Haida Gwaii. I was honoured in the last Parliament to table a similar bill, because Haida Gwaii is one of the most remote places in our country. This is an archipelago that is separated from the mainland by a seven-hour ferry ride. Haida Gwaii used to qualify for the full northern residents deduction, but in 1993, it was moved to the intermediate zone, so residents there now only receive 50% of the deduction.

When I travel to Haida Gwaii, and I hope to be back really soon, this is something that so many residents bring to my attention. On Haida Gwaii the cost of living is high for a number of reasons, mostly because all of the goods that are purchased have to be brought in by ferry. Also, for so many reasons, residents have to travel to the mainland for services and other reasons.

I talked to Evan Putterill, a local government representative on Haida Gwaii. He talked about auto repairs and that only certain auto repairs are available on the island and people have to go off island for so many others. I have had residents raise the issue of shipping rates. That is another huge issue, postal shipping to remote parts of the riding, and so many other things. The cost of groceries, fuel and building supplies are all more expensive in remote places in northwest B.C.

The hope is that we can change that arbitrary criteria. This would help places like Haida Gwaii, but other places as well. Although Haida Gwaii is in that intermediate zone and does qualify for half of the tax deduction, there are other communities in northwest B.C. that do not qualify at all and for which the changes that the government has proposed in Bill C-8 are irrelevant because they do not fit into one of those prescribed zones.

There is a story that the mayor of Fraser Lake brought this to the attention of the North Central Local Government Association. They proposed something called the rural living allowance. They have ideas for how we can fix this, but we need to go beyond an arbitrary line on the map.

I also met with Linda McGuire, the mayor of Granisle, and her council. They talked about the fact that, to access services and goods, many of their residents have to drive to the district of Houston, which is 80 kilometres away. They want to attract more residents to their community, but the cost of living and the cost of goods are major barriers.

I spoke about this in the House earlier today, and then later posted about it on social media. Brian Lande from Bella Coola brought to my attention his beautiful community. I was thinking about the last time I went to Bella Coola. For folks who have not been, Bella Coola and the Bella Coola Valley, on Nuxalk territory, are spectacular.

By car, the nearest major centre is Williams Lake. I only say major centre in the sense of rural places, because it itself is not a huge municipality.

It is a 450-kilometre drive from Williams Lake to Bella Coola. It is across the Chilcotin Plateau and down a gravel road over an incredibly steep hill that drops 5,000 feet into the Bella Coola Valley.

It is one of the most remote places in British Columbia, yet it does not qualify for the northern residents deduction under the Income Tax Act.

The residents of Bella Coola pay exorbitant costs for all sorts of things. The one they brought to my attention most recently is parcel shipping. Because their postal code has been designated by Canada Post as a remote postal code, companies that do mail orders charge exorbitant costs to get parcels to Bella Coola.

These are the kinds of costs that an improved northern living allowance in the Income Tax Act could help to offset. It would help small communities, like Bella Coola and Granisle and Fraser Lake, to attract residents and develop their economies, and it would help the people there to live more affordable lives.

I was very pleased to table a petition in the last Parliament on this topic. Hundreds of residents from northwest B.C. signed a petition urging the government to bring Haida Gwaii into the northern zone for the northern residents deduction. I also tabled Motion No. 22, which I was pleased to retable in this Parliament.

That motion calls on the government to strike a task force and look at the eligibility criteria in the Income Tax Act for the northern residents deduction. We need a better way of defining what a remote community is. Not all of the remote communities in Canada are in the far north. Many communities are separated by long roads that are only seasonally accessible, and they face really high costs of living. Those communities need to be served by this provision in our Income Tax Act.

Despite a decade of members of Parliament calling on the government to make those changes, we have heard nothing. It is something that needs to change. Rural and remote residents across our country would be better for it. Rural places are an important part of the fabric of this country, and we can recognize that by changing the Income Tax Act.

I want to shift to an issue facing some of Canada's largest municipalities. Please excuse the whiplash while I move to the issue of public transit.

On January 26, just last week, the mayors of Canada's biggest cities called on the government. They said they were pushing the emergency button on public transit funding. Public transit is in crisis right now. The pandemic has cut revenue for transit systems by as much as 80%. Even two years into the pandemic, transit systems are only at 40-50% of their original ridership. The only way municipalities can make their budgets balance, and they are not allowed to run deficits, is to cut services and cut routes.

What we risk here is a downward spiral. We are building new transit systems. We are building new infrastructure, and that is wonderful. However, we need to ensure that essential workers, seniors, students and all people who relied on public transit during the pandemic have that service available to them. If we cut transit service in Canada's cities, we are going to see people move to other modes of transportation, and it is going to be very difficult to get them back on public transit.

We need more people riding public transit, not fewer. It is important for so many reasons, including equity and climate reasons, and it is part of the future that we need to build together.

The big city mayors have spoken. We have not heard from the government. We do not see, in the fall economic statement, any money for transit operating costs. We need to see it. There is still a chance. I hope this government will hear the call of the FCM and the big city mayors, and make that funding a part of Canada's future.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we had a nice chat earlier about translation. In English, we call you the Speaker, but in French, maybe we should call you “haut parleur”, because you do make quite a good loudspeaker. We know that you are the Speaker and that you are doing a great job. You can tell your constituents that we are very proud to have you as Speaker of the House of Commons presiding over this debate.

It is my turn to speak to Bill C‑8, which would implement certain provisions of the 2021 economic and fiscal update.

I took the time to read through the 2021 economic and fiscal update that was presented by the Minister of Finance. This week, during question period, I had the opportunity to put several questions to both the minister and the Prime Minister, who was participating virtually. I was struck by their answers and by the scant compassion they showed for the mothers and fathers affected by inflation. When I asked the minister when the government would start trying to curb inflation and how it would react to Canadians getting poorer, she proudly rose and announced that inflation in Canada was 4.8%, while in other countries it was 4%, 5%, 6%, 7% or 8%.

It is true that inflation might be a bit lower in Canada. However, both single- and two-parent families are being forced to make tough choices at the grocery store because budgets are tight, and the problem is that inflation may be 4.8%, but grocery bills are going up by 6%. That 6% increase represents the increase in prices across the board, but on specific products, such as beef or chicken, that increase can be 10%, 15% or even 20%.

People now have to start making choices. They have to start leaving things out of the basket to feed the family, instead of taking the nutritious and good food they were used to getting. Why? Because when they get to the cash register, no one wants to be in a situation where they have to leave something behind for fear of being short on money. No mother or father wants to go through that. It is inhumane. Unfortunately, that is what is happening. I know this because I have received testimonials. I have actually received a lot of them since I asked the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister these questions. When we talk about it, we learn things.

People call us and talk to us. I have learned quite a few things, including that food banks have seen a rise in the number of people who come looking for food. I was a bit surprised because the unemployment rate in Quebec is relatively low. I asked whether these were people who did not have a job or who were unable to get employment insurance because of fraud on their file, given that the government has been unable to resolve their situation since November. I was told no, these are workers, families who do not have enough money to put enough food on the table for the week. We are talking about working people who have a job but are no longer able to make ends meet. They unfortunately have to make these kinds of choices because the cost of gas, housing, and absolutely everything is going up. We are seeing prices skyrocketing, and, sadly, the 4.8% inflation rate is just a fraction of the rise in costs.

There are all kinds of things that Statistics Canada does not take into account, such as vehicle prices. Plenty of things are not taken into account in calculating inflation, so inflation is in fact much higher.

I would like the government to put forward some solutions. Unfortunately, there are none to be found in the economic and fiscal update.

I would like to quote from an article published on January 28, so not that long ago. Nathalie Elgrably wrote:

As if the horrors of the pandemic were not enough, the spectre of inflation is now rearing its ugly head. After 30 years of stability, we are all worrying about it again. If this trend keeps up, inflation is likely to become our number one economic and social problem in short order.

We are in the middle of a pandemic. The government asked people to make sacrifices. People stayed home. Now an inflation problem has been thrown into the mix thanks to the government's excessive spending. The government injected too much money into the economy, and now prices are rising across the board.

Here are some figures from the economic and fiscal update forecast. From the start of the pandemic, the government has spent $176 billion on expenditures that are not related to COVID-19. It is using the excuse of COVID-19 for spending unrelated to the pandemic.

Canadians agree that we must invest to help businesses and people and to meet needs. When the government decides to close something, it is normal for the government to be there to help the closed businesses. However, $176 billion was spent on items unrelated to COVID-19. That is the main driver of this inflation and what makes it rise.

Let us go back to Ms. Elgrably's article, because I think she is right. She confirms precisely what I believe.

To explain this impoverishment, Ottawa is blaming supply chain disruptions, or any random misalignment of the stars.

The “explanations” given by Ottawa are nonsense! It is a dog-and-pony show to make us forget that the [Prime Minister's] staggering spending, which was basically financed by the Bank of Canada, caused the inflation.

I am not the one saying so. Other people are also speaking out. It is not just the nasty Conservatives complaining about this overspending. Economists and banks are talking about it. Let me quote some of them.

BMO chief economist Douglas Porter said those two issues, coupled with reports of labour shortages suggest inflation rates may yet rise higher despite widespread hope that they had hit their peak.

“They definitely may still rise in the coming months....

I'm not at all relieved or relaxed on the inflation outlook. I am quite concerned that we could have more of an inflation issue than I think is commonly believed among economists.”

Unfortunately, the economic and fiscal update gives no indication of the government's plan. We have no idea what the government intends to do to finally stop the collective impoverishment of Canadian families. What are we supposed to tell families who have to pay an extra $300 or $400 a month in rent, because their houses cost more? What are we going to say to those families? What are we supposed to say to parents who have to decide what to leave on the grocery store shelves because they cannot afford it? Inflation is a serious problem.

We are not going to fix the problem for fathers and mothers by telling ourselves that we are doing better than other countries. What I want to know is how much inflation is too much for the government. It is now at 4.8%. Is 5% too much, or 6% or 7%?

In its own economic and fiscal update, the government even targeted 2% inflation. We are at 4.8%, and that is enough.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre, who is a fellow member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know these issues are very important to us both.

We agree on two things. First, the rich must pay their fair share. The Liberals had announced measures to crack down on tax havens, so it is deeply disappointing to see next to nothing about that in Bill C‑8, because that would be one way to make the wealthy pay. The second thing we agree on is that the Liberal government lacks vision for social housing. Either there is not enough funding or the money is not being put to good use.

What we may disagree on is the need for Ottawa to transfer the money as soon as possible. This falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Quebec, the provinces, the territories and municipalities are in the best position to tackle 30 years of underfunded social housing. They know the needs on the ground. They know which women are fleeing intimate partner violence and need shelter. They know how many units are needed. They know which senior women are struggling right now and need social and community housing.

I would like my colleague to comment on the importance of giving the provinces, Quebec and the territories the power to invest in social and community housing where they see the real need.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referred, if not directly then indirectly, to the importance of small businesses and how it is important that the government provide financial support. We have done that in many ways, whether through loans, wage subsidies or rent supports. It is important to recognize that the Bloc party supported Bill C-2, which supported small businesses.

Now we have Bill C-8 before the House. It provides different types of support, at least in part, through rapid tests for small businesses, which many of them will require, but also for ventilation in schools.

I would like to get a sense of the Bloc party's position with respect to Bill C-8. Does the member support this legislation?

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, through Bill C-8, we are continuing to provide much needed support to Canadian workers and businesses through the implementation of tax measures, including tax credits. Targeted tax measures can help make life more affordable. Through Bill C-8, we hope to create a number of tax credits that would benefit Canadians, such as a ventilation tax credit to improve air quality for small business owners and an expansion of tax deductions for travel expenses incurred by residents of northern Canada, and tax credits for teachers and early childhood educators who spend their income on school supplies, and for farmers by returning fuel charges and involuntary backstop jurisdictions.

Furthermore, in Scarborough—Agincourt, we have many schools that are older and could benefit from a top-up from the safe return to class fund, which the bill seeks to provide. It has taken a pandemic to highlight the fact that many of our schools rely on aging infrastructure and that there is a need to bring it up to current ventilation standards for safe indoor air. Although education is a provincial matter, this Liberal government has stepped in to ensure a safe learning environment is possible. The original funds provided $2 billion to provinces and territories, and this top-up of $100 million will help increase outdoor air intake and/or increase air cleaning in order to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19.

I could see a lot of schools benefiting from the repair or replacement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning units and increasing maintenance of the existing systems. In my riding's local school board, this fund has not only been used to address HVAC recommissioning deficiencies, but it also went toward purchasing over 10,000 additional HEPA filter units across 314 schools, many of the high schools in the riding who do not have full air conditioning or have poor circulation of air.

With older schools, installation of operable windows would be helpful. Some of the interior classrooms that do not have windows, such as a computer lab, would benefit from portable air filtration units. By providing this top-up, schools across Canada would be able to make those necessary renovations and repairs while also funding critical programs that would support student mental health and nutrition.

While we are on the subject of schools, the teacher and early childhood educator school supply tax credit would also greatly benefit students in Scarborough—Agincourt and beyond. It currently stands at 15%, but with the passing of this bill, it would be increased to a 25% refundable tax credit. What is new is that it will no longer require that the school supplies be used in a school or a regulated child care facility. This will enable students to bring home the supplies to do homework or even to use those supplies on field trips.

Using technology can further engage students and help those who are in special education classes. Some of these eligible goods, such as external data storage devices that increase a system data storage capacity or wireless pointer devices and printers, are practical, but other goods, such as electronic educational toys, puzzles, video streaming devices and multimedia projectors can take learning up to the next step, open up new worlds and be fun. This can make learning a much more interactive and engaging experience for students.

Housing is another area of focus our government is targeting to make life more affordable. Part 2 of Bill C-8 introduces the underused housing tax act, which will support the work of our national housing strategy, reduce homelessness and create affordable housing. We have all heard housing is becoming increasingly out of reach for many people, and this is one way to discourage vacant or underused homes while generating revenue. The underused housing tax act would only apply to foreign owners of residential property who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents to pay their fair share of Canadian tax by filing an annual return. Residential properties are exempt if they are rented out for at least 180 days, or about six months in a year, so there would be no short rentals like Airbnb.

While this alone would not solve our housing issues, this would help on the peripheral in that it would reduce foreign ownership and penalize those who use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing. Taxes on capital gains do not apply to principal residences. Part 3 of the bill touches upon the Canada emergency business account loan, which has provided over $49 billion in interest-free partially forgivable loans to nearly 900,000 small businesses affected by the pandemic.

Many of the small businesses in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt have been finding the roughly four lockdowns in Ontario difficult and have asked for an extension on their Canada emergency business account loans. This loan has helped a variety of businesses, from restaurants to manufacturing companies to fashion wholesalers. Our government listened. The time period would be extended from December 31, 2022, to December 31, 2023. If a business repays its loan by December 31, 2023, up to a third of the value of its loan, up to $20,000, would be forgiven. Loans not repaid by this date would convert to a two-year term loan starting January 1, 2024, with 5% interest per annum.

Part 3 of this bill would set a limitation period of six years for debts due under the CEBA program to ensure that CEBA loan holders are provided consistent treatment, no matter where they live. The proposed limitation period is also consistent with other COVID support programs, such as those covered by the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

This past January, with the surge of the omicron variant, came a corresponding need to obtain rapid tests. The government had already purchased and shipped over 180 million rapid tests and has signed agreements to secure over 460 million tests in total.

Part 6 of this bill would allocate an additional $1.72 billion to the Minister of Health for the procurement and distribution of rapid antigen tests to provinces and territories. Many seniors have called my Scarborough—Agincourt constituency office worried about leaving their homes to get a rapid test, but still wanting one. This is why this bill is so important. It would give people the peace of mind that they can access rapid tests during difficult times where then could be a possibility of testing positive. Our recently introduced Bill C-10 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund to purchase COVID-19 tests. I know many seniors will be less anxious, knowing they have something at home that can easily be administered and distributed by local organizations they can trust.

Bill C-8 has many practical parts, whether it is helping small businesses and schools or bringing families peace of mind. I hope we can all agree and pass this bill to a second reading.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to give my maiden speech in this 44th Parliament. It is an honour to continue to represent the wonderful riding of Scarborough—Agincourt, and I want to thank my constituents for placing their faith in me and re-electing me once again. A note of appreciation goes to the many volunteers and donors who gave great support.

Despite the pandemic and disruptions outside, I am here in the House today to speak about Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be confused with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who is a great member from that part of the country. I am located a bit north of his riding. Nonetheless, I am happy to share the stage with him. He is a good friend of mine.

Today I am speaking about the fiscal update, Bill C-8. I think the title of this story is “inflation”. We have seen inflation run wild right across the country. I am an auto mechanic and come from the automotive world. I spent most of my life before this place working at a Chrysler dealership in northern Alberta and Abbotsford, B.C., so that is the world I know more significantly. I do not know about others, but I have been driving around Canada noticing that the parking lots of car dealerships are empty. Anyone who has a three-year-old vehicle can trade it in for the same amount of money it was bought for three years ago.

I talked to a fellow during the election campaign who had a 2019 Ford one-ton pickup. He uses it to pull his holiday trailer. The dealership called him to say that since he only uses his truck to pull his holiday trailer, would he consider trading in his 2019 truck in August for a 2022 pickup truck in April of 2022. The man was told the dealership would guarantee him a new truck in April of 2022 if it could have his truck that day with no increase in his payments or the money he owes. It would be a clean swap. He got a pickup that was three years newer. That is a picture inflation. That is a picture of supply chain shortages and life getting more expensive. The fact that pickup trucks are now more expensive today than they were three years ago shows that inflation is happening.

We see it all around us. Now we have major supply chain shortages that are causing some of this inflation, whether it is microchips not making it across the ocean from China to manufacturers or a problem with trucking, but it also has to do with the amount of cash that is being put into the economy in Canada. We are also noticing higher prices in grocery stores of things that we have always relied on. To some degree it is the success of capitalism; when people go to the store, the bread lines up for them. The things we have come to appreciate and take for granted in many cases are not necessarily there today. Because of shortages, we are seeing the prices go up.

Farmers are saying they are getting record prices for their products, but when they buy their inputs, their inputs have increased threefold. They are getting double for their products, but their inputs are threefold higher, so their margins are all in flux. They are not able to predict what they are going to be doing and, in many cases, it does not matter how much money they have, they just cannot get the product. It does not matter whether the product was priced at zero dollars or $100. If they cannot get it, they cannot get it. That is an increasing challenge in this new world.

The point of all of this is that we are driving inflation through flooding the country with cheap cash. Statistics Canada says inflation is currently running at nearly 5%. When people can get money at 2% or 3%, they are basically getting paid to take on debt and we are seeing massive amounts of household debt. People are using the equity in their homes to run their lives, and it is spurring on inflation across the country. All of these things contribute to inflation. Folks continually tell me their groceries have gone up twice the price from a year ago.

There are increased trucking costs associated with this. I spoke to a sawmill owner in Slave Lake, Alberta. Two years ago, it typically cost him $2,000 to get a B-train of lumber down to the coast; today it is costing him anywhere from $5,500 to $6,000. That is a threefold increase in the price of the trucking. The fuel cost is up 50%. A year ago it was hovering around a dollar; now it is running at about $1.50. All of these things are making our lives more expensive.

The other thing I heard from constituents around New Year's was that the December natural gas bill for most people in my riding was the highest bill they have ever had, and a big part of that is due to the carbon tax. Folks were complaining to me that the carbon tax portion of their bill was larger than the actual natural gas costs of the bill. There are the transmission fees and things like that on there, but the actual natural gas they pay for would have been about a third of the bill and then the carbon tax would be about a third of the bill.

That was extremely frustrating to many Canadians, given that they said they had already done everything to reduce their bill. They had upgraded their windows and they had put in more insulation into the ceiling and they had reduced the temperature in their house, all to try to reduce their bill, and yet they had the largest bill in their entire life in December 2021. Again, we are seeing inflation being driven by things like the carbon tax and government policy in this country. They were calling on me to alleviate the carbon tax on home heating or eliminate the carbon tax in its entirety.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is about what it is going to take to get the economy up and running again.

We are seeing the cost of labour going up significantly. There are plentiful jobs. During the election I stopped in at a restaurant, and it was not open. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and they were not open, so a week later when I drove through, I stopped in again, earlier in the day. I had a chat with a waitress and I said I was there last week and they were not open. She said, “Oh, no; we close at four o'clock. We have not been able to get enough staff to stay open all day.” That is something I hear from people all across northern Alberta—that they cannot find enough people to fill the jobs.

Again, that is causing them to offer more pay to attract people to come, and that is also another thing that is driving inflation. Basically, if someone is getting paid more to do the same job but their life costs more on the other side, they have not gained anything. All that happens is that the dollar numbers are higher. That, essentially, is what inflation is. It is the devaluing of our money so that it takes more money to do the same thing, and that is happening in both directions. That is happening in the wages and also in the costs of everything.

We are not necessarily seeing massive increases in production. We are seeing bigger numbers all around, larger numbers, but we are not necessarily seeing the tonnes of coal go up significantly or the barrels of oil go up significantly. All we are seeing is the dollar numbers associated with that going up, and that is, in a nutshell, what inflation is. The government has the levers to make sure that our dollar is worth something in the world, that our lives are affordable and that when we work for our money, we are able to pay for the things we need in order to live our lives. This particular suite of policies the government is proposing would do nothing to alleviate inflation, and for that reason I will not be supporting this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if I were to go over the Public Accounts from the Stephen Harper era, I would find more than just one minister who spent $60 or $40 for a glass of orange juice. There are ample examples of Conservative waste during the Stephen Harper era. However, my question is in regards to Bill C-8.

Bill C-8 would have over $1 billion being spent for rapid tests. Does the Conservative Party not support rapid tests? For months and months, they were like jumping beans in this place, jumping around saying that they want rapid tests. However, we have rapid tests in the bill. It is an investment in rapid tests. Canadians want rapid tests. It is also about putting cleaner air in our schools. There are hundreds of millions being spent to support that to and continue to support people in Canada.

Whether it is rapid tests or cleaner air, why would the Conservative Party oppose it?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair. It's an honour to join this committee today.

My questions are for Mr. Terrazzano.

In Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update, there's a provision for the Income Tax Act to introduce a new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.

Have you had a chance to look at that? What are your thoughts on that system, and is it essential to have in place?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my youngest son was born in the riding of my colleague for Parry Sound—Muskoka many years ago, and I always have fond memories of living there.

I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C-8 today. Technically, it is called “An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update”, but it is also known as, “what is another $7 billion between friends or between the government and taxpayers' wallets”.

I am opposed to this bill, not necessarily item by item and bit by bit of the bill, but opposed to the out-of-control spending of the Liberals. It is part of the fiscal update the government introduced in December, which adds $71 billion of new spending: $71 billion of new debt, even before the Liberals' election promises are counted in.

As my colleague mentioned, the government has also put aside $100 billion in added stimulus. The PBO said that the government has reached its fiscal guardrails. It does not need to add that extra spending, yet here we have the government barrelling ahead. That $71 billion in new inflation spending is $71 billion that eventually will have to be paid back.

I want to put into perspective how much $71 billion is. The government brings in about $32 billion to $35 billion a year in GST. Just to cover the new spending the government added from its fiscal update in December, which covers Bill C-8, GST would have to go up to 16%. For Bill C-8 alone, all the GST in the country collected for three entire months would support just this small bit the government is adding, at 16%. Here in Ontario, HST would have to go to 24% just to cover this new Liberal spending, and in Saskatchewan it would go to 22%. In Alberta, we do not have the sales tax, thanks very much, but it still would be 16% GST just to cover this added spending.

My colleagues with the Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP, actually agree on something, and that is that the government should be increasing health care transfers to the provinces. According to the Public Accounts, there were something like $42 billion in health care transfers last year. The government could increase health care transfers 58% just with this new spending. It could increase health care transfers to the provinces by 16% just with the money spent in Bill C-8.

Regarding income taxes, we are already among the highest-taxed populations in the developed world. Income taxes would have to go up 41% just to cover the new Liberal spending from December. What could we do with that $71 billion instead? The government could actually fund 75 WE Charity scandals with that money.

We found that the government is great friends with SNC-Lavalin. The government gave the company $150 million for field hospitals. We asked the public works officials, and the public works minister, who asked for these. They did not know. The provinces did not ask for these hospitals. Public health did not ask for these hospitals. Public works says that public works asked for them. When we ask who in public works asked for them, we are told that it was public works. Apparently, if we look at GEDS, which is the public employees directory, we will see someone, “Mr. Public Works”, because that person apparently asked for this $150-million, sole-sourced, urgent contract for the Liberals' friends at SNC-Lavalin. It was so urgent that the government sole-sourced it without going out to bids from other companies. By the way, none of those hospitals has actually been delivered or used. With this $71 billion, the government could buy 4,700 added hospitals from its friends at SNC-Lavalin.

According to the Public Accounts that just came out, which, by the way, are the latest Public Accounts to have been delivered in about four decades, the interest-bearing debt for Canadians has now reached an eye-watering $1.4 trillion. I am going to break that down a bit. That is $1,440,000 million in debt.

Now, to put it into numbers that perhaps the Liberals can understand, and for their billionaire friends, that is $1,440 billion in debt. I mentioned the Liberals' friends because in the public accounts, $91 million of taxpayers' money was spent last year to subsidize wealthy owners to buy Tesla vehicles. Taxpayers gave $91 million to Tesla so that wealthy Canadians could buy cars made outside of Canada. The wealthiest man in the world, Elon Musk, got $91 million in subsidies from the government. He owns about 17%, so maybe he gets about $16 million directly. He is a great entrepreneur, I love his tweets and he is hilarious, but he does not need subsidies from the government or from the taxpayers.

I want to put this in perspective so that people can understand the money. The City of Edmonton got $17 million from the government for the rapid housing initiative. In the paper today, there was talk about it. Of the $17 million from the federal government, $11 million will be for buying the old Forum Hotel by the Rexall Centre, where the Oilers used to play. It is $11 million from the government for housing for the homeless, and $91 million to Elon Musk so that wealthy people can afford a Tesla.

In Canada, if one tried to buy a Tesla on a five-year loan at maybe 4.9% or 5.9%, it would cost well over $1,000 a month. I am not sure how many Canadians trying valiantly to work into the middle class could afford $1,000 a month, or who deserves $5,000 from taxpayers so they can stuff Elon Musk's pockets.

Poverty in Edmonton under the Liberal government has gone up, according to the Library of Canada, by 58%, from the most recent StatsCan numbers. For those without housing, like the homeless in Edmonton, the numbers have gone up two-thirds. Nevertheless, former Liberal Amarjeet Sohi, who is the new mayor of Edmonton, a wonderful guy whom I quite enjoy, is cheering on the Liberals because he got $11 million for housing for the homeless. It was $91 million for Elon Musk and $11 million from the Liberal government for the City of Edmonton. It is a disgrace. The money should not be going to corporate welfare, but to people who need it.

Now, for the debt mentioned, the $1.4 trillion, the government says do not worry, as we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. However, guess what? The government is using what is called net debt. There is about half a trillion dollars in the CPP and QPP set aside for future payouts. This is not the future 30 years down the road, but payouts tomorrow for anyone who is 65. The government is counting that money toward the federal debt when it is claiming that it has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This is money for seniors, not money for the government to use, to cash in and to pay on the debt. If we take it away, we are fourth out of seven. Consider the top 29 developed countries in the OECD. If we take out the $500 billion that belongs to seniors, because it is not the government's money, nor the Liberals' money, and show the real debt, we are the 25th worst out of 29 countries in the developed world for debt-to-GDP ratio.

The government should stop misleading Canadians. The government should keep its hands off the money set aside for seniors and stop pretending that it will be able to access that money to pay for its out-of-control spending.

I want to wrap up by talking about the need for focused spending. We have the public accounts and we have been going through the money. There is a disgraceful amount of waste by the government. I mentioned the $91 million for Elon Musk. There is another $50 million to General Motors, Toyota and Nissan for electric vehicle rebates. There is also $50,000 that the government prioritized to give to a corporation to develop a new taste for an India pale ale.

The government asked where we would cut. I would cut corporate bailouts. I would also end the corporate welfare and focus money on Canadians where it is needed.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an always an honour to stand in this place and speak on behalf of the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka from their seat here.

I am speaking on Bill C-8 today, and I am excited to do so, because it is an important issue. I think that the Liberals like their talking points, and when they are asked legitimate questions about the reasonableness of their spending plan, they just spout talking points. I thought I would try to simplify things and get right to the point and see if we can maybe get some good questions.

I would like to point out that of course this all started a couple of years ago at the beginning of the pandemic, and in many ways we in the House worked really well together. Pandemic supports were important, and all parties in the House worked well to improve many of the programs that the government offered and got them implemented as quickly as possible in the uncertain days at the beginning of the pandemic. I was really proud that we worked so well together.

Fast-forward a couple of years and here we are, hopefully seeing light at the end of the tunnel. However, over the course of these two years, we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that since the beginning of the pandemic, the government had spent or planned to spend almost $542 billion in new measures, but he also reported that clearly one-third of those new measures were not COVID-related at all. We are talking about almost $200 billion of new whims from this tax-and-spend Liberal government. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that the remaining platform measures that the Liberals are now talking about would be another $48.5 billion in net new spending between fiscal years 2021-22 and 2025-26.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, from a non-partisan office, pointed out the government's own fiscal guardrails. I am sure everyone recalls that when we were expressing concerns about the amount of deficit spending and borrowing that was being done, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister told us not to worry because we had these fiscal guardrails that were going to make sure we were in good shape.

However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has now told us, “The Government’s own fiscal guardrails would indicate that its latest round of stimulus spending should be wound down by the end of fiscal year 2021-22.” That is this March. “It appears to me, he said, “that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as 'stimulus' no longer exists.” That is the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I do not know what is confusing about that to this government or to the Minister of Finance or her officials, but clearly it is.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was also asked in the finance committee if excessive deficits and borrowing can in fact lead to inflationary pressures. His answer was very simple. It was one word: “Yes.”

Now, I will acknowledge that speaking points across the aisle are all about how inflation is a global issue, that there are global pressures, and I do not doubt that for one minute, but the fact of the matter is that we have a government that refuses to take responsibility for its own contributions to these inflationary pressures. That is real as well; the Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us so, but the Liberals do not like to talk about that. However, the reason we need to talk about that is that when we stand here, we speak for Canadians struggling to make ends meet.

We know what we are talking about when it comes to making ends meet. Trying to put food on the table is becoming more and more expensive for Canadian families. We know that chicken is up 6.2%, as we heard today. We know that beef is up almost 12%, bacon is up almost 20% and bread is up 5%. It is tough to make a sandwich with those numbers. The cost to put fuel in our cars is up 33%, and natural gas is up 19%.

Now, that may not matter in some of the urban ridings that the Liberals hold, but in Parry Sound—Muskoka, where the median income is 20% below the provincial average, people are struggling to make ends meet, and they have to drive to get to their jobs because we do not have the option of the TTC or major transit. They have to drive. It is a rural community. What else do we have to do? In Parry Sound—Muskoka it is cold, and we have to heat our homes. There are an awful lot of people in Parry Sound—Muskoka who heat their homes, not with natural gas because they do not live in the smaller communities, but with propane and oil. On top of the inflationary pressures that we see on home heating fuels of all kinds, there is the carbon tax thrown on top of that as well.

I cannot count the number of phone calls, emails and discussions I have had on the street with working families and seniors on fixed incomes. Seniors on fixed incomes call in tears, not sure how they are going to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table. That is criminal in this country, yet all we hear is talking points and more stimulus borrowing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is not necessary.

Everyone would like to think that Conservatives want to slash spending, and that is not what we are calling for. We are just saying, “Stop borrowing. It is not necessary. Just stop borrowing.” We do not need to borrow any more money. Maybe then we could help bring some of these costs down so that working-class Canadians, everyday folks, could afford to heat their homes, could afford to get to their jobs and could afford to put food on the table.

We hear a lot about housing, and that is a significant issue in Parry Sound—Muskoka as well. I was pleased to hear the member for Vancouver East agreeing with a campaign pledge from the Conservative platform in the last election to actually ban foreign purchases of residential homes for up to two years. This tax is another example. The Liberals want to have a 1% tax on foreign purchases of homes, which would generate more money that they could spend on stimulus that is not necessary. However, it is a 1% tax that would actually have pretty much zero impact on people who are trying to buy and make investments in our real estate market from overseas. The Liberals would just collect more tax and not solve the problem, and that just makes it more difficult for Canadians to ever own a home.

If the Liberals really cared about this issue, they would work collaboratively with the Conservatives and apparently with the NDP to ban the foreign purchase of residential homes for up to two years, but encourage foreign investment in the development of multiresidential rental properties, many of which could be affordable rentals. There is a desperate need for that in Parry Sound—Muskoka and all across this country. I have said many times in this place that affordable housing and access to the housing market is not just an issue in the big cities. It is a major issue all across this country, in smaller communities and rural communities as well. The Liberal government has pretty much forgotten rural Canada when it comes to this issue.

It is a real struggle on this side of the House to take the Liberals seriously when they refuse to listen to even the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If we want to make life more affordable for Canadians, if we want to help Canadians get ahead, we need to help reduce the pressures on their family budgets. All I am asking is why the Liberals will not use their own fiscal guardrails and get the spending under control.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member makes reference to the issue of housing, because within Bill C-8 there is a measure that will make a difference.

For the first time, we are seeing a tax on non-residents and non-Canadians purchasing and possessing unused properties, either directly or indirectly. That is going to be an annual tax. I am hopeful that this measure will have at least some impact in conjunction with other actions by the government through the national housing strategy and a number of projects that the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion has alluded to time and time again. I believe that the federal government is showing goodwill in moving forward on the issue of housing for Canadians.

What are the member's thoughts on the specific initiative of the annual tax within Bill C-8?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is able to get her technical problems resolved. I was looking forward to enjoying her speech. I know how challenging it can be with technical things.

I want to start with the substance of my speech. Like everyone else today, I am addressing Bill C-8, which is a financial update to the fiscal update.

I am going to talk about some specific issues. Over the next few days, we will have a well-rounded discussion, but today I really wanted to talk about one area specifically, and that is part 1(d). It has to do with the introduction of a refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions. Before we get into that, I want to talk a little about farmers and how important they are to our economy.

They provide the very sustenance we need every day, including throughout the pandemic. They actually account for nearly 7% of our GDP. In addition to feeding Canada and Canadians, people around the world are counting on our Canadian farmers. We are the fifth-largest agriculture exporter in the world and that provides nearly one in eight Canadians a job. We are one of the world's largest producers in flaxseed, canola, pulses, oats and durum.

Our farmers, despite providing an incredible bounty for us and around the world, have undergone some significant challenges throughout the pandemic. Like everyone else, they fought through the challenges of the pandemic. They also had challenges going into the pandemic, like the harvest from hell in 2019, which had the significant challenge of crops literally rotting in the field because it was so wet and farmers were unable to dry their fields. That harvest exacerbated the challenges our farmers were already facing, such as the self-inflicted wounds from the government in the form of the carbon tax.

The fact is that in some cases there is no doubt that the claims of revenue neutral do apply. If a person lives in a condo in downtown Toronto, there is a very good chance that their rebate is equal to the amount of the carbon tax they pay. However, if someone is a grain farmer in Saskatchewan, there is a very good chance and, in fact, a 100% chance, that they are paying thousands and thousands of dollars in carbon tax while receiving a mere pittance in return from the carbon tax rebate.

That is what led me, after discussions with some of the great advocacy groups for our farmers, to bring in a private member's bill, Bill C-206. Bill C-206 was legislation that would have exempted propane and natural gas from the carbon tax for farmers. It was well received and it created some great discussion. Our stakeholders were very pleased with it.

Initially, if one can believe this, the agriculture minister said that the carbon tax was not significant. Despite me and others receiving carbon tax bills from farmers around this great country in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars, she said it was not that significant.

However, as the bill gained momentum, all of a sudden the tone changed, which was quite odd. She said that there now might very well be an issue. The minister went from “it is not significant” to “it might be an issue at some point”. Then, of course, as we know, later on in the fiscal update, she announced that there would be a rebate program. That rebate would be a $1.47 for every $1,000 of eligible farming expenses, or $1.73 in 2023. We will see the math, but we will see that is not nearly as much carbon tax as farmers are actually paying.

Before we get into that, let us talk about a rebate versus an exemption and why we still need an exemption. A rebate takes money from the farmer, puts it in Ottawa and then takes it back to the farmer. Why would we go through that machination of having it go to Ottawa and then come back to the farmer? Why would we not just leave it in the pockets of farmers?

I can only speculate but I have a couple of ideas. It might be that, in fact, the government wanted to take credit for an idea that came from farmers, and it wanted to have that credit. It just might be that the government wants control of that money. It is funny what happens sometimes when people's money goes to Ottawa. It tends to diminish. In talking to advocacy groups, whether in the agriculture committee or one-on-one conversations with farmers, we hear that they welcome the rebate but they would much prefer an exemption.

Let us move on from there to see how this is calculated.

It is calculated based on eligible farming expenses. For those of you who are not aware, who have never filled out a tax return for a farmer or done it for their own farm, a farmer has to state and list all of their expenses on their tax return. This bill says that, if they had $25,000 or more, based on the amount of those expenses, the more carbon tax rebate they will get. Therefore, they are using eligible expenses as a proxy for the amount. In other words, the more they burn the more they earn. Where have we heard that before? That is exactly how the system works. Only it does not work. In the proxy that they use, they are saying that with more eligible farming expenses there is more carbon tax rebate.

The challenge with that is that not all farmers are the same and not all areas of the country are the same. The temperature is very different in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia than it is in northern Alberta. Of course, the amount of fossil fuels, including natural gas and propane, is different. In addition to that, different industries have different routes to alternatives to fossil fuels. For certain industries, it may take years but it is relatively inexpensive to switch to alternative sources. In contrast, with other industries, it may take decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet we are blanketing it. We are using the same formula for different types of farms.

I am pleased, once again, that the government is starting to recognize that the agriculture industry, in addition to being great stewards of our land, already carbon neutral and ahead of many other industries, is what is called “an emissions-intensive trade exposed industry”. That means that there are certain industries, of which agriculture is certainly one, that do not have the ability to switch to alternatives, and there are certain emissions that may take years, if not decades, to get out of the system, despite the best efforts of our farmers.

The reason, as we heard over and over in the agriculture committee, is twofold. As I already said, there simply are not alternatives, so all this is an increased cost. There is no way to motivate farmers to do something that is impossible. The other part of it is that farmers are price-takers. The price that farmers get for their commodities off the gate is set by markets thousands of miles away from them. Therefore, they are unable to push that cost onto the consumer. That means many of our farmers are struggling to hang on and are struggling to get through Justinflation like everyone else, so it is a significant challenge.

I will just wrap up here by going through an example of how ineffective and insignificant this rebate is. For example, if a grain farm in Manitoba had a gross income of $2 million, which could very easily be a net income of zero, a farmer could expect a rebate of $3,446. That same farm would be paying a carbon tax of almost $10,000. It is woefully insufficient. Farmers need an exemption, not a rebate. They need more money in their pockets, not in Ottawa bureaucrats'.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague and thank him for his recent support with respect to a round table I hosted on co-op housing.

I thank the previous questioner from the Bloc Québécois for raising the topic of public housing, because it is something I am passionate about and I know my colleague on this side shares that.

It seems that a lot of the questions coming from the other side, particularly from the Conservatives, indicate they may not have read the bill. They are asking about rapid tests, yet the bill includes rapid tests. They are asking about kids getting back to school, yet this bill includes a lot of support for schools to get back to a healthy way of learning, with better ventilation. They are asking about workers and businesses, yet there are provisions for all of those entities in which it is very important that we invest. They also suggest that the sky is falling with respect to the economy, while experts are indicating our recovery is quite strong and the job market is strong. The most recent labour force survey of Canada indicates our recovery has been strong.

Could my hon. colleague comment on some of the relevant aspects of Bill C-8 that would have a positive impact in his riding?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk specifically about housing. In his statement, the hon. member made mention of the importance of making generational investments. I took a good review of Bill C-8, and there are many deficiencies. One of the biggest deficiencies I noticed, which I would like the hon. member to comment on in particular, is the fact that there is no mention of the anti-flipping tax. We know that flipping properties and injecting wealth into these properties to increase their value is creating more barriers for people to participate and purchase housing, which is a serious problem that is driving the cost of housing up and limiting the market.

Will the member comment on why the anti-house-flipping tax is not in this bill?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures.

The economic and fiscal update is a transparent report of our nation's finances, but it is about making sure that we have the tools we need to protect Canadians and keep our economy growing. It is about prudence, not austerity, and intelligent investment, not a blank cheque. It would set the stage for us to build on the supports and investments that are bolstering our economy and ensuring its growth for the long term. This means making generational investments in our recovery, such as early learning and child care, so kids in Vancouver Granville and across Canada can get the best start in life. It also means making sure parents, most often women, do not have to make the difficult decision between taking care of their kids or returning to work, adding their immense talent and skill to contribute to Canada's economy.

According to RBC, closing the women's participation rate gap would add another 1.2 million people to the labour force at a time we desperately need workers to fill the almost one million jobs across Canada. It means investing in affordable housing and in a green transition. We all know full well that a green transition of our global economy is well under way. It represents a great economic opportunity to create good, sustainable jobs across Canada for generations to come. It means supporting the technology sector, the world from which I came, so that we can be a global leader in innovation and in building the economy of the future today.

This is not just about spending, but about creating conditions for future growth, fighting climate change by building a greener economy and ensuring that indigenous communities are included in every conversation about the innovation economy. Fostering diversity and inclusion are not just the right things to do for the fabric of the country, they are also the right thing to do to build a more prosperous future. By ensuring an economy that includes all of us, we access a wider range of experiences, perspectives and skills that would increase global competitiveness, support the long-term success of Canadian communities, rural and urban, and allow us to leverage best in class Canadian expertise on the world stage.

As we emerge from these moments of uncertainty, our priority must be on economic stability and long-term growth. The choices we make now will lay the foundation for the future that we will be leaving to our kids. I am proud of the work this government has done to keep us moving forward since 2015, no matter what challenges we have faced as a country.

We have also heard a lot about the pandemic's impact on our supply chains. That is why our government announced a call for proposals under the national trade corridors fund, which has allocated up to $50 million to support projects designed to eliminate supply chain congestion.

We know good transportation infrastructure and efficient trade corridors are crucial to Canadian businesses' success in the global market.

Many predicted it would take years to rebuild our economy from the wounds of the pandemic, but look at us now. We are poised for robust growth in the months to come, growth that will help us pay down the debt and reduce the deficit. We can already see the results of the work that has been done. The December labour force survey from Statistics Canada showed that our labour market gained 55,000 jobs and our unemployment rate dropped to 5.9%, its lowest since the start of the pandemic. Thanks to the resilience of Canadians, we have well surpassed our target of recovering one million jobs.

Our plan is working. As we continue to meet the challenges of COVID-19, we are staying the course, focused on climate change, advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and building an economy that is stronger, fairer, more prosperous and sustainable for the long term.

Let me talk about specifics. I spent a large part of my life in the tech sector building small companies into larger ones and taking intelligent managed risks knowing that I have accountability to my employees and investors. Like many business owners and entrepreneurs, I had to think about long-term growth and building resilience for rainy days, and often we have to borrow to invest in growth. That is what this government has done for Canadians during the pandemic. Now it is time to build on the remarkable return on that investment.

This pandemic, as we all know, has not been just a rainy day. This is a once-in-a-generation black swan event, a global crisis. That is why in Bill C-8 the Canada emergency business account is such an integral and important measure. The CEBA is one of the key government supports that local businesses have relied on to weather the darkest days of this pandemic. As we all know, the CEBA provides interest-free, partially forgivable loans of up to $60,000 to small businesses to help cover their operating costs during difficult times.

Let me put that into perspective. We all know that small businesses in each of our ridings are the backbone of our economy. My constituency office is in the neighbourhood of South Granville, a vibrant neighbourhood where the streets are lined with small businesses, mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, sidewalk cafes, bookstores and gift shops, all of which build and contribute to thriving communities. They employ our neighbours. They help families pay their rent and mortgages. Without government support, many of these pillars of our community would be out of business today.

Because of the Canada emergency business account, nearly 900,000 small businesses have been able to keep their doors open. Eligible businesses have accessed nearly $49 billion in federal support, and because many small businesses continue to face pandemic-related challenges, in January of this year our government extended the repayment deadline for loans, to qualify for partial loan forgiveness, to the end of 2023. This extension will support short-term economic recovery and offer greater repayment flexibility. Bill C-8 would give folks six years to pay off their CEBA loan, ensuring that loan-holders are provided consistent and fair treatment no matter where they live.

Bill C-8 would also deliver financial support to our Canadian farmers, who never stopped working to keep food on our tables, through the challenges posed by COVID-19 and beyond. Canadian farmers, like Mickey and her family, with whom I had the pleasure of meeting yesterday, have demonstrated great resilience, stepping up to deliver despite their own challenges. They have done their part in shoring up our food supply by investing in greener, more sustainable farms. With Bill C-8, we would be giving them a well-deserved hand while continuing to help meet our national climate change objectives.

The new measures in Bill C-8 would build on the significant support for businesses that became law with the passage of Bill C-2 in December. With Bill C-2, our government made sure that the economic supports needed for businesses would still be available, if and when needed. With the reality that provincial health restrictions remain in effect in certain regions across this country, we know that businesses continue to suffer and face challenges. Applications are now open for the local lockdown program, which provides wage and rent subsidy support of up to 75% for employers who have had to reduce the capacity of their main business by at least 50%. To expand access to the program, we have temporarily lowered the revenue decline threshold for eligibility from 40% to 25% through to mid-February. For businesses facing other pandemic-related losses, support is also now available through the tourism and hospitality program and the hardest-hit business recovery program.

By supporting businesses through these challenges, these programs are protecting people's jobs and allowing people to stay connected to their employers. As the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has said, this keeps people strong, it keeps families strong and it keeps businesses strong. That is what we need to keep our economy strong.

As we emerge from the pandemic, our national focus must be jobs and growth. This means attracting top international talent and more immigrants and temporary foreign workers to help Canada meet long- and short-term labour market needs.

We have heard a lot about labour shortages recently, but our Canadian economy continues to grow. We have now surpassed our target of creating one million jobs. In fact, in December, as I said, we recovered 108% of the jobs lost at the peak of the pandemic. Immigration is a big part of the engine of our economy. It helps address labour shortages and strengthens our communities. Not only are immigrants essential to Canada's economy, but they also bring fresh perspectives and connect Canada to the world. In short, immigration bolsters our economic future and connects us to the world.

The good news is that the fall economic statement allocated $85 million to help unlock access to Canada. This targeted investment will reduce processing times in key areas affected by pandemic-related delays. Ensuring Canada's immigration system is well positioned to meet Canada's economic and labour force goals is essential to our future success.

As I said earlier, our long-term strategy of prudence, not austerity, and intelligent investment, not a blank cheque, is the best path forward for success. To bring this to life, we must lean into our clear vision and use public policy levers to make Canada a global leader in technology and innovation. For Canada to lead on the global stage, we must ensure that we create the conditions necessary for that to happen. That is exactly what we are doing. When we implement new approaches, Canadian innovators, businesses and non-profits respond. Building an innovation economy means thinking about where we want to go, not where we are today. It is clear that Bill C-8 is the next essential step in keeping Canadians and our economy strong, while setting the stage for long-term economic prosperity.

The record is clear. Our government delivered unprecedented support in order to keep Canadian families and businesses solvent throughout the pandemic, and investment in our economy has continued and will continue to pay off. The plan is working. Our GDP has returned to prepandemic levels, and both Moody's and S&P have reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. We came into this crisis with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and we have increased our relative advantage throughout the pandemic.

The measures contained in Bill C-8 are fundamental to supporting Canadians and Canadian businesses, and the provinces and territories, as they continue to battle COVID-19. They need the support to get through the fight and come out stronger, and they are counting on it. They are counting on us. I encourage my hon. colleagues to bear this in mind in their consideration of this essential bill, and join me in supporting its expeditious passage through the House so that Canadians can get the help they need at the time they need it.

I am thankful for this opportunity to make this case.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is not being consistent. On the one hand he is saying to cut back and stop the spending. He opposes the legislation because it involves spending money.

On the other hand, he is saying that we should spend more money on health care transfers, even though this government has sent record amounts in health care transfers. Not only that, but we are also dealing with mental health and many other issues in health care. In this bill, there is $1.72 billion being allocated to purchase rapid testing and equipment such as that. If we did not spend the money, those tests would not be there. Then it would have to be the provinces to come up with it.

Does the member not support the financial expenditures that are targeted in Bill C-8?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we only have to listen to the constant sound of horns outside of Parliament to hear the siren of Canadian voices discontent with the state of our country. Meeting to have an open conversation with truckers and now farmers is not a sign of defeat or concession, as the government tries to make it appear. It may be the only way to end this protest and send our truckers home. It is a sign of leadership. It is the job we all signed up to as parliamentarians. We are the representatives of everyone in our riding, not just those who voted for us, not just those we agree with, but everyone.

Canadians need hope. They want to know that the sacrifices they have made for their businesses, their families, their friends and their fellow Canadians by stepping up to get vaccines and boosters mean that they will see the light at the end of the tunnel. Canadians see where other nations are, and they see the hope that is coming from within them. The U.K. has lifted all restrictions from COVID-19. The Americans had full stadiums as they watched some exciting football for the AFC and the NFC championships last weekend. Go, Rams.

Canadians heard the health minister muse about seeing it coming with regard to a mandatory vaccine mandate on January 7, and when Quebec announced an anti-vax tax, the Prime Minister said that it could work. Vaccines are the best tool for fighting COVID-19, but we must use hope, not fear. The over 85% of Canadians who have made the choice on their own accord to get vaccinated want to know that there is hope and not fear as we end a pandemic and enter an endemic.

Part of that is Canada's ability to develop vaccines to contribute to COVAX and provide alternatives for the vaccine-hesitant. Quebec has two vaccine facilities that could provide these options. Both Medicago and Novavax, a plant-based vaccine and a protein-based vaccine, could provide Canadian jobs and help us meet promised COVAX goals, as we have only met a quarter of those, and help vaccinate the vaccine-hesitant here at home and the vaccine-starved across the globe. However, the government has not yet been able to see approval of these vaccines, both of which submitted applications for approval in early 2021, and Canada has yet to produce a vaccine through this pandemic.

Instead of acquiring vaccines and rapid testing in a timely manner, or approving vaccines that would help get the world vaccinated to help quell COVID-19, the government response has been consistently to dither and spend money it does not have. As our debt is now reaching a jaw-dropping $1.2 trillion, the desire to spend our way out of the pandemic has led to some far-reaching results for our country: a housing crisis that is the worst in the world; an inflation level that is the highest it has been in 30 years; and the largest increase in poverty and inequality in this country in 20 years. The government's continued fantasy of spending to end the pandemic has not worked yet, and it will not work now.

We need real solutions to solve our crises. Government needs to work on listening to Canadians, reducing red tape and allowing the Canadian economy and Canadian innovators to be unleashed as this pandemic becomes an endemic, instead of its failed spend-to-oblivian policies.

Housing is a crisis, an existential crisis that requires massive ambition and innovation to solve, working with all levels of government. Working with the housing industry, we can help lead and find solutions now. We have over 200,000 skilled workers who are in limbo with Canadian immigration, which includes skilled trades that could start building homes today.

The immigration minister acknowledged this week that the shortage of skilled workers is in flux and that he does not know when it will be open again, maybe at the end of 2022. However, we need $85 million, again more money, to fix it. Meanwhile, Canadian trades are screaming for more people to build homes and are not building them because of the lack of labour. This is an issue that could have been fixed years ago. Now with the housing crisis, it is only adding more fuel to the house fire that is our housing market.

The Conservative plan to use 15% of existing vacant government buildings for housing would have meant that trades could build units of housing today, not in the 10 years that it takes Toronto to build a high-rise now. Working with provinces in declaring a crisis on housing, we could start to massively contribute to an economic boom that would create jobs and create homes.

More important, we in the Conservative Party believe that if we are going to add more debt to the Canadian public, it should be on investments that better this country, including our health care.

For Bill C-8, our opposition is that, if we are going to spend $70 billion, then why not spend it on health care to increase health care capacity in our ICUs and our hospitals? Some of our provinces were locked down and businesses were closed completely because of the lack of staffed health care capacity in this country.

Looking at hospital beds per capita in the most developed nations in the world, Canada was behind 37, including being dead last in the G7. As a matter of fact, Japan, Korea and Germany have four to six times the number of staffed beds per capita than Canada does. In the Conservative platform, we had dedicated $60 billion, if we are talking about money, to new health care transfer spending to increase health care capacity.

If we are going to spend money, whether that be for Bill C-2 or Bill C-8, would it not be better for all Canadians if, instead of money being provide to businesses that are shut down, that money were to be used to prevent the economy from being shut down?

This bill is no different. This $70 billion needs to be spent now in health care transfers to increase both health care and ICU capacity, and to increase the number of health care professionals that we are desperately missing in our regions. We need health care professionals, nurse practitioners and nurses, and we need doctors. In Bay of Quinte, we are short over 30 doctors. That means that residents who need primary health care are going to the ER. Canada is short over 70,000 nurses.

Spending $70 billion more of taxpayer dollars without that money being invested into health care first and foremost is a travesty because it will add to the growing inflation that is plaguing this country. It would also not take care of the problems causing more lockdowns in the country and more angry Canadians desperately looking for the government to listen to them.

If we are going to fix inflation and the housing crisis, if we are going to listen to angry Canadians, we must fix those issues that are plaguing them, and we need to fix them now. Spending more money we do not have would fuel our already mammoth inflation, our housing crisis and the growing inequality in Canada without fixing the problems that would help Canadians get through the dark tunnel of this pandemic into the light that would be living with an endemic and getting lives back to normal.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin my comments by acknowledging a short conversation I had with one of my colleagues in the lobby with regard to his grandson, who has just gone through a successful heart surgery. Perhaps we can give a small moment of prayer for the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and his grandson Oskar. He is doing well, but it is appropriate to acknowledge we have strength on both sides of the House to wish him and his family well.

There have been several challenges. We need to be ready and our goal needs to be simple. We need to be prepared and we need to take rapid actions. We need to be able to protect the health of all Canadians while avoiding long-term impacts on our economy and of course on the mental health of all Canadians.

Productivity is down and debt levels are up. I believe we are in a hot mess. The Canadian way of life is being threatened, and many people are fragile. We need to reactivate this economy. We need to have lower taxes, more freedom and smaller government and we need to regain some optimism and hope in ourselves and in our government.

I am speaking today on Bill C-8, and Conservatives strongly oppose it. Day in and day out, I hear the phone calls to my riding offices in Ivanhoe and Napanee and my office in Ottawa from Canadians of all walks of life who are exhausted and tired. We have no room for this additional spending.

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I echo the comments made by my hon. colleague on the other side. We fiercely disagree on many things. The debate we have is important, and dissent is important, but the way we do that is extraordinarily important. I want to echo what he said. We have been able to find a good tone in this House as we disagree with one another and fight on the issues of the day, and do it in a way that respects the roles we have as parliamentarians in this place.

For the week that is forthcoming, this afternoon and tomorrow will be dedicated to the second reading debate of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures. On Monday, we are going to commence debate on Bill C-9, which seeks to amend the Judges Act. Lastly, Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Health

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I can be very clear. I want to be very clear about the fact that $8 out of every $10 spent to fight this pandemic came from our federal government.

Bill C-8 outlines our government's plan to continue to support the provinces and territories, and that includes allocating $1.7 billion to provide over 180 million additional rapid tests free of charge.

We are doing more, but I do not have time to talk about everything the government is doing.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Bay of Quinte.

It is my pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-8. This bill would enact tax and spending measures outlined in the economic and fiscal update. The bill itself has seven parts. Allow me today the privilege of suggesting some highlights as to why the official opposition opposes the bill.

Canadians are listening. Canadians are seeking more from the government, and they deserve more. Bill C-8 would add an additional $70 billion of new inflammatory fuel on the fire.

Friends, our national debt has now reached a ridiculous $1.2 trillion. Since the beginning of this pandemic, the Liberal government has brought in $176 billion in new spending that is unrelated to COVID-19. The Liberal government ensured Canadians it would find a balance on transparency. I am not seeing it.

Across our country, there are numerous concerns at hand. I see and hear them from my riding every single day. We all recognize the importance of stimulus spending. There is a time and a place. However, the cost of living is out of control. More dollars chasing fewer goods means higher prices.

In terms of groceries, inflation is hurting every Canadian and every family at the grocery store. Chicken is up 6.2%, for example. Bacon is up 19.1%. Working Canadians are sighing every time they pull into the gas station. Automobile gas is up 33%.

The state of our economy is weak. The deficit and national debt are disturbing and Canadians have caught on. People in Hastings—Lennox and Addington, and across this country, are being stretched. To quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer, “the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as 'stimulus' no longer exists.”

Many Canadians are exhausted, financially, emotionally and mentally. We need to reactivate this economy. We need to have lower taxes, more freedom, smaller government and regain some optimism and hope in ourselves and in our government.

Conservatives are opposed to Bill C-8. As we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Canadians are worried about our economic recovery and security. Unfortunately, debt loads on individuals and all levels of governments have imploded. This is putting businesses, jobs and home ownership at risk.

As communities face unprecedented challenges, the current government sadly is continuing to reward its insiders. Promises made to our veterans, seniors and small businesses have been broken.

Earlier in the House today, we were reminded by a fellow Liberal member that the Liberal government claims it wants to build back better after the pandemic. The Liberals want to do this by spending huge amounts of taxpayers' money. However, in my view, they have no realistic plan for this recovery. The Liberal government has a long and proven record of failing to get the job done for Canadians, and Bill C-8 is no exception. Canadians deserve much better from their government.

Our lives have changed over the last few years, but this has not changed our character. Canadians have overcome adversity in the past, and they will overcome it again. The key to moving past the pandemic in Hastings—Lennox and Addington is to give our communities the tools and resources they need to become more self-reliant and resilient.

Governments, regardless of jurisdiction, need to provide the necessary investments in local infrastructure and relief from taxes that stifle productivity. They also need to cut the red tape that inhibits growth. This includes investing in mental health programs, cleaner energy, supporting the farmers that feed us and our local businesses, which provide for us by creating an environment for new opportunities and investment.

I recognize the challenges are steep. The future of Hastings—Lennox and Addington and this country depends on bringing together people, ideas and working on things that unite us as a community, as a riding and as a country, rather than focusing on those things that divide us.

As we come out of this pandemic, the top issue facing this entire country is getting the economy back up and running. A key part of economic recovery is getting people back to work. Let me say first that the best indicator of future performance is past performance, and it should be remembered that during the 2008-09 recession, the last time this country faced a crisis, it was a Conservative government and Conservative economic policy that was able to strengthen Canada's fiscal position without jeopardizing the goal of income redistribution.

In fact, the same Conservative government's strict fiscal disciplines achieved a balanced budget in 2015, and it did not come from raising taxes or cutting transfers to people, provinces and territories. People should also remember that it was a Conservative government that brought in NAFTA, which has had an overwhelmingly positive effect on the Canadian economy. It has opened up new export opportunities for businesses, acted as a stimulus to build internationally competitive businesses and helped attract foreign investment to Canada.

Conservative governments have had a long and distinguished history of cleaning up Liberal messes, and we stand ready to do so again. We need to focus on getting the economy back on track, bringing back jobs, responsibly balancing the budget and providing accountability.

When COVID-19 hit, the Liberal government was not ready. Liberals were caught unprepared. They made poor decisions, put lives at risk and crippled our economy. It did not have to be this way. Canada has faced pandemics before. In recent memory we were confronted with SARS and H1N1. Each time we learned lessons and prepared for future pandemics. Tragically, the Liberal government undid much of that preparation, cutting funding to key programs. They shut down the Global Public Health Intelligence Network, our pandemic early warning system. They let the National Microbiology Laboratory decline and then depleted Canada's PPE stockpiles. They fought with the pharmaceutical industry and stacked the Public Health Agency with bureaucrats, not scientists.

When COVID-19 emerged, the Liberals were unprepared and slow to respond and made numerous decisions with tragic consequences. At first they denied there was a risk to Canada. They waited too long to close the border and ignored warnings of scientists within their own government and across Canada about the transmissibility and threat of COVID-19. They downplayed the importance of screening at borders, wearing masks, evidence-based contact tracing and domestic vaccine production. Front-line workers were left to fend for themselves, as public health guidance was confused or blocked.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I want to thank the member for talking about the arts. I also want to let her know that Nunavut is the only jurisdiction that has no performing arts centre at all in any of its communities. I hope she will take that into consideration for any future work with respect to supporting the arts in Nunavut.

As well, as she was talking about the fall economic statement, I want to highlight and remind her of what Bill C-8 fails to do. Bill C-8 fails to help families. The Government of Nunavut announced last week that the price of gas and diesel will increase eight cents a litre each, which will become effective this month. These increases will ultimately increase the cost of living. Essentially, this bill does nothing to help families facing rising food prices. Instead of helping working families with these rising food prices, why are the Liberals protecting wealthy grocery chains?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act, and to highlight how it is going to be supporting people in my own community and across this country.

I would like to begin, though, by acknowledging that we are still right at the beginning of Black History Month, and acknowledging the really strong speech by the member for Hull—Aylmer yesterday and how important it is to listen to his words and guidance about how, not only during this month but every day of the year, we really do need to continue to focus on learning Canada's Black history.

In respect of the fall economic statement, it touched on many important issues. One that I would really like to focus on is its support for the arts. The arts are an important source of employment and work in my community. I am lucky to have some wonderful theatres in my community, and film studios. So many people who work as authors or work in our museums are part of my community. I really appreciate all the work that they do. They have been so hard hit over the course of the pandemic. They have really felt the brunt of a lot of the lockdowns that have occurred across our country.

It was really important for me to see the continued support in the fall economic statement that builds on the support we provided throughout the pandemic. As I mentioned, I have many film studios in my community. It was always fun getting little peeks into the shows and movies that we were going to see down the line when we were walking along. They were hard hit. One of the things that allowed the film industry to continue was actually the support provided by the federal government, such as COVID insurance support. If they had to close down because of COVID they had that support.

The film industry was actually able to continue in a lot of ways but under different rules. It has not been as easy for the live performance industry. One of my priorities throughout the pandemic has been looking at how we provide the supports that we need for the live performance industry.

When we look at it overall, for the cultural domain, by the third quarter of 2021, compared to where they had been before, they were at about 93% from prepandemic times, but the live performance industry is still only at about 62%. There is still a lot of work to be done and a lot of support that is still needed for the live performance sector.

One of the things that I was really excited about was that through the pandemic we provided programs that allowed different live performances, like our festivals and venues, to pivot. When we talk about the programs, there were programs for example that supported small volunteer-run museums, different kinds of programs for people who were not ordinarily recipients of supports through Canadian Heritage.

I do not know about my colleagues but I love to go to a concert. I just love listening to live music. I love going to the theatre. It is one of the things that bring me so much joy. When we are out of this pandemic, I want to be able to go to those places again. I want to be able to listen and dance. No one has to watch me dance, but I want to be able to enjoy all that it brings me to be in the live performance location. In fact, right before this last lockdown I was able to go see MixTape at one of my local theatres, the Crow's Theatre, which always has a lot of really interesting performances. I could see the community of everyone there being so happy just to be there, just to have that experience again, even if it was a bit different.

Before the last lockdown here in Ontario, I was also able to go to Dora's, which has now been renamed as Noonan's, to listen to some music and, again, feel that community. When I talk about Dora's, now Noonan's, it was one of many live music venues that received support through the pandemic specifically from the live music fund. It was there to support the infrastructure around our live music industry, to support the bars that have Canadian performances and to make sure that they are there for us when we are able to go back.

That ties to another piece I will get to in the fall economic statement, which concerns support for the artists. It is for the infrastructure and for the artists, which are both critical pieces.

Before I move on from the live performance supports that were there for venues, I would just like to say I think they are really important, and I do not know if we talk enough about them. They supported places like The Door in my community. They also supported places like the Foufounes Electriques in Montreal. There have been a lot of great concerts over there.

There is also Lee's Palace in Toronto, the King Eddy in Calgary and The Carleton in Halifax. These are the places that people like to gather. They want to be able to gather there to enjoy themselves and see live performances again. Those places, as part of the pandemic programs, had support for the infrastructure.

In the fall economic statement, there was support for arts workers. It was the Canada performing arts workers resilience fund, and that had $60 million specifically to support gig workers in the cultural working atmosphere. It is to provide short-term financial supports and also guidance in professional development. It is available to organizations that support the live performance sectors, such as artists, unions, guilds and different associations. The purpose is to retain skilled workers in live performance.

I highlight it because I think it is important to see the work that has been done throughout the pandemic, how the fall economic statement built on that and how we are continuing to make sure that we will be there to support the live performance industry as we go forward and our arts industries as a whole because they are so important. They are important economically, and we do not talk about that enough. They are important to the economic sector, but they are also important for our souls and our communities. I will leave it at that. I cannot wait to see some shows. Maybe we will have a chance, among members, to go see some shows here in Ottawa at some point soon and enjoy that.

I am going to switch gears quickly to talk about schools. When I talk with people in my community, many were really concerned about the safety of schools as they were sending their children back to school in January. There were a lot of questions. In fact, our schools in Ontario were closed for a bit of time right at the beginning of January. There was worry, and parents were asking what we were going to do to make sure that our children would be safe when they went back to school.

This is where the fall economic statement is really important. It increased funding specifically for ventilation improvements in our schools. That will have a long-term impact. Just generally, it is a good thing to have better ventilation. I have to say that some of my kids' schools did not always seem to have the best systems for ventilation. It is great to see we are supporting our provinces to be able to do that important work. That builds on the safe restart funding that had been provided through the pandemic to our provinces and territories to be able to support schools through the process.

I know that in my community, and we do not even think about it, but there are many different kinds of changes we need to bring in. Many of the schools in my community got new types of water fountains. They are not the ones we used to use as a kid in school where we would lean forward, which are not really great for COVID and probably were not good then anyways. They now have bottle refill stations, different kinds of systems. That is an important response to the concerns being raised repeatedly by people in my community, to make sure we are supporting our provinces and territories to support our children.

I know I am running out of time, but I do want to mention briefly something concerning how our schools were closed in Ontario for a bit at the beginning of January. I would like to remind parents, if they are listening, that there is a caregiver benefit. When schools are closed because of COVID, they actually can apply for that caregiver benefit. I also want to highlight that if their kids have to self-isolate because of COVID, they may be eligible for the caregiver benefit. I am encouraging everyone to look into that.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in support of the fall economic statement.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, as it was very easy to hear him from this end of the House, so I was able to not need my headphone. That is great. I thank him.

He did speak a lot about the programs that were put in place by the Liberal government, and while I know that some of them worked, many of them did not. We many times brought up in the House those places where there were holes and gaps. For example, he talks about business loans and how they supported businesses, but they did not support new businesses. They did not support businesses like ones in my riding that started right during the pandemic or right before the pandemic, through no fault of those entrepreneurs. There is a business in my riding called Cessco that used the wage subsidy program to actually pay for scab labour and lock out their unionized workers. There were these gaps in these programs, and Bill C-8 would not address those.

As such, I do not want the member to feel that the Liberals can take all the credit for these, when we have been asking them to fix these programs and they have not fixed them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑8.

It has been a long two years. To be exact, it has been 21 months of direct challenges to our country and to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. People are tired, and we understand that, but we have stood together as Canadians to fight this global pandemic, and we will soon be in a much better place. What is important is that our country will continue to be a strong economic driver in the global economy. As our Prime Minister has indicated clearly on many occasions, we have Canadians' backs and we will have them for as long as it takes.

I remember that back on March 13, 2020, we decided to shut down Parliament for two weeks. I remember flying home and being a little uncertain, but I felt that I would get back soon. Many Canadians felt that we would get through this quickly. However, that was not to be the case.

Despite all of our challenges, as a member of Parliament I felt that I was really contributing to a strong democracy. For 67 days in a row, Liberal members of Parliament spent two hours every night on the phone talking about how we could build programs. Because of the feedback we were receiving from our constituents, we talked about how we could create those programs, as some individuals and companies in our constituencies were not being helped. We found ways to do that month after month. Even if we had 100 or 200 calls and emails a day, I felt that we were advocating on behalf of Canadians. Our government was responding on behalf of Canadians and helping Canadians.

Of course, we invested in PPE and vaccines, and as a government we were there for the provincial and municipal governments. That is very important to indicate because eight dollars out of every $10 spent to fight COVID throughout the pandemic has been spent by the federal government. At times we talk about jurisdiction, but we did not worry about jurisdiction. We worried about Canadians, the Canadian economy and communities. That is why we were directly involved in education, health care and so on.

I am very proud of our government's record throughout the pandemic in staying on a strong economic course, which I will describe so members know where we sit today. We have been so strong throughout the pandemic because of what we did from 2015 to 2019. We had the lowest unemployment rate in the history of Canada, since recording it began. Canadians created 1.2 million jobs, which is very impressive, going into the pandemic. We had the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Those are impressive numbers. Where are we today? About 108% of the over three million jobs that were lost have now been recaptured.

I want to mention that I am sharing my time with the member for Toronto—Danforth, who will be giving her speech just after me. I apologize.

We have also seen fewer bankruptcies in the last two years than we have seen in past years. We have seen an increase of 13% in trade. Yes, inflation is at 4.5%, but that is a global challenge. Inflation in the United States is 7%. Interest rates on debt were lowered by $4 billion last year because of refinancing, and we still have our AAA credit rating.

I am very proud of the economic statement delivered by our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. It is transparent and gives a good, clear picture of where we spent our money, why we spent our money and where we are going to invest our money as we move forward to make sure that our economy continues to be strong.

Yes, we lost three million jobs throughout this challenge, but we were able to recapture them. Yes, the GDP shrunk by 17%, but now we are seeing much improvement in that area. We now have the second-fastest job recovery in the G7. If we compare that to the recession of 2008, when the Conservatives were in power, we are much further ahead. That is probably because of the important work we had done prepandemic. Believe it or not, and I was surprised by these numbers, there were over 6,000 new businesses created during this pandemic. This is quite impressive.

We are also helping with the cost of living in two very direct areas. One, of course, is with investments in child care. This will be major in helping families deal with the cost of living and the economic challenges they may face. The second is with housing, which is a crucial investment being made for Canadians. We know the pandemic has caused more challenges in that area. Now first-time homebuyers will have more possibilities to get into the housing market, which is important. Rent-to-own is extremely important as well. Those are straight investments that will, as we move forward, continue to help create positive economic developments.

As a former superintendent of schools, I can tell members that schools are always an interesting place to be. In this pandemic, I cannot praise teachers, students and parents enough for what they have done. They have continued to be there so students could learn. They have contributed and been engaged, and that is something to be proud of. Our government has invested in helping to create more outdoor classrooms. We are investing in ventilation to help in that crucial area. We are also increasing the tax credit for teachers from 15% to 25%, and we have created more flexibility for information technology in that area.

For small businesses, we have been there, as I indicated already, and continue to be there. We have created some tax credits for retrofitting, ventilation and heating. Something important that people need to stop and think about is that the Canada emergency business account supported 900,000 businesses. That is almost one million businesses that were able to initially get $40,000, and later $60,000, with one-fourth being forgiven if they can pay it back by a certain date. That date has now been extended to December 31, 2023. For those businesses that require longer repayment, it has been extended to December 31, 2025.

The CFIB stated, “It is particularly good news that the government has announced it will extend the repayment deadline for the Canada Emergency Business Account (CEBA) loan program.”

The Business Council stated, “The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose a risk to Canadians’ physical, mental and economic health. We agree with [the finance minister] that 'the best economic policy is a strong public health policy.'”

We also implemented a 1% housing tax, to slow down the challenges with health and to raise revenue, on non-residents who own property in Canada. This does not affect Canadians or permanent residents. It will allow us to support Canadians in the housing market.

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

Madam Speaker, I am the type of person who takes the time to carefully read each bill and who asks herself a lot of questions. My first two questions are always: Is this a good and effective bill for people and their needs? Is this a good way to spend their tax money?

I read the economic update and Bill C-8. Was it exciting? No. Was it interesting? Yes.

It was interesting because I am very curious and I want to know everything. I like looking at things from every perspective. That is what I used to teach my students. I told them that, when they were bored, they needed to switch perspectives and find something interesting. Although I found the reading interesting, I must say that I was disappointed at times. Since I am not mean-spirited, I will start with the positive aspects of the bill.

First, it is important to realize that this is an economic update and that it is the result of a process. As members of Parliament, we know that. We are familiar with parliamentary jargon. However, that is not true for all Canadians. I think that it is important to take the time to mention, however briefly, that this is an economic update. An economic update is an observation, a portrait of the economic situation in Canada at a given point in time. The portrait is based on statistics and, at the time it is painted, it is true. However, we now know how quickly things can change.

Economic updates are important, especially in times of crisis. We have to know where we are in order to determine where we are going. That is a great truth that we should also apply to our personal and professional lives.

The economic update has therefore achieved its goal, which is to inform members of Parliament and Canadians in general of the current situation in Canada. It also provides information on what has been done and what should be done. Since the purpose of knowing where we are now is to determine where we are going, that is where things get a little dicey.

The economic update had no big surprises: We are seeing inflation; the economy, at the time the update was drafted, was in recovery in several sectors; some sectors, such as culture and tourism, were still and are still being hard-hit; there is an extreme shortage of social and affordable housing; and we need to implement measures, including financial and material measures, to help Canadians through the crisis.

As I said, there were no big surprises. We do not have to be internationally renowned economists to see where we are, the statistics speak for themselves. The update does a good job at painting a portrait of the situation, but it is missing the other aspect: where are we going?

To answer this question, we must absolutely avoid empty or catch-all phrases such as “we will keep working and trying to see the light at the end of the tunnel and do everything we can to end this pandemic”, or “we will keep doing what we have been doing for the past two years: protecting the population and ensuring an economic recovery through strong and innovative measures”. It is not helpful to use buzzwords and put them together in a sentence so general that it does not mean anything. That may reassure some people, but Canadians need more than that. They need to know that a real blueprint for society will emerge from this unprecedented crisis.

Bill C-8 will help companies improve their ventilation through a tax credit. That will have a short-term effect. The government is trying to find a way of mitigating the housing crisis. The tax will have a short-term effect. The bill adjusts employment insurance and the Canada emergency business account. That will have an essentially short-term effect, that is, until the pandemic is over and the economy returns to normal. It allocates $2 billion to put in place proof-of-vaccination and rapid test delivery measures. That is another short-term solution—at least, we hope. I understand, we need to do these things. Our tourism and seasonal businesses and their workers have been very hard-hit by the pandemic, and the measures are still necessary.

In other words, Bill C-8 has us in the same kettle of fish we have been in for almost two years. Let us be clear, I will say it again: These measures are necessary, but I was expecting something for the long term.

Some people may be tempted to say that the future tax on underused housing could have an impact in the medium term, since it might force owners to make sure that the units are occupied, therefore increasing the housing supply. That would not make up for Canada’s decades of underinvestment in social housing, especially since this measure could end up adversely affecting municipalities’ finances.

Every year, good or bad, Canada should have set aside money to build 50,000 housing units across the country. Why were cuts made to social housing for decades? Is it because poor people do not have the means to fight the system? The system should be there precisely to protect those who need the most help.

I would like to bring up two principles that I find important, and I hope that they will also be important to everyone in the House. First, we need to plan and take action for our future generations, not for the next election. Second, we need to fight for the dignity of the weak, for those who have no voice. That is why I am here. I hope that is also the case for all of my colleagues.

By not investing in social housing, successive governments failed to honour these two principles. Bill C-8 has exactly the same problem, since it does not plan for future generations or show that we are fighting for the dignity of those who do not have a voice.

It is not enough to just slap a band-aid on the gaping wounds caused by the pandemic. We must see better and farther ahead. How can we see farther? The history teacher in me would say that we need to examine the mistakes of the past and, above all, make sure we do not repeat them.

Let us make sure we foster the emergence and stability of businesses that feed our economy, such as farming and agricultural production, electrical and electronics manufacturers, domestic and international tourism, natural resource development and processing, shipbuilding, electric transportation, clean energy and green businesses, research, and textiles.

There are a lot of things we could do. We need to encourage businesses in the hardest-hit sectors. We need to export finished products, not just natural resources. Let us export what we make instead of importing what others make.

Let us take concrete action so that the burden of monitoring calls for tenders and filling out procurement paperwork no longer falls on our SMEs, which cannot afford to pay a full-time team to take care of all this monitoring and paperwork.

Let us set aside renewable amounts each year so that the federal government is not tempted to interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

If we take a step back and look at federal trends in times of crisis, we see the same thing again and again: interference, lack of respect for the jurisdictions set out in the Constitution. If we take another step back, we notice that one of the reasons for this interference is a lack of planning for the medium and long terms. Finances are managed from a short-term perspective, and cuts get made to budgets that are essential in times of crisis, such as housing, health transfers and pension indexation.

Let us improve supply chains. Let us make sure that we have everything we need to face the next crisis, whether it happens tomorrow or in 50 years. These are only a few examples. There are more.

What are we doing to ensure the dignity of those who do not have a voice? I will support Bill C-8 because it contains necessary measures, but that does not mean I am not disappointed with what is missing from the bill, namely vision, planning, boldness.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my esteemed, and I hope estimable, friend and colleague from Beauport‑Limoilou.

I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures. That is its actual title, but since it is a little long, we will simply refer to it as the economic update.

I would like to talk to you today about an extremely serious problem in my riding of Saint‑Hyacinthe-Bagot and more specifically in Saint-Hyacinthe, the central city of the riding, which has a population of nearly 60,000, or about 300 inhabitants per square kilometre. Saint-Hyacinthe is well known for all kinds of good reasons that fill us with pride, including its status as the agri‑food capital of Quebec, and some would say of Canada. Unfortunately, it is also known for something a lot less positive, namely its inglorious title of the city with the lowest vacancy rate in Quebec, at 0.2%. Given that rate, it is very safe to say that there is no housing available in Saint‑Hyacinthe.

To paint a more complete picture, I think it is important to add that there has been a real problem with fires in affordable and low-rental housing units in the downtown area. When we talk to the people who live in these neighbourhoods, they tell us that there is also an issue with “renovictions”, not least because the renovations are not always actually done. Another problem is that the cost of rent increased by 16% in a year, as recorded last July. That is the perfect recipe for a very difficult social situation. We can call it a crisis, because it is one. How can our society accept this and tolerate people having to sleep outside? It is unacceptable.

Before I go on, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the hard-working activists at Comité Logemen’mêle, a group that oversees the many organizations in Sainte-Hyacinthe that work on this issue and promote the right to housing.

The problem that Saint‑Hyacinthe and many big cities with similar vacancy rates are experiencing is the result of a long history of a federal government that has underinvested or poorly invested in social and affordable housing. It is the result of a history of gross government negligence.

In June 2021, the Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, published a booklet documenting Ottawa's chronic underinvestment in housing since the 1990s. The numbers are quite staggering. If Ottawa had maintained the same level of investment as before the 1990s, today, we would have 80,000 more social housing units in Quebec. Think about that. Federal cuts have deprived thousands of families and individuals of a roof over their heads.

I would like to quote FRAPRU spokesperson Véronique Laflamme, who said, “The loss of 80,000 social housing units that could have been built in Quebec had Ottawa not withdrawn its funding has been a major contributor to the current low-rent housing shortage, and the national housing strategy put in place by the [Prime Minister]'s Liberal government does nothing to compensate for this loss”.

I have heard a number of people say that FRAPRU is a very left-wing group, but if FRAPRU does not seem credible in the eyes of certain parties and individuals in the House, let see what Scotiabank thinks. Everyone will agree that Scotiabank is not known for being particularly left-wing or anti-capitalist. Just this past January, Scotiabank estimated that Canada had the lowest average number of housing units per 1,000 people in the G7.

To reach the G7 average, Canada would need an additional 1.8 million homes. Scotiabank also estimated that the median home price rose 50% between December 2019 and December 2021 in some parts of Canada.

As for the existing programs, many of them are aimed at the right places, but they too are victims of underfunding.

Take, for example, the Canadian rapid housing initiative, or RHI. It was used in my riding, and we were very happy. It made it possible to announce the creation of 21 affordable housing units in the city of Saint‑Hyacinthe. We were very happy. It is a good program, but the budget is far too limited and operates on a first-come, first-served basis. Furthermore, the program is not permanent. It is temporary, so people rushed to apply. Once the money ran out, there was not a penny left, and it was time to move on to something else. The money ran out in the blink of an eye.

The situation is glaringly obvious and deserves to be addressed. We were told that it would finally be addressed in the economic update. Better sooner than later, of course, but better late than never too. Many of us were watching and wondering what we were going to see. We expected that Ottawa would show some ambition in recommitting to this issue by announcing meaningful reinvestments in social, community and affordable housing.

In fact, the Bloc Québécois would like to see new investments amounting to 1% of the federal government's annual revenue on an ongoing basis rather than ad hoc agreements. We also think surplus federal properties should be repurposed for social, community and affordable housing development. To be clear, programs need to be completely overhauled as well.

The billions of dollars invested should be channelled toward co-ops, non-profits, and organizations with a thorough understanding of the issues that need to be addressed and how to do so.

That is why programs that are part of the national housing strategy, the NHS, should be reconfigured financially to create an acquisition fund that would enable co-ops and non-profits to acquire buildings currently on the market and make sure they remain affordable. We need to take control of the market out of private-sector hands.

Of course we have to make sure Quebec gets its fair share of funding, no strings attached, from federal homelessness programs, and funding that was released during the pandemic needs to be made available on a permanent basis.

That is all we were hoping for from the economic update. We have read and studied it carefully.

In the end, we have a single measure: a tax on foreign-owned vacant property. The tax on underused housing would apply to dwellings in Canada owned directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by non-residents. This would apply to single-family homes, duplexes and triplexes, as well as semi-detached and row houses, and condominiums.

This is a good idea. We have no problem standing up and recognizing that. Its implementation would reduce real estate speculation, which is a real scourge and a real problem. International investors are looking to make a profit, not build affordable housing. They keep an eye on trends based on bubbles, looking at countries where that is happening and where they should go, as most stockholders do.

Such a tax could help prevent artificial market inflation and help free up these buildings. The fact that there are vacant dwellings in large urban centres contributes to scarcity. People need housing and are seeing all these large, empty buildings around them. It is absolutely ludicrous.

This kind of tax, however, would not solve the housing problem the way a renewed government commitment would, but a massive reinvestment could do it. The tax would also constitute interference. There is a real danger here, because with this tax, this is the first time the federal government is interfering in property taxes.

Centralization is second nature to Ottawa. I am afraid it would be fair to say that Ottawa is dealing with housing the same way it deals with health, in other words, it lets things deteriorate and then, when it decides it can no longer stand idly by, it responds by interfering.

I think people who are desperately waiting for housing deserve better.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so proud to rise on Bill C-8 and the issues we are dealing with during the pandemic. This morning, I received three messages from young women around the Gloucester and Metcalfe area talking about the threats of rape they were facing because of the lawlessness and lack of police to protect residents in Centretown in Ottawa from this protest.

The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is bringing a motion forward to investigate how GoFundMe is allowing anonymous sources to funnel money to what may be an extremist action.

Would the member and the government support an investigation into how GoFundMe has taken this $10 million, where it is coming from, what the sources are and if it is a threat to security—

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my hon. colleague for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his excellent remarks and his excellent interventions.

It is an honour to rise in the House of Commons for my maiden speech in the 44th Parliament. I would like to thank the residents of Windsor—Tecumseh for placing their trust in me to serve as their member of Parliament and their voice in Ottawa. I am grateful for this honour and privilege, and I pledge to continue to work hard and to work with all members of the House of Commons every day to improve the lives of people in our community.

I thank my wife Shauna, my parents and the incredible volunteers who helped make this journey possible. I thank as well my tremendous constituency office team: Svetlana, Alexandra, Yazdan, David, Noah, Teanna, Tartil, Sami and Manvir. Their hard work and passion for our community inspire me each and every day.

Back in March 2020, few people would have predicted how long COVID-19 would be with us; however, one thing is certain. When the chips are down, our government will be there to step up and support Canadians. As we battle yet another wave, we have stepped up again, delivering millions of boosters and over 140 million rapid tests while at the same time creating supports for workers and the hardest-hit businesses.

In January, as temperatures dropped, my team in Windsor—Tecumseh put up a large tent and hosted an outdoor pop-up vaccine clinic at our constituency office. It brought out moms and dads with brave little ones rolling up their sleeves, folks who drove in from the county, residents who could not make previous appointments because of transportation challenges, and a few first-timers getting vaccinated despite their doubts, because they wanted to visit immunocompromised friends and relatives.

We had people tear up. There were many fist bumps, and a lot of smiles through N95 masks. We partnered with the remarkable Dr. Doko and her team of superheroes, including a medical student from the University of Windsor. That team has organized over two dozen pop-up clinics across Windsor-Essex, and I want to recognize their tremendous leadership. It was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had as a member of Parliament. It was a cold January night filled with many moments of warmth. That is Canada, with neighbour looking after neighbour. Make no mistake: Despite what some will say, we are united.

Over 90% of Canadians have stepped up, rolled up their sleeves and gotten vaccinated. They know that the enemy is not vaccines. It is COVID. On this we will not waver, and we will finish the fight. We will continue to be there for families, seniors, workers, businesses and municipalities. Here in this province, our federal government has provided over 90%, or 90 cents of every dollar of pandemic support, whether it was the emergency Canada recovery benefit in the first waves or the lockdown benefits that helped workers and businesses through this cold, bitter winter. We will continue to be there for Canadians for as long as it takes.

I am also proud of our commitment to establish a Canada-wide early learning and child care system that ensures all families have access to affordable, high-quality early learning and child care, no matter where they live.

Last week, Nunavut signed on to our $10-a-day child care plan, becoming the 12th of the provinces and territories to do so. All provinces and territories in Canada have now signed on to our federal affordable child care plan, except Ontario. As part of this plan, parents outside of Ontario are already receiving rebates to help with child care costs. Saskatchewan parents received a refund of $2,000 on child care going back to July of last year.

Affordability is a huge concern for families in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, and $10-a-day child care would help tremendously. I call on Premier Ford to immediately do what every other Canadian province and territory has already done, and sign on to our affordable child care plan. Let us work together and get moms and dads in Windsor—Tecumseh the support that they so desperately need.

On a brighter note, I was excited to see, for the first time ever, the inclusion of a national school nutrition program in the Prime Minister's mandate letters to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

Nationally, one-third of students in elementary schools and two-thirds of secondary students do not eat a nutritious breakfast before school, and 13% of households before the pandemic were food insecure. In speaking with June Muir of the UHC Hub of Opportunities, during one of its drive-through food hubs, I saw how food insecurity had grown in our community during COVID for families, newcomers, students and casino workers.

The evidence is clear: Providing children with a healthy meal at school makes all the difference and gives them the start they need. Back home in Windsor Essex, we have some of the highest rates of childhood poverty in the country, so a national school nutrition program would be transformative. Windsor Essex is also Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable basket, with the largest concentration of greenhouse growers in all of North America.

My community understands the problem of children going hungry, but we also understand and have the right resources for a solution. For years, local organizations such as VON's Ontario Student Nutrition Program, United Way's Summer Eats for Kids, and UHC Community Kitchen and Leamington Regional Food Hub have been on the ground, dedicating time and resources to improving food security and providing healthy meals to children in our community.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, to bring partners together to help design a school nutrition program that provides every child in my community, and every child across Canada, with an equal opportunity to succeed.

While we are talking about lifting up families and children, let us also highlight that every year, through the Canada child benefit that our government introduced, moms and dads in Windsor—Tecumseh receive over $207 million to help with the costs of raising children. An affordable, accessible and quality child care system, a national school nutrition program, and the existing Canada child benefit are three examples of how our government is helping to lift up families and children.

This is real tangible action that empowers parents, especially moms, to reach their full economic potential. It creates good-paying jobs in early learning child care and education. Most importantly, it creates a generation of healthy, prosperous and engaged learners.

Since we are talking about transformative investment, I want to talk about the historic investments we are making in the fight against climate change and the conservation of our green spaces. We are investing over $100 billion to ensure we pass on a healthy planet to the next generation. I want to talk about two examples of how that investment is transforming my community of Windsor—Tecumseh. In budget 2021, our government committed $2.3 billion to preserve natural habitat and species at risk.

This week, our government announced close to $600,000 to begin preliminary studies and consultations to advance the creation of the Ojibway national urban park. Let me talk about Ojibway. Compared with Rouge National Urban Park, it is but a postage stamp of land. However, in its 300 hectares, it has the most biodiversity in all of Canada, with hundreds of plants, insects, reptiles and wildlife. David Suzuki called it priceless. The poet laureate of Windsor, Marty Gervais, wrote a book about it called Walk in the Woods. This week, after a 10-year battle, our community has taken a giant step towards preserving Ojibway forever, and a step toward establishing the Ojibway national urban park.

Now let me talk about a second story. On this side of the House, we know that the environment and the economy go hand in hand. Our government's bold leadership on climate change has helped create a once-in-a-generation transition to grow and strengthen automotive jobs back home in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh. Our climate change plan includes an $8-billion net-zero accelerator fund that positions my community to bring electric vehicle manufacturing and battery manufacturing to Windsor Essex. That means thousands of good-paying jobs that guarantee our community's prosperity, while at the same time fighting climate change and helping to protect the environment.

As my friend Dave Cassidy said, “If you want it built right, build it in Windsor.” Getting an electric vehicle and battery manufacturing plant would be transformative for our community, and in turn our community would lead Canada's transition to zero-emission vehicles.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has been focused on supporting people and businesses across the country, and Bill C-8 is no different. The federal government has been a strong partner for our community, and together we are building a strong and prosperous future for all residents of Windsor—Tecumseh.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

It is great to be here this morning. I am pleased to lend my voice in support of Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021, and other measures. This bill is the latest important step in our government's relentless efforts to protect Canadians, support them through the ongoing challenges and bridge them through to the postpandemic recovery, which is occurring. Among other things, it would do so by implementing measures from the economic and fiscal update 2021 and from budget 2021 that would support Canadian businesses, so we can start hiring again, which we are doing, and it is great to see. It would do so while making life more affordable for all Canadians and ensuring the economic recovery is inclusive, green, sustainable and robust.

To date, our plan to fight COVID-19 and its impact on the economy is working. As I stated earlier this week, and as reported by Statistics Canada, our economy is recovering. We have surpassed prepandemic levels of employment, jobs, output and gross domestic product. Canadians are resilient, and because of them our economy is resilient. Canadians expect leadership from their parliamentarians, and we are demonstrating that leadership.

Our economy has rebounded faster than experts predicted, and that is because our government, since day one, was singularly focused on having the backs of Canadian workers, businesses and families. That has been our relentless focus, and going forward we will remain steadfast with our agenda to create prosperity for all Canadians through inclusive economic growth. I know the entrepreneurial spirit is alive and well in Vaughan—Woodbridge, and I see that optimism from businesses that continue to invest in their operations and create good middle-class jobs for Canadians.

As we stated in the fall economic update, Bill C-8 would begin to implement a fair tax system that would help on the front of housing affordability, something that I know is of high importance for the residents of York region and, within it, the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

We know that strong and resilient cities, towns and communities are the backbone of a strong economy and a growing middle class, but cities, towns and communities have been hit hard by COVID-19. High infection rates have put many under public health restrictions for over a year. As Canadians begin the work of building back better together, our government has a plan to develop more prosperous, inclusive, healthy and vibrant communities across Canada, the communities that we call home.

We know, for example, that high housing costs, especially in urban centres, continue to place middle-class and low-income Canadians under huge financial pressure. Constraints on housing inventory, which have been made worse by COVID-19, as well as the environment of low interest rates, have contributed to a recent surge in housing prices in a number of communities across this country.

As a result, across the country young Canadians who are starting to build their future are running up against sky-high housing prices. That is why, in the 2021 fall economic statement, the government announced it would take steps to implement a national tax-based measure targeting the unproductive use of domestic housing owned by non-resident non-Canadians. This would help ensure that foreign non-resident owners who simply use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing pay their fair share, and Bill C-8 would be a first step in making this a reality.

Part 2 of Bill C-8 would implement the underused housing tax act, which would impose a national annual 1% tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underused beginning in the 2022 calendar. Under this new measure, all owners of Canadian residential property other than Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada would be required to file an annual return on the current use of each Canadian residential property they own with significant penalties for failure to file.

It is estimated that this measure would increase federal revenues by $700 million over four years starting in 2022-23, and these revenues would help to support the government's significant investments to make housing more affordable for all Canadians, something that we know is important to all Canadians and our residents. We are doing this because homes are for people to live in, and Bill C-8 is a necessary first step toward making this a reality, but this measure would be just one tool among several to ensure that Canada's housing market is a place to grow for Canadians starting their families and building their future.

Madam Speaker, the national housing strategy is an ambitious 10-year plan.

It provides for investments of more than $72 billion to give more Canadians a place to call home. Launched in 2017, the NHS will create up to 160,000 new homes, meet the housing needs of 530,000 families, and repair and renew more than 300,000 housing units. More than 10,000 new housing units will be created through the rapid housing initiative from coast to coast to coast, exceeding the initial goal of 7,500 new units. Most housing units will be constructed within 12 to 18 months of an agreement being signed with the funding recipients. Of these units, 33% will support women or women and their children, and over 41% will support indigenous peoples.

The rapid housing initiative takes a human rights-based approach to housing. This initiative serves people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and other vulnerable people under the NHS, including women and children fleeing domestic violence, seniors, young adults, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, veterans, members of the LGBTQ+ community, racialized groups, and refugees or newcomers.

In conclusion, the underused housing tax introduced in Bill C-8 will be a significant addition to our measures to help Canadian families and businesses through the pandemic. We stepped up because it was the right thing to do. We also knew that the investments we were making in our economy would pay off in the medium and long terms. We know that there are challenges ahead and the future is still uncertain, but we will continue to support Canadians as we have been doing throughout the pandemic.

Bill C‑8 is the key that will help us rebuild our future and our communities so they are stronger and more resilient. I implore my opposition colleagues to take this opportunity to support this bill and give Canadians the essential support they need.

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

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I am hearing from Conservative members that they seem not to want to support Bill C-8.

There are many benefits within the legislation, and one that I would like to highlight is something that is in high demand today. The federal government has been there in a very real way for rapid testing. We were able to meet the demands all the way up to the end of December, when most of the rapid tests were not even being utilized. Then, when they became in high demand, we were able to acquire another 140 million rapid tests. Legislation like this would support the financial means to get those rapid tests. Does the member not at least support that initiative?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, a Canadian waking up in December 1991 would not have a lot in common with many things we see and hear today. At that time, Kellogg's Cinnamon Mini Buns was the number one cereal, Bryan Adams and Paula Abdul were topping the charts and people would make most phone calls from a phone plugged into the wall. However, one thing that is the same is the 4.8% inflation rate. The country was facing this back then at a time when inflation rates were high, and we are seeing it now again.

The government’s insistence on throwing our fiscal policy in this time machine fails to address families facing a high cost of living crisis. The measures outlined in this fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation will do nothing to help Canadians looking for a return to stocked shelves and whole pay cheques. This legislation would cost taxpayers over $70 billion at a time when our national debt has risen to $1.2 trillion.

My colleagues and I on this side of the House have repeatedly called on the government to break free of its continued insistence on ever-increasing spending regardless of economic conditions. We recognize that in times of emergency, some spending is required, just as a house from 100 years ago in the dead of winter needed logs in a fire. Carefully keeping the fireplace lit, placing one log at a time, will keep that house warm, but stuffing all the logs in at once will not accomplish anything except burning it down.

The worst days of the pandemic are thankfully now behind us. We should thank the efforts of our fellow Canadians for doing their part and our the health care workers, the true heroes. Everyone is looking for a return to normal, to live with COVID-19, and the government should do the same and put the brakes on the inflationary spending. However, legislation like what we see here today shows that is not happening.

It is not just Conservatives who are confused by the government’s inability to see the flashing red lights advising them to turn back. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has been left confused by the government’s proposal for $100 billion over the next three years. The government, Prime Minister and finance minister, committed in December 2020 to have guardrails on our economic recovery spending. They said how fast Canadians would be able to return to their jobs would decrease the stimulus needing to be spent. A surprisingly economically sound idea from a government that proposes so few.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that those guardrails have been met, yet the government looks to continue spending regardless, deep into this current decade. The budget officer stated, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as 'stimulus' no longer exists.” The government continues to insist that we can spend ourselves out of this hole regardless of the consequences of higher potential taxes, sluggish supply chains and rising inflation.

This complete lack of concern for the condition of Canada’s finances is alarming, especially when families are increasingly feeling the pinch. The Canadian dollar is a plaything for the government. At the finance committee when asked if government deficits can contribute to inflation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer gave a clear and to the point response: “Yes, they can.”

Any Canadian pushing a shopping cart can tell us that grocery stores increasingly are frequently low on the most basic groceries. Often some shelves can go unstocked for days and the products there are increasingly unaffordable for many. It is no wonder we saw such an increase in food bank usage last year. The average family will spend at least $1,000 more on groceries in 2022.

My colleague, the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, recently told the House of his constituent Madame Tremblay in Quebec paying 8% more on average for her groceries. The finance minister responded that she too does the grocery shopping every week for her family. I do not doubt she does, but it is much easier to afford groceries when earning $269,800 a year, paid for, of course, by Canadians, including Madame Tremblay. How completely out of touch with the average family was that comment? That is the Liberal way.

Natural gas is also up 19%. I have had many people copy their home gas bill and email it to me, stating they are mortified at the cost and finding it harder to pay their bills. Here is a quote from an email I received from a Kelowna-Lake Country constituent just a week ago. It said, “This is a copy of the highest gas bill we have ever received”. They go on to say, “Seniors are losing at every turn these days.”

There is nothing in this legislation to address rising inflation or rising debt. The cost of housing remains another pressing concern in Kelowna-Lake Country. The value of the average family home in Kelowna has now surpassed one million dollars. New parents are increasingly being priced out of one of the best communities in the country to raise a family.

I recently sent a housing survey to my constituents to get their feedback on how best to move forward on the issue. One thing I am not expecting to see in their feedback is a call for higher costs. We now own the second most-inflated housing bubble despite being the second-largest nation on earth, and the government has put forth no concrete policies to address this including in this legislation.

As the shadow minister for small business recovery and growth, I have spoken to many small businesses, both in my riding and across the country, on the issues they continue to face. While some had different points of view on how best to move forward, none of them chose to endorse a higher tax on payroll. However, the Associate Minister of Finance told me in the House that they “can afford this” and went and increased CPP premiums anyway.

This is another example of the Liberals being completely out of touch. Can small businesses afford this? They are struggling and dealing with perpetual lockdowns due to mismanaged federal policies not using all the tools available to deal with COVID-19. Working people are also paying for this tax on their pay cheques. It is not only inflation at record-high 30-year levels, Canadians' take-home pay cheques are cut short with a higher tax. It is hitting people on both sides.

If the government is content to ignore not just Conservatives and the Parliamentary Budget Officer but also small businesses and millions of Canadian families, perhaps it will listen to one of its own. Robert Asselin, a former adviser to both the current Prime Minister and the finance minister, who now serves as the senior VP of policy at the Business Council of Canada, said:

Given inflation is looking more and more persistent and is higher than expected, and the fact that we know much more spending is coming following the commitments made by the government in the last federal election, I think there are warning signs on pursuing aggressive government spending in the short-term.

Legislation like Bill C-8 would do nothing to keep the country's books in order, instead leaving them overflowing in red ink. The bill for this kind of reckless spending will eventually come due for governments, but unfortunately bills will come due for struggling families first.

Here is another email I received last week, from a constituent in Kelowna—Lake Country: “We are taxed to poverty. With EI and CPP premiums all increasing, carbon tax increases along with inflation running rampant, our pay cheques keep getting smaller. Canadians are going to be in the poorhouse.”

The Association of Interior Realtors recently reported the benchmark selling price of a single-family home has now risen to a million dollars. Housing prices in Lake Country rose similarly, with new figures from B.C. Assessment showing a one-year increase of 32%. The escalation in home values jeopardizes the ability of seniors on fixed incomes to maintain their homes, prevents first-time homebuyers from ever being able to buy a home, forces families to live in homes that no longer suit their family's size, and forces people to spend far more than 30% of their pre-tax income on rent.

During the last quarter, I surveyed my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country with a mail-out that went to every household to get feedback on tackling inflation and also what other issues people thought were a priority. I had a huge response, and more than 80% of Kelowna—Lake Country constituents who responded said that tackling rising inflation should be a priority for me and my fellow MPs. It is not just Conservatives in my riding who want Parliament to tackle this. It is across all party lines.

The legislation would do nothing to address the top issue my constituents are raising and would add $70 billion more in deficit with no plan to get our fiscal house in order. It is really difficult to vote for the legislation, based on all of the comments I have made here today.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. I understand that he and his party have criticisms about Bill C‑8. I also understand that he and his party feel that businesses, retailers, the business sector need a helping hand to get back up and running.

Barring these assistance programs, what solutions does my colleague propose? What assistance measures does he think should be brought in for rebuilding the economy?

For some sectors, we are unfortunately no longer talking about recovery so much as rebuilding. What does my colleague propose to address the Conservatives' opposition to Bill C‑8?

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

Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my comments, Bill C-8 has a lot of things within it that Canadians really and truly want to see. I am expecting and hoping that members from all sides of the House will support the bill.

Does the member plan on voting in favour of getting Bill C-8 to committee? Does he have any sense of how quickly he would like to see the bill come to a vote?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my great colleague, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

I am very proud to speak on Bill C-8 today on behalf of my constituents of Miramichi—Grand Lake. This is yet another bill that enacts tax and spending by the Liberal government.

Unlike some of the members opposite, I understand that if the Speaker delivers a ruling, as an hon. member in this House I am going to be respectful to the Speaker of the House. I am going to tell a little story about what happened just before Christmas before I speak directly to the bill, but the story goes to the spirit of the bill.

The last bill I spoke on was Bill C-2. After about 25 or 30 hours of the finance committee discussing the bill, the Minister of Finance for our country said it would cost $7.4 billion in spending. Then the House adjourned and the committee adjourned, and the minister then visited the Senate committee. It was at that moment that I and other members of the committee and members of the House ascertained that it would not cost $7.4 billion, but $11.9 billion. The members of that team and the other members from the Bloc and the NDP who sat on that committee for somewhere close to 30 hours discussing a $7.4-billion bill realized that the Christmas present left by the Liberal government to the consumers and taxpayers of our country was not a $7.4-billion bill but an $11.9-billion bill. In that, we learned a valuable lesson not only about committees but about what happens when meetings adjourn. The sitting government changed the numbers and informed us and the rest of the country that there was, oops, a little typo and that it was actually going to cost Canadians over $4 billion more.

I wanted to make that point today, because I think it is pertinent to this argument.

It is very important to me to be able to rise in these hallowed halls and bring a truly Canadian perspective, a rural perspective and a Miramichi—Grand Lake perspective.

The current state of affairs is in complete disarray. I am here to talk about more proposed spending of public funds. The traditional tax-and-spend Liberal government is whaling away on the public's money, spending it like there is no tomorrow. This is money that Canadians have no choice but to hand over. It is money they trusted us with. Elected officials are trusted to be the voice and good stewards of the public trust and public spending, but with the government members on the other side of the floor, we have seen money being spent and the bill is going down the road. I have four children and I cannot imagine them paying for the sins of today when not one of them is over the age of 15 right now.

When I read Bill C-8, I saw fuel prices rising to almost $2 a litre in Miramichi—Grand Lake. Bacon is rising more than 20%. Beef is rising more than 20% year over year in Alberta. Bread in Quebec is up 10%. Natural gas bills are up 30% in Ontario alone. We cannot keep printing money and expect different results, because that is inflation. In this House it has become known as Justinflation, but it is all inflation. Do members know who pays for it? It is the taxpayers of this country.

I am going to bring to the attention of the House something I find most interesting. I hope the people in Miramichi—Grand Lake and around the country are listening, because I think it is worth listening to.

We have the third-largest oil reserves in the country in Alberta. The government is fixated on what it used to call ozone layer problems, then global warming and then climate change. Now it is calling it a climate crisis, because if there is a crisis, it has to act now. As a result, what it is doing is destroying the very foundation of the Canadian economy.

I am also going to tell the House what it is doing for the taxpayers of this country. We are buying oil that emits more pollution, because it contains higher levels of carbons and has caused a 300% increase of shipments on the sea. We are bringing in oil from the Middle East, from warlord nations, and the Canadian people are paying three times as much for that oil, even though we have oil in our own country. People would have a cheaper oil bill if the Liberals had the common sense to see the error of their ways. There is nothing wrong with having environmental standards. We have the best standards in the world in our energy sector. We are the gold standard of the energy sector, but the Liberals' climate crisis agenda is costing people too much money.

We are here every day and talk about affordability, the cost of living, inflation and the housing balloon. We talk about this every day, but nothing is getting better for Canadians because they continue to pay for the sins of the current government. Let us think about this. We are bringing oil from halfway across the world that emits more carbon than our own. Then we put it on a ship and there are 300% increases to ship it because of the state of the world right now. We are still doing that in this country when we have our own oil. It is shameful that the Prime Minister would do that and try to continue with this global elitist agenda that does not completely apply to the Canadian people. It is dangerous.

Does this make us independent? Does it help create jobs? Do we get any additional revenue? The answer to every one of those questions is no. What do we get? We get a bill: a more expensive bill, a more unaffordable bill, a bill that the Canadian people and the people in my constituency of Miramichi—Grand Lake are having a hard time paying for.

I am going to let the House in on a little secret that those in Miramichi—Grand Lake are well aware of: Canadians are sick and tired of picking up the tab for the government. On one side of the Liberals' mouth, they say we are at a prepandemic level when it comes to jobs and the economy, but on the other side of that same mouth, they are adding $70 billion of new inflationary spending. I do not have to tell members what that is going to do to the pockets of Canadians and to young families who are priced out of the housing market. They cannot get a home. I am 43 years old. People who are 10 or 12 years younger than me who are trying desperately to get a home are having a really hard time getting into new houses because the cost is so high that it is not affordable. Since the start of the pandemic, Canadians have been misled on where the money is coming from and where the money is going.

Last week, during my time on the Standing Committee on Finance, I had the opportunity to ask key questions. Canadians wanted to know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer whether the government, which spent over half a trillion dollars in brand new spending, has misled the rest of us. That was the question. Roughly one-third of this new spending had nothing to do with COVID. It is $178 billion of new printed money for non-COVID-related expenditures.

The Conservatives are opposed to Bill C-8. The economic and fiscal update adds $70 billion of new inflationary fuel right to the fire. The delay in the government's release of its audited financial statements has undermined parliamentarians' ability to meaningfully scrutinize proposed government spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer report shows that since the start of the pandemic, the government has spent or plans to spend $541.9 billion in new measures, almost one-third of which is not COVID-related.

We are not in support of Bill C-8 because it is another classic tax-and-spend Liberal measure that will only cripple Canadians with more debt and more inflation. The Canadian public is worth more than that, and that is why the Conservative Party of Canada is going to protect their interests regarding public money.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I was just about to remind members that comments and questions have to pertain to Bill C‑8.

The member started off well, but the question changed a bit and so did the topic.

There is a bit of flexibility, but I would remind the member that all questions, comments and debate should surround the actual bill.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 deals with many of the pandemic issues. The member just talked about housing, and I want to put on the record a statement that was just issued by Cornerstone Housing for Women, which is located in my riding of Ottawa Centre, in which it said:

These last six days have been extremely stressful for people experiencing homelessness and frontline staff working to support them in the downtown core.

Cornerstone’s emergency shelter just returned to its downtown location a few weeks ago and is still getting situated and now, we’re having to manage through this protest that is creating more barriers and retraumatizing women in the city.

Later it says:

Women and staff are scared to go outside of the shelter, especially women of color, being able to go outside is the only reprieve many women experiencing homelessness have and they cannot even do that.

This unlawful protest has to end so that members of the community and women who need shelter can continue with their lives. I'm sure the member opposite—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's consistency. I too hope to be able to speak a bit more in the coming days, weeks and months.

When I think of the amount of money that the government has had to spend over the last year and a half as a direct result of the coronavirus and the pandemic, I like to think that the people of Canada appreciate and understand that often we get legislation coming through, such as Bill C-8, which commits $1.7 billion toward things such as rapid testing so that we can get test widgets to our provinces and territories in order to meet the demand.

As for the actual details of the processes of the Treasury Board, I will leave that for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, how quickly time flies.

I can understand why the Conservative opposition is really concerned about the legislation. The Conservatives have this predetermined position that says, if the Liberals introduce legislation they have to vote against it. They are fairly good at filibustering and voting against government legislation. The problem is that this legislation is direct support for battling the coronavirus. Canadians need this type of legislation, just like they needed Bill C-2. There is this sense that the Conservatives should be voting for the legislation, so they are having a tough time with it.

Getting back to the legislation itself, it provides $1.7 billion with respect to rapid testing. That was enough money to provide for the demand for testing in workplaces and other places for the last months of December, going into January and possibly into February. We have more legislation that is coming up. Members could get a little advance on it in Bill C-10, where there is an additional $2 billion that would be invested so that the federal government could continue to support provinces, territories and indigenous communities, making sure they have things such as rapid testing.

As much as the Conservatives like to criticize the government, they find that when it comes to the issue of rapid testing it really is no issue for the federal government when it comes to criticism. We circulated all the rapid testing well in advance. The vast majority of the provinces had only used a small percentage before it became a much larger issue. When it became a larger issue, whether it was the Minister of Public Services and Procurement or the Minister of Health, supported by the Minister of Finance and the Liberal caucus, we ensured that the monies and resources would be there to support these ministers in acquiring the tests that were necessary.

That is what Bill C-8 does. It is there to support initiatives that are really making a difference. Yesterday we heard a great deal about seniors and, in particular, I was listening to the member for Elmwood—Transcona. The NDP have a focus on trying to give a false impression about seniors and the government's approach to seniors. I thought I would make it very clear, in terms of what it is and how it is this government has been supporting seniors, not only during the pandemic but prepandemic.

When I think of seniors and the six or seven years we have now been in government, one of the very first initiatives we did was that we rolled back the age for collecting OAS. The former prime minister set it at 67. We rolled it back to 65. That was one of the first initiatives. Another initiative was that we increased the guaranteed annual supplement. That had a really positive impact, not only in Winnipeg North where hundreds of seniors were lifted out of poverty by that one particular initiative, but thousands of seniors were lifted out of poverty because of a tangible increase back in the first couple of years of being in government through the guaranteed income supplement program.

In the 2019 campaign, we talked about giving seniors aged 75 and over a 10% increase in the OAS. Even though some inside this chamber criticized us about giving that increase, I rooted it back to the fact that we made a campaign promise. It was a part of our platform in the 2019 election, and we began the process of putting it into place before the last election took place just a number of months ago. We are a government that has materialized that substantial increase supporting seniors collecting OAS at age 75 and over.

We provided one-time payments to support our seniors during the pandemic, whether they were collecting OAS, GIS or both. We supported many organizations in our communities that focused attention on providing support services for our seniors. An example of that would be the New Horizons program. Members can canvass their own constituencies, and they will find that there were enhancements of services being provided through the non-profit organizations for our seniors in particular.

I remember a phone call I had with the United Way in Winnipeg a while back, and they were talking about the importance of the 211 line and the importance it could play for our seniors. Through a federal grant, the support of the United Way and its incredible organizing and organization, we now have what many other jurisdictions have: an active 211 phone number. Seven days a week and 24 hours a day, someone can call 211 and they will have access to a person who can assist them and a whole myriad of government resources and programs, not only from the national level but from other levels, whether they are provincial, municipal or non-profits.

This is a support program that will especially help our seniors. When I talk about the types of actions the government has taken during the pandemic, it is an excellent example when we hear of non-profit organizations, because we often hear about the direct payments, whether they are to seniors or people with disabilities through the CERB program or workers and employers. We often hear about that, but there are many other ways we indirectly supported seniors, and whether it is the New Horizons program or supporting organizations like United Way in Winnipeg, seniors were better served.

It does not mean we cannot do better. Within our caucus we continue to advocate for our seniors every day. I hope I can say this: We even have a strong active seniors caucus that is there to ensure that the interests of seniors are constantly being looked at. When the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for example, made reference to the fact that we are not there for long-term care and other issues such as those I just finished highlighting, I suggest to the member that he only take a look at the province of Manitoba. I would compare our record at the national level with the main years I was in opposition in the Manitoba legislature, where I saw the provincial NDP government reduce corporate income tax and do nothing, or very little, to support long-term care.

Today we have a very progressive and aggressive agenda for being there in a very real and tangible way for our seniors. That is why members of the Liberal caucus advocate continuously for long-term care facilities and how we can look at some sort of a standardization of care, what those expectations are and what kind of role the federal government can play.

We see many, including me, who continue to advocate for provinces and territories to take advantage of a federal government that has a very strong interest in a national pharmacare program. Close to two years ago, it was incorporated into a throne speech, looking for provinces and territories that would be interested. The point is that as a government we are very much interested and want to be there for our seniors.

In terms of other initiatives that we have been able to accomplish since the last election, some of the things did not get the type of attention they should have. I would like to draw attention to them, because they are indirectly tied to the legislation. These are things like the $15 minimum wage for federally regulated occupations. Hopefully, the provinces will see the leadership we are providing. It would be nice to see provincial jurisdictions take up that particular initiative.

The child care initiative shows the degree to which parliamentarians at the federal and provincial levels, working together, can produce tangible results. The pandemic demonstrated that, and so has the child care initiative. We are a government that has brought through a national child care program, albeit one province still needs to sign on.

Those are the types of issues that we have been able to deal with during a pandemic, while supporting Canadians in every region of the country, working with Canadians in different levels of government and dealing with issues of reconciliation, environment, housing, all the important issues for our constituents.

As I said in the past, and will say in future, my first priority is the constituents of Winnipeg North. Rest assured that the issues they raise in Winnipeg North are the issues I will be bringing to the floor of the House of Commons.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Kenora on his speech. He speaks softly, but he is eloquent. I believe he is doing a great job representing his constituents.

His speech echoes the same concerns I hear from the businesses and residents of my riding, Drummond, particularly regarding some of the measures brought in to help businesses and merchants get through the crisis we are currently experiencing.

In my view, there is something missing from the legislation before the House today, Bill C-8. The goal is to stimulate economic recovery, support entrepreneurs and build their confidence. However, entrepreneurs who started their business after the pandemic set in are excluded from many of the measures in place. This undermines confidence, causing people who want to start a business to think twice. I think this is undermining the economic recovery.

I would like to hear what my colleague from Kenora thinks about that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the chamber. I would like to thank my esteemed colleague from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock for being so generous in sharing his time with me today. It gives me the opportunity to share some of the economic concerns we are seeing in the Kenora riding and across northwestern Ontario, and how I believe Bill C-8 does not adequately address some of those concerns. I look forward to providing some thoughts and suggestions to government members on ways we can move forward.

Obviously, there is no question that across the country we are facing a number of serious economic concerns, not the least of which is the cost of living right now, with inflation rising at record rates. This is something the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed is a result of government spending. It is driven by government spending. It is something we are quite concerned about on this side of the aisle.

It is why our party has been continually pushing our proposal that the government cut back on its spending and phase out stimulus programs as things reopen and as we push for our economy to reopen, especially because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has stated that the rationale for this stimulus spending no longer exists. It is high time that we get things back on track, and we are looking for some leadership from the government to do just that.

When we look at everyday items, essential items like pork and beef have increased in price by 12%. I believe natural gas is up about 20%. Everyday essentials are becoming more and more expensive. These are things that were already more expensive for many in northwestern Ontario, for many in my riding, and these added costs of course make things that much more difficult. Also, government policies around vaccine mandates, specifically the vaccine mandate put in place for transport truck drivers, will have negative impacts on supply chains and will only make this issue much worse for a number of items.

I was talking recently with Nevin Nelson from Nelson Granite, which is just outside Vermilion Bay in my riding. This was one of his primary concerns. He is concerned not only about the ability for Canadians to import goods into the country, but about his business's ability to send goods to the United States. He was very clear to me that the vaccine mandate put in place specifically for transport truck drivers is going to have a detrimental impact on his business and on many others across northwestern Ontario.

We have been very clear on this side of the House, and we continue to push back against this policy. We are looking to find reasonable solutions and a middle ground so we can ensure that everyone is respected, that we are keeping everyone safe and that we are putting COVID behind us once and for all.

I have also had a number of conversations with folks from other regions of my riding. I saw some photos this week on social media from people at the Safeway in Kenora, where many shelves are empty. People going grocery shopping are not able to get the essentials.

A constituent from Sioux Lookout, Knowles, shared his heating bill. Knowles is currently paying $70 a week in carbon tax alone, with about $100 in HST on top of that. He is looking at $170 a week for just his heating. I do not know if Madam Speaker has spent much time in Sioux Lookout in the winter, but I know she is from northern Ontario, so she understands full well that heating is definitely not a luxury there; it is a necessity. In fact, in many parts of my riding, the wind chill dipped to around -50°C last night. It is quite evident that heating is a necessity, and these added costs are making things so much more difficult for people to get by.

It is not just about home heating, but about gasoline in cars as well. Prices are going up, and this is making it more difficult for people to get to the hospital, for example. Many people in my riding have to drive a couple of hours or more to access medical services, and the added costs for gasoline are making things more and more difficult.

That is why, when we are talking about inflation, our party has been clear that it is time to phase out the stimulus programs and it is time to rein in government spending. However, the government has been politicizing this position, saying that the Conservatives want to cut everything, that we do not want the government to spend anything. Of course, that is not the case. The government has to keep programs and services going. What we are saying is that the government needs to phase out the unnecessary stimulus programs, get things back on track and open up our economy.

I share a concern raised by my colleague in the NDP from northern B.C. about the northern residents deductions. The government has brought forward a plan in Bill C-8 to address the northern residents deductions by expanding the travel portion, but it has done nothing to address the base portion. We ran in the election on a plan to increase the northern residents deductions and to me, that is an example of good and efficient spending and making sure we are supporting those in the north. It is something that I think my colleagues in the NDP would agree with, and I hope the government will take it into account. Given some of the comments I heard earlier in response to a question on it, the government could potentially be considering that.

Another big issue, of course, is housing, something that is not included in the CPI. The prices we have seen have been increasing quite dramatically, and this seems to be impacting people from all walks of life and all income levels.

In the Kenora riding, we are looking for more affordable housing and housing for young people coming out of school and entering the workforce who are looking to stay in the community. A lot of people my age cannot find a place to live, frankly. This is also about working families and seniors. It is impacting everyone right across the district.

One of the biggest issues we see is that the government has not been providing incentives for people to develop. There are lots of pieces of land available in my riding, from Sioux Lookout to Ear Falls and everywhere in between. However, some of the solutions we have seen from the government and from some of the other parties in the House have only been focused on subsidizing demand, further driving a wedge into this issue and making it much worse, instead of focusing on the supply and increasing housing stock.

On the same note, housing in first nations specifically is something we need to see addressed. The underfunding we have seen from the government is leading to overcrowding, mould and a number of other issues, and this is having a detrimental impact on many people in my riding, particularly in the remote northern parts of it. In fact, as I mentioned earlier this week in the House, a recent report brought forward by the Canadian Medical Association Journal has shown that the issues in housing have led to worsened health outcomes in indigenous children. That is something we have been hearing from chiefs for a number of years and from community residents in my riding, yet the government has been slow to act. The time is now for the government to act on that and ensure we have stronger housing, better housing and better opportunities for first nations across the Kenora riding.

With the limited time I have left, I will say briefly that the labour shortage is obviously impacting many people across the Kenora riding. I looked at the job board in Dryden recently and there are over 100 positions available, from minimum wage jobs to well-paying jobs that require a lot of experience. This is a small community, of course, with a number of vacancies, and many businesses have not been able to find people to hire. We really have not seen a plan from the government on how to address that.

Those are three big issues that I feel have not been adequately addressed. I hope in questions and comments that I will be able to further share some solutions and suggestions that, going forward, will ensure northwestern Ontario can thrive economically and we can chart a new path forward.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this. I think the member is doing her best to learn Canada's other official language, and I encourage her to continue to do that.

Let us talk about the economy, because that is exactly what we are talking about in Bill C-8, and how we are going to fix some of these problems. I will be really quick. Let us start encouraging people to go back to work as safely and responsibly as possible. Let us use all of the tools in the tool box that is at our disposal to get back to work and get back to normal.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak about Bill C-8, a piece of legislation that will add an additional approximately $70 billion of new spending to this federal budget.

Before I get into the meat of what I want to say, I will let the House know that I will be be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kenora, who is right beside me and anxious to get going.

Let us talk about the national debt before we really get into it. Right now it is hitting a jaw-dropping $1.2 trillion. At the start of this pandemic, the government brought in $176 million in new spending unrelated to COVID. We have said many times in the House, and I know I have, that there is a significant chunk of this new spending, a third of it, that was couched in the language of COVID but yet had absolutely nothing to do with COVID. We saw what happened: The government used that as an opportunity to reward its friends and punish its enemies.

Let us look at housing. This is most important, because everyone is looking at housing with a very serious lens, especially those on the lower side of the income level. Last year, home inflation hit 25%. The Canadian Real Estate Association's chief economist called it “the biggest gain of all time”. What happened was that $400 million of new money was put into the atmosphere, into the financial markets. Much of it was lent out, and it caused a massive bubble. When the Prime Minister took power, the average home was $435,000; now it is $810,000.

I am going to give a couple of examples from my home town. Actually, I will talk about the village of Bobcaygeon first. I

n 2014, this house was listed for $465,900. It sold for $455,000, so below asking, in 2014. Now, just last month, it sold for $1.9 million. It was actually listed for $1.8 million.

This house is in Lindsay. It is a three-bedroom, two-bathroom newbuild that was $319,000 in 2018. It sold last month on January 19 for $1.1 million. It was actually listed for $886,000. This is in the town of Lindsay, with a population of about 20,000 people, and it sold for $1.1 million.

The government continues to turn a blind eye to this problem. What is the government's answer? It is more new spending: Let us have another government program, a program that will inevitably fail, and then the government will come up with another program to fix the problem it created in the first place. What we need to transition to is more of an economy that talks about building things, getting our economy back on track and opening up where possible. The government failed on that as well.

At the beginning of the pandemic, vaccines were coming online, and what did the government do? It put all of its eggs into the CanSino basket. Of course, we all know how that failed. Then the government had to get in line, behind a whole slew of other countries, to try to get vaccines into this country.

Even before that, we here on the opposition benches were talking about different pieces to the puzzle that could aid in this fight, one of which was rapid tests. I remember right at the beginning when we were saying, as the opposition to the government, that we should be looking at rapid tests as a viable piece of the puzzle until we can figure out the next steps. The Liberals basically turned their eyes away from us. They did not want to have this conversation. Those are two main areas where they failed. They refuse to listen to anyone who might have a solution that differs from their vision. They shun them.

There are people all across this country who are frustrated and angry. I think we all are. I think we are all done with this pandemic. We should be talking about how we move to the next stage, but the Prime Minister refuses to say so. In my question just a moment ago, I asked the member for Kingston and the Islands about relaxing some of these travel restrictions, and many in the industry, including the experts that the member mentioned, are also calling for some of these regulations to be relaxed, including those that specifically focus on vaccinated individuals.

Travel and tourism are the industries that have been hurt the most, because the government refuses to move on these files. We heard the Prime Minister say in question period yesterday that he is not going to budge on this issue. Countries around the world are starting to relax some of their restrictions, realizing that we need to learn to live with this virus as best we can, as safely and responsibly as we can, but we continue to be one of the most locked-down countries.

There are ways through this. There are ways around this so that we can start opening up and living again, seeing our families again and not having to watch a loved one die through an iPad. There are solutions. The government just needs to accept some of them and listen to the experts who are saying, yes, there are ways forward.

The Liberals also talk a lot about Main Street. They always talk about Main Street, which is important. Conservatives had a very robust plan in our election platform to get people off their computers and back onto our main streets, but the only thing that is going well is Bay Street, because of those failures that I mentioned just a few moments ago. Who are the Liberals really in it for? I do not think it is the person living in the small town of Lindsay who now has to pay $1.1 million for a house that sold for $390,000 just four years ago.

Let us get our economy back on track. Let us start to reopen and have a serious conversation about reopening. Yes, most of it is in provincial jurisdiction. We now see the Province of Saskatchewan moving toward that, and others will follow, but the federal government also has to play a meaningful role in that conversation, from which it seems to be absent, especially with regard to international borders.

Let us get the travel and tourism industries back on track. We can do that safely; we know that. Other countries have done it, but there just does not seem to be any movement, and that is sad. If we really want to help the disenfranchised and their communities, economic activity is where we need to go. Here in Ontario, we have seen manufacturing leave at an alarming pace, and that happened during the 15 years of rule in Ontario when the Liberal Party was in power. It made electricity prices some of the highest in North America. Who relies on electricity the most? It is manufacturing, and we pushed all of that out. When the pandemic hit, what did we realize we needed most? It was manufacturing.

We put ourselves at a disadvantage, even our energy industry. Over the last six years, we have watched the Liberal government put in regulation, red tape and policy that shut down our energy industry, while at the same time promoting bad actors around the world. One example was that the government did not even fight the cancellation of Keystone XL. That was the first thing President Biden did when he got into office. The second was to release the sanctions on the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which allowed Russia to provide energy to Germany, one of the biggest economic powers in Europe. Now we have an incursion paid for in large part by this new-found wealth the Russian superpower now has because it is now powering Germany. Why could we not fill that gap with Canadian energy? It is because we cannot seem to get anything built in this country.

Let us start focusing on what we need to do: strengthening our economy; creating jobs, opportunity and wealth; attracting the brains here and allowing them to innovate and create new things, including green technology. However, we cannot do that when nobody has the ability to get to their feet, and that is the result of the government continuing to put their boot on the neck of the economy.

I always say we should remember low taxes, less government, more freedom.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's remarks on this bill, and I did not hear him mention anything about the changes to the northern residents deduction, something that affects a lot of residents in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, a beautiful part of northwest British Columbia. Bill C-8, the bill before us, would change the travel portion of the northern residents deduction, but it would do nothing to change the basic residency deduction, which is deeply flawed and based on an arbitrary line on the map.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would support looking at the way the residency deduction is calculated and helping people in places such as Haida Gwaii, the village of Granisle, and so many other northern and remote communities across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, let me just say that, in times of crisis, many things can divide us.

Of course, there is one thing that unites us, but that one thing does not appear in the economic update or in Bill C‑8: The premiers of the Canadian provinces and the Premier of Quebec are unanimous in their demand for higher health transfers.

I heard my colleague when he said this bill will pave the way to the future for Canada. However, the federal government clearly does not want to increase health transfers in the next five years.

I am trying to understand. We are in a crisis because of the pandemic, and health is the people's priority, yet the federal government is stubbornly ignoring a unanimous request for a significant health transfer increase as soon as possible.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion that C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today, as at any time, and to address another bill from the government that deals with the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. I will get to some of the specific provisions of Bill C-8, but I do want to start by talking broadly about the some of the issues that are very live in debates around the circumstances of the pandemic right now.

Two of the big areas of discussion we have are about the relationship between science and policy-making as well as questions about freedom and the importance we attach to freedom and how we define that concept in the country. I want to talk about those two concepts to set the stage for the rest of my remarks.

By most accounts, the history of modern science starts with that great figure of Galileo, who tragically ended his life under house arrest, persecuted for championing the simple idea that the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo's story is often presented as a clash between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism, but I think the truth is not quite so simple. Galileo was a person of serious faith and Copernicus, whose heliocentric theory Galileo defended, was actually a priest as well as a scientist.

While having plenty of religious supporters, Galileo also had many scientific detractors. In many cases his critics opposed him on scientific grounds, arguing that his theories constituted bad science and should be suppressed because they involved misinformation. Regardless of their deeper motivation, both sides in the argument over heliocentrism claimed to have science on their side.

A better way of understanding the conflict between Galileo and his detractors is as a dispute within science and about the appropriate method of scientific inquiry. Galileo championed free scientific inquiry while his persecutors emphasized trust in established scientific authority and conclusion. Galileo was presenting new data and advancing new ideas, ideas that challenged an existing scientific paradigm and establishment.

He believed, rightly in my view, that the progress of science requires constant empirically grounded questioning. He did not believe that efforts to preserve public trust in established science justified the rejection or suppression of emerging empirical data. It was a dispute between empiricism on the one hand and the demand for trust in the cultural, religious and scientific authorities on the other.

As a student growing up and hearing the story, it was very easy to feel superior to Galileo's establishment-perpetuating persecutors. However, in the context of the current pandemic, it may be a bit easier to understand why some people thought that the propagation of scientific ideas outside of the scientific consensus was dangerous. The questioning of scientific authority in any time can lead to distrust, confusion, unrest and the drawing of erroneous conclusions. Galileo's ideas could have turned out to be wrong, but despite its risk, this process of reasoned and empirically grounded questioning of received wisdom has always allowed the society to draw new conclusions and soar to new heights, figuratively and literally. Our commitment to questioning old ideas and seeking new discoveries has the potential to push ourselves still further, despite the friction that we may experience along the way.

During this pandemic, the public has been encouraged to trust the science, but in practice this has generally meant trusting the established public health authorities, rather than holding public health authorities accountable through rigorous empirical critique. Public health authorities deserve our thanks for their incredible efforts during immensely challenging times, but they have also gotten some things wrong and given health advice that has been contradicted later or was being contradicted by public health authorities in other jurisdictions.

Points of dissidence have generally been explained on the basis that the science has changed. In many cases though, such as with masking at the beginning, public health advice changed quite independently from new empirical evidence. Public health advice on masking seemed to be much more a function of the available supply of masks than it did of actual new evidence on mask effectiveness.

Even so, science can only ever move forward if it is first questioned and put to the test. The process of inquiry of advancing hypotheses that are initially regarded with skepticism is not anti-science, rather it is fundamental to science. There would never be any scientific progress if people were not willing to question established ideas or patterns of thinking.

There are many potential examples of the seeming disconnect between official scientific advice and emerging empirical evidence. Many people are asking why the scientific advice in different jurisdictions around the appropriateness of lockdowns is very different from public health authorities in other countries, looking at the science or coming to very different conclusions than some public health authorities in Canada.

I have spoken in the past about some of the evidence around the relationship between low vitamin D and COVID-19. A systematic review of scientific literature published in January 2021 found the following:

Most of the articles demonstrated that vitamin D status in the blood can determine the chances of catching coronavirus, coronavirus severity, and mortality. Therefore, keeping appropriate blood levels of vitamin D through supplementation or through sunshine exposure is recommended for the public to be able to cope with the pandemic.

About half a dozen meta-analyses conducted since have come to the same conclusion.

This is an interesting example, because in response to a question about vitamin D asked here on April 22, the former health minister described recommendations for vitamin D supplementation as emerging from “the myriad of fake news articles that are circulating around the Internet”. While the former health minister I am sure would like to be thought of as being proscience, her approach to new empirical information has many of the hallmarks of the Inquisition, that is, an approach that defends conventional wisdom even when that conventional wisdom is contradicted by emerging empirical evidence that is clear throughout the scientific literature. If we falsely equate a proscience position with a proestablishment position, we are then undermining the process of questioning an analysis that is vitally necessary for any kind of scientific process.

I encourage this kind of open-minded re-evaluation to be applied to all aspects of COVID-19 policy. This applies not just in the natural sciences but also in the social sciences. Our policy responses to COVID-19 need to continually grow and change in response to new evidence. We will not be able to grow and change if the necessary process of challenging pre-existing conclusions with emerging evidence is suppressed.

On the subject of freedom as such, we can see how what is true for science is also true for other domains of human action, including the freedom and the capacity to ask questions, to present unpopular opinions and to live according to one's sincerely held beliefs while respecting the rights of others to do the same. The ability and the character competency required to do this are what make the process of human progress possible.

On these issues, John Stuart Mill points the way for us. Mill did not argue that freedom was necessarily natural or that freedom was some a priori human right. He did not need to make those arguments because he was able to show that freedom is good because it is useful. This seminal thinker of what we used to call liberalism argued persuasively that when people are able to challenging existing norms and practices and to live in different ways, society is furnished with empirical data that helps others understand what actually leads to human happiness.

If I live my life in one way and the Speaker lives her life in another, then others are able to see the degree to which these modes of behaviour contribute to human flourishing or not, and are therefore able to shape their lives, at least partially, in response to that information. Mill used the term “experiments in living” to describe this process of learning from the choices of others and their consequences. That applies to experiments in science and also applies to experiments in living. Greater variation and a willingness to buck established trends help to furnish a broader range of data points from which we can then draw useful conclusions.

Unfortunately, modern progressivism deviates from liberalism in its lack of humility. Modern progressives assume they know the right path and therefore can impose it. They assume that an inevitable trajectory of history makes every step they take necessarily right and good, so they easily justify any action that moves things along toward their chosen ends.

Concretely, the government's agenda includes highly coercive policies. For instance, it is imposing vaccination on the unwilling. We can also talk about draconian new Internet regulations and a planned new values test for charities. That is just what we know so far.

True liberalism is about saying that people should not go to jail, should not be penalized and should not lose their jobs just because they hold views or want to make choices that I personally do not agree with. A person can be anticoercion while still being provaccination. A person can be for free speech without liking everything that gets said as a result.

We see clearly from its agenda that the government is not a liberal government in the classic sense. It is an illiberal government. It is a government that has turned its back on classic liberalism and is instead embracing an authoritarian progressivism. It is a government that values being woke over being free. We need to re-engage, in our response to the pandemic, with classic wisdom around the importance of honest scientific inquiry and the importance of human freedom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, what a lovely night it is to be debating in Parliament.

Yesterday, I had another exchange with the member for Kings—Hants, and I asked him why, since the government has spent so much money on supporting Canadians through COVID-19, we have not increased our ICU capacity or the number of hospitals we have in Canada to help treat COVID-19 and address the consequences of COVID-19 more broadly on the health care system.

He said it would be foolhardy. That was his exact word. He said it would be foolhardy to think that the Government of Canada could fix the health care system, but I read over Bill C-8, and what it seems is that the Liberal government is picking certain sections of provincial jurisdiction that it wants to intervene in.

Obviously yesterday when I debated the member, I was not opposed to the government putting money into health care and building bricks and mortar hospitals, but why would this member say that was foolhardy when Bill C-8 would do exactly that? It talks about ventilation systems for schools, and it is talking about giving provinces the capacity to do their vaccine passport programs. Why is there the discrepancy between those certain aspects of health care and others?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so happy that our ridings share a border.

Today we are debating Bill C‑8, which contains a series of legislative measures that the Minister of Finance presented during the economic update in December.

I will use my time today to talk about the economic update as a whole, including what the government did to prevent the worst economic impacts of the pandemic, the legislative measures in the bill, and the important role of economic growth in ensuring the financial viability of our country and its ability to provide major social programs in the future, especially in certain areas that I think would be beneficial for the government.

When we are discussing this bill, it is important to take a step back to look at March of 2020. We were faced with one of the biggest economic challenges of our time. Indeed, it was the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. At the time, as we were learning more and more about this novel virus COVID-19, the government really had two options. The government could intervene and help support the economic stability of the country by supporting individuals, businesses, provinces and territories, or it could take a bit more of a laissez-faire approach and say that there would be some economic harm, but the government would hold back some of its spending. It would be what it would be.

I compare those two strategies because, although the economic crisis of 2008-09 was different, the approaches that those two governments took, the Harper government then and our government now, are completely different. I say that because we saw the economic scarring at that time. The Harper government did not intervene with the necessary liquidity at the time, and it took years to return to our economic prosperity, to where we had been prior to the challenge.

Let us compare and contrast that to this government. Yes, it is a different crisis, and we intervened hard and put money on the table to make sure that people were taken care of.

As we will see here today, as we go through the different measures the government introduced, we have now returned to our prepandemic GDP and we have returned to having more jobs than were lost at the height of the pandemic. I want Canadians and parliamentarians to think about that as we discuss this bill here today and reflect on where we are now and where we have come from.

I remember it. I remember being at home in my riding of Kings—Hants as a new member of Parliament, recently elected in 2019. Actually, you and I both were, Mr. Speaker. I remember wishing and wanting to be here, but being privileged to have the opportunity to represent my constituents in a virtual manner. I remember how quickly the government moved to put measures in place, whether it was the Canada emergency response benefit, which made sure that individuals who were losing their jobs as a result of the pandemic could take advantage, or the wage subsidy, which was provided to businesses as their economic situation changed.

It was a very uncertain time, as we can all appreciate as parliamentarians. I have countless stories, whether about the CERB benefit helping a family get through that difficult period or the wage subsidy. Businesses owners have said their businesses would not be here today if it were not for that government intervention.

I was in Windsor last week to see Mermaid Theatre. For Canadians watching who may not know, Mermaid Theatre does tremendous work. It is a puppet show. It goes around the world plying its trade right out of little Windsor, Nova Scotia. If we had not been there with those wage subsidies, Mermaid Theatre company would not exist today.

Instead, it has been supported through the pandemic. It is now pivoting to online learning and the ability to put their puppet shows in a digital format because of the support our government gave to get it through that period. It is using innovative technologies to provide their work around the world because it is limited in its ability to go to theatres and have 3,000 people in the audience. That is just one example.

I want to talk about the Canada emergency business account. Again, it is another tool to help provide that liquidity for businesses. Members will recall that 25% of it is a grant contribution if businesses are able to pay back that amount. We have now extended that deadline to December 31, 2023.

I like to call it as I see it in the House. The government is not perfect. The government on this side is not perfect, but we headed programs that were by and large meeting the needs of Canadians. There were some businesses that did not meet the criteria of what we put out. That is why we focused on the regional relief and recovery fund. This was administered through the regional development agencies. In our area of Atlantic Canada, that was done through the CBDC, the Community Business Development Corporation.

The CBDCs worked with businesses. Perhaps a business did not need $40,000 worth of loan and it only needed $10,000 to see it through. The CBDCs could work with businesses that were not otherwise meeting the criteria in the programs. It is an extremely beneficial program.

I want to credit our former minister of economic development, who now serves as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There was a provision that allowed for the equity the CBDCs were earning to actually stay with them. Those monies would be returned and will be available for small initiatives for businesses across the country.

We have had a lot of conversation about seniors here in the House. It is a very important topic. In my riding of Kings—Hants, we have a large proportion of seniors. I want to highlight that during the pandemic, notwithstanding that there remain challenges, we were there for them.

We gave a $300 top-up to those recipients under old age security. We gave a $200 addition for those who were under the guaranteed income supplement. We have increased the old age security by 10% for those who are 75 and up, and we are pledging to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500. It is part of the platform commitment of the government. Of course, as was highlighted in the economic update, there was also an important measure to reduce and eliminate the clawbacks for those seniors who were being impacted because of the pandemic benefits.

We were also there for essential workers with some of the benefits that we were putting on the table. There is a lot in it. Parliamentarians in this House collectively passed these measures. I know with some members of the Conservative Party, I found something frustrating. I will go on the record and perhaps some members who are in the House today can have a back and forth with me when we get to questions on this.

In one breath, the Conservative Party of Canada would say that Liberals were doing too much and putting too much water on the fire, saying we were helping Canadians too much. Then we would hear, literally the next question in question period, that our government was not doing enough. It was that inconsistency that members on this side of the House have asked members of her Majesty's loyal opposition to pick a lane and decide what they stand for as it relates to economics. Perhaps we can engage in that later.

I want to talk about what the government's efforts have resulted in for Canadians who are listening at home. I mentioned before that 108% of the jobs lost at the height of the pandemic have been returned. We have actually created more jobs than were lost during the pandemic. We can compare that to the United States, for example, our cousin to the south, and they stand at 84% right now. We are doing well in terms of the returns of jobs. In fact, as I will get to in my remarks, we have to do more to bring Canadians here to fill our job vacancies because of the economic success we are having right now.

The economic update has projected a return to prepandemic levels of GDP. I believe the Minister of Finance answered a question yesterday stating that is the case. Notwithstanding, we know there are challenges with omicron. We have maintained the best net-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Of course, the Department of Finance is projecting a declining debt-to-GDP ratio over the next five years. Importantly, Canada has maintained a strong credit rating throughout this entire pandemic.

The Minister of Finance has said to this House, and I believe publicly, that the best economic policy is a strong health response. We will talk about the measures in the bill, but I could not agree more with that. Members will remember the government and its work on procuring vaccines and boosters, and we will remember the rush that was happening globally to make sure those were available.

I want to give a tip of the cap to the former Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and of course I could give a tip of the cap to our current Minister of Public Services and Procurement, with regard to the tests and good work that she continues. To my colleague for Oakville who has ties to the riding of Kings—Hants and grew up in Kentville, she did tremendous work. Our government was there to make sure that those vaccines and boosters were available.

On rapid tests, the work continues. This legislation lays out $1.72 billion that can go from the consolidated revenue fund to help support the acquisition of rapid tests for the provinces that are distributing those in their respective jurisdictions.

There have been billions for personal protective equipment. Again, perhaps it is a lesson learned and a conversation for all parliamentarians about the need to improve domestic supply chains. This government worked hard to make sure that we utilized the assets and tools in Canada to make sure that PPE was available for health care workers, but also leveraged relationships internationally as well.

There are other elements around billions of dollars in health-care-related direct support during the pandemic. The COVID-19 resiliency fund was really an opportunity for provinces and territories to look at the infrastructure bilaterals that exist, pull up to 10% out of that and put it exclusively toward health-related COVID resiliency projects. I know that there have been some in my own riding. For example, Port Williams Elementary School received about $1 million for ventilation programs. There were other initiatives across the country. These are the work of our government.

I want to make sure that I also talk about the legislative measures of the bill. There are seven of them. I am going to go through them quickly, because I think they are extremely important.

First is the small business tax credit for businesses that are making investments in ventilation. We know that this is important. We are working with the provinces. That tax credit is available at up to $10,000 per location, or $50,000 for a series of organizations that might be owned by one beneficial owner. These are important investments that we are making. This pairs with some of the tax credits that were in budget 2021 around digitization that small businesses can use, particularly vis-à-vis the changing consumer behaviour of not necessarily going to the business itself but shopping online. I think that is extremely important.

We have a new refundable tax credit for farmers in the backstop jurisdictions of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and New Brunswick. This is extremely important for the competitiveness of Canadian agriculture. It is a $100-million commitment that was in budget 2021, and I am very pleased to see it come forward.

We have expanded the travel component for northern residents' travel exemptions. We know that this is extremely important in terms of their ability to get a refundable tax credit on their tax returns, and these are good measures. Especially as a rural member on the governing caucus, I can appreciate what this measure will mean.

Let us talk about the underused housing act. We know that housing is a top issue in this country. We have moved the yardstick on this particular piece of legislation to introduce a 1% tax on the actual overall valuation of property. This is not for Canadians. It is for non-residents: non-Canadians who own property that is not being used for the purpose of housing someone. It could perhaps be speculative property. This is but one of the measures the government intends to introduce in the days ahead, but I certainly give it a tip of the cap because I applaud what it could mean. Is it going to solve the issue? It absolutely will not, alone. I really think that some of this lies in the municipal jurisdiction, and in ways we can work with municipalities to expedite their development processes to give more certainty so that developers who are building houses perhaps are not delayed for a number of years. That adds costs that end up going onto the housing that, of course, all Canadians are seeking to buy.

I mentioned the CEBA extension, and I certainly mentioned some of the other elements in the bill.

I want to talk about where we are going. As a member of Parliament, I think it is extremely important that we focus on economic growth. We have taken on a lot of money during the pandemic, no doubt. The spending was there to prevent the worst economic scarring. If we are going to maintain a fiscal balance in the days ahead that has to be a key element, and I know that it will be.

There are a couple of perhaps stormy clouds on the horizon that we all need to be mindful of as parliamentarians. One is omicron. When this was tabled before the House, omicron was not something that was necessarily prevalent at the time, and it is going to have an impact on of course the economic forecast into 2022. It is also going to have a cost, and the government will be focused on the amount of money.

We have heard about additional health care funding. The government promised it in its electoral platform, and premiers are calling for it. We have to be mindful of how we make sure that spending remains sustainable over time.

We are in a protectionist global economy. We saw this before the pandemic with the Unites States and China and the tariff wars being undertaken at the time. Brexit was certainly more than an economic decision, but had the economic consequences of splitting up the European bloc vis-à-vis the U.K. and Europe. Also, with respect to the Appellate Body being able to handle appeals under the WTO, it has been been sitting and unable to move forward for a significant period of time.

We now have a government in the United States that is very consumed with its own domestic affairs. We have seen elements of the Buy America Act, EV vehicles and some of the proposed Senate legislation with COOL, the country of origin labelling, which would have impact on and perhaps concern, if it ever moved forward, our producers and ranchers in the west. We need to be mindful of that. It could have economic consequences. Our government has been there to work with challenging governments in the United States. We share strong economic ties. We will continue to do so, but we need to be mindful.

I will quickly move through the areas I think this government needs to focus on as part of what I believe to be a comprehensive economic growth strategy. The Minister of Finance's mandate letter includes words around that. I really think now is the time to pull together to perhaps work with, most importantly, the private sector, as well as different levels of government, non-profits and indeed indigenous leaders to see how we can create a growth strategy that will support the prosperity of this country in the days ahead.

We need to be focused globally with respect to our competitiveness and providing what Canada can provide to the world. That includes, as I have heard other colleagues say, agriculture, forestry, the Canadian oil and gas sector, and mining. Those are going to be major areas that we need to continue to focus on. We need to focus on allowing small and medium enterprises to think globally and leverage the trade agreements we already have.

We also need to be focused on internal trade and harmonizing barriers to increase economic efficiency. We have a Senate report that was prepared by a series of senators known as the prosperity action group. They suggest there is about 2% to 4% of GDP that sits on the table because of interprovincial trade barriers.

This is a well-trodden subject. We have been down this road before. If we look at measures in my own riding, we have a world-class wine industry and my producers say it is easier to get a bottle of wine to France or the U.K. than it is to New Brunswick. In today's society we need to be able to move that forward.

We have had tremendous co-operation with the provinces as it relates to the health response. Let us use that to also drive economic barriers that can create success as well.

Let us also talk about the regulation of professions in a way that we can harmonize them. Whether it be health care, labour, trades or mobility, those are really key areas where the government needs to go.

My predecessor Mr. Brison introduced regulatory reform in the 2018 budget. We have a good start, but we need to continue. With respect to innovating the Canadian economy, there is important work being done on the superclusters. There is more that can be done.

I will finish with SMR technology. There is more that I could say, but unfortunately 20 minutes, although I am very privileged to have it, is not enough. Canada's oil and gas sector will play an important role in the economy in the days ahead, perhaps not to the extent that it has in the past, but we need to work at leveraging SMR technology, small modular reactors, to bring down emissions in Canadian oil and gas. This is so we can continue to provide that product, which the world will need in the decades ahead. Working with the industry and innovation, is a key synergy that we should be focused on as a government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that may have something to do with the shouting, but I did say I was outraged and I suppose that has some technical consequences.

Here we are. We are two years into the pandemic. We have not made significant progress on long-term care. It is not like the experts that have been advising governments on how to handle the pandemic were caught off guard that there was another wave of the pandemic. Even early on, they were saying there would be probably at least four waves. We know that these are problems that need to get fixed, even if somehow magically the pandemic were to end tomorrow. We hear certain members in the House, even today, suggesting that somehow the pandemic is a function of public health restrictions or something. If we end the public health restrictions, we do not end the pandemic. I wish that were true, but we are fighting a virus. We are not fighting each other. We need to bear that in mind.

The way to get through this is with a lot of care and resources to be sure. As we were cutting those taxes for big corporations and telling people that we could not fund the health care that they needed, that was also being done by a lot of governments provincially. We are seeing it in Manitoba, Alberta and around the country because we have people in the government who do not believe in public health care in the first place and would rather see it privatized and would rather give tax cuts to big corporations instead of ponying up the funding that we know is necessary to have proper health care.

I am outraged at the Liberal Party, which promised as long ago as 1997, and the government has said again and again until their most recent Speech from the Throne, that they were going to make progress on pharmacare. Why am l mad about that? It is because I understand that people are really getting hit hard in the pocketbook with the inflation that is happening. I know there is no magic wand in the desk of government and some of the factors driving inflation right now are beyond their control. However, what is in their control? They could certainly help with the cost of prescription drugs because a national pharmacare program would do that. It would save money. It actually costs less to have such a program than Canadians are spending right now on prescription drugs.

We are going back a couple of years now to the PBO study, but the PBO was very clear. Right now Canadians are spending about $24 billion a year on prescription drugs with the many provincial systems that we have and the many private plans. One national system would cost about $20 billion a year. That is a way to save money and serve people better and help bring down some of those costs that are making things so hard for Canadians right now. It is something the government absolutely needs to do and would help.

The NDP has long proposed taking on telecom companies. Canadians are paying among the highest rates for cellphone and Internet. That is not a luxury anymore. It is not a “nice to have”. If people want to participate in the labour market, good luck finding a job and keeping a job if they do not have access to the Internet or to a cellphone. That is something that the government could do. It could take a regulatory approach to bringing down prices and making sure that, at the very least, there is a genuinely affordable plan for basic access to something as important as cellphone and Internet rates.

What is in Bill C-8? There is nothing particularly offensive, but not a lot of the things that we really need. I think that is the dilemma. Certainly there are many Canadians who are frustrated, in this time of real difficulty and real challenge with the pandemic but also with, for many of us, a real looming sense of challenge when we look at what is happening to the planet and all the extreme weather events and we look at the economic disruption and the displacement of people that it is going to cause, that we are just not rising to the occasion. Yes, absolutely we should be helping businesses improve their ventilation systems. That is the right thing to do in the context of the pandemic and these measures make sense as a way of contributing to that.

We ought to be helping schools improve their ventilation systems. It is not a real answer to reimburse teachers for some of what they are paying out of pocket, because I do not think teachers should have to pay out of pocket. Until we have governments that are willing to fund education to the extent that it needs to be, so that every student has what they need, I am thankful to teachers who are willing to go above and beyond, and I am willing to support a measure that gives them a little relief for doing things out of compassion for their students that they really should not have to do because that is a compassion that we should have collectively. We should work collectively to fund the things that students need, instead of leaving it to their teachers on an individual basis.

I am glad in principle that the government is looking at having some kind of tax for underused housing. However, I think it will be important to interrogate that seriously at committee, because initial analyses suggest that there are loopholes that we could drive trucks through in this legislation. There is a lot more we need to do to tackle the problems of the housing market, some things the Liberals themselves promised in the last election, like banning blind bidding. That was a platform commitment of the Liberal Party.

Why is that not here? What could they possibly be waiting for? Are house prices not high enough? Do they need to escalate faster for the Liberals to make good on their own election commitments? Give me a break. That stuff should at least be here.

We also know that we need a serious plan, not the national housing strategy they love to tout, because it is inadequate. We need to get more real units, and I am not talking about so-called affordable housing, which has a technical definition that really just means “high rent” for most people, rent they cannot afford.

We need to build housing with rent geared to income, and we need to explore non-market options, like co-ops and other things like it, so that we take the speculation out of enough of the housing market that people really can access housing. That would also help relieve cost pressures among people for whom home ownership is a real goal. It would be a larger group if prices came down, as it was not that long ago. That would help them out too by relieving demand in the housing market and helping to lower prices overall.

These are things that we really need to be doing. I look forward to having an intensive study at committee of this new proposed underused housing act. I think that is a good piece of parliamentary work. However, we are kidding ourselves if we think it is really going to change the fundamental trajectory of the Canadian housing market, not just in the last two years, as the Conservatives would have us believe, but over the last 20 years, during which prices have been going up consistently because we have had federal governments that, since the mid-nineties, have not come to the table with enough funding to build enough non-market housing to relieve serious pressure on the market. That absolutely needs to happen.

There is more money proposed for things we need, particularly rapid tests, and we are quite supportive of that. There are some questions, though. I did ask the Associate Minister of Finance about this earlier, and I was somewhat dismayed that he did not have an answer. In Bill C-8 there are proposals for money for rapid tests, and in a stand-alone bill, Bill C-10, the government proposed to spend money on rapid tests. Bill C-8 asks for $1.72 billion for rapid tests and Bill C-10 asks for $2.5 billion for rapid tests, and the Associate Minister of Finance and the government could not give a clear answer to whether it is asking for $4.2 billion combined, the $2.5 billion in Bill C-10 or the $1.7 billion in Bill C-8.

I think Canadians should know, and I think Parliament should expect to have some reliable reporting on those numbers as we go, because as we know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not that long ago, said the government, when it came to tabling its public accounts, was considerably late and was an outlier among other G7 countries. I think the government really needs to get with the program. There has been a need for a considerable amount of public spending, but the fact that we need to spend is not a reason not to report well on what the money is being spent on and not to do it in a timely way. In fact, it becomes that much more important that the government reports well and in a timely fashion on its spending when so much money is going out the door and so quickly. There are certainly things to talk about in that regard.

Suffice it to say, while I am not impressed by the extent to which many of the things we need to do to rise to the moment are not in here, whether they are in facing the pandemic or the climate challenge, I am not of the view that this is a reason for things not to proceed. However, I really think the government needs to figure out how to rise to the occasion and move forward with a sense of urgency, particularly, to reiterate it one more time, the extent to which is has to internalize the sense of urgency required when it comes to seniors who have had their benefits clawed back by the government. They are not just losing income; they are also losing access to provincial programs in many cases. They were part of their support network and kept them housed, fed and alive. All of that has been called into jeopardy because of the government's refusal to act swiftly in May of last year when it knew that this was going to be a problem. This is something the government absolutely has to act on with urgency.

It also has to address all the people who are still out of work because of the pandemic. Let us not kid ourselves. We all know somebody, at least one person if not more, who is struggling to get back to the job they had or to get enough hours in a new job and who cannot support their family. The 40% cut to pandemic benefits was bad enough, going from $500 a week to $300 a week, but in addition to that, with the Canada worker lockdown benefit, the government made it way harder for people to access help. My office is hearing from people in Elmwood—Transcona and from people across the country who are trying to access this benefit at a time of incredible need and cannot access it. They are being told that it should take a matter of days for a response, but they have waited weeks and still have not gotten a response. The government had a system that was providing income support for a lot of people, and when it ended, the government was still providing support to about 900,000 people. What it was replaced with is not adequate to the task, both in terms of how much it delivers and in terms of the criteria that people have to navigate to access it.

As I said, Bill C-8 can certainly go to committee and there are things worth looking at, but this is not the kind of leadership we need at the moment. The government has to do more to rise to the occasion. I will continue to be here, as will my New Democratic colleagues, to press the government to rise to the occasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-8. It is my first time giving a speech in the House in the new year. It is not my first time on my feet but my first time speaking at length, so it is my first time speaking in the House since the omicron wave seriously took hold. I want to take a moment to recognize what a punch in the stomach it has felt like to Canadians across the country, many of whom had some hope that we were getting beyond the pandemic. When this wave came, I think many of them felt all of those many feelings we have been feeling over the past two years kind of condensed into a new wave of the pandemic.

I want to give special thanks to all the frontline workers we talked about at the beginning of the pandemic, who never went away and never stopped doing those important tasks even though the limelight shifted away from them.

Health care workers continue to labour in really difficult circumstances, and they are overworked, tired and under-resourced.

Teachers and child care workers have had to face the pandemic all the way through. In this particular wave, and I will speak to my own experience in Manitoba, they were having the challenges of remote learning and are now having to deal with full classrooms and students and colleagues who are getting sick, or they are getting sick themselves.

Grocery store workers are putting themselves at risk once again. As my colleague from Windsor West has rightly pointed out, some of the big grocery chains said that when another wave came they would bring back hero pay to recognize the risks workers are taking in order to help Canadians, but they have not stepped up to reinstitute that pay.

All of these things together are leading to a lot of outrage, and I am going to talk a bit about some of the things I find particularly outrageous today and that inform my work.

I am outraged when I get emails, as I did today, about another senior who has lost their life, not because of the pandemic directly but because they took the government at its word when it said it would be there to have their backs, would support them through the pandemic and told them to apply for help when they lost their job. They did. They applied for CERB.

Because the government could not figure out its own rules, and that is probably the most charitable interpretation, or because it did not care, it decided to claw back those benefits that were supposed to be for working seniors in need through the guaranteed income supplement. Not only did the government do that and not catch it before it happened, but the government was advised at least as early as May of 2021 that it was happening and it chose to do nothing about it. The government chose to do nothing about it.

One could say that the government did nothing about it until it happened, except that it happened in July and it still did nothing about it. The Liberals called an election and did nothing about it. They came back from the election and did nothing about it. It took weeks of persistently raising this in the House of Commons to get an announcement, and that announcement did not solve the problem because that money still is not in the pockets of seniors who are in dire need.

The money is not in the pocket of the senior I heard about today, the senior with type 2 diabetes who could no longer afford the food and medication they needed to be healthy and passed away. I have an email open in front of me about a couple from Mississauga who are in dire straits. The two of them are trying to live on $1,300 a month because their GIS payments are gone.

The government says not to worry and that it has a solution with a one-time payment in May or June. There are already seniors who are no longer living and who cannot receive that payment, and there will be more by May or June. That outrages me. It outrages me on the substance of the matter, because Canada should do better. It outrages me because it breaks the promise the Prime Minister made to people in this country that the government would be there for them.

Instead, on a principle of bureaucracy, the Liberals are not, because they could not figure out their internal systems, or they did not have the right lists or they were not sure about this or maybe needed to do that. This is after just proving to the country that when the political will exists they can roll out a program to millions of Canadians almost overnight.

Liberals expect us to believe that, for those seniors who were already receiving money from the government, already on a list, already in a system where we were paying them, they cannot find a way to get money into those seniors' hands so that they are not dying in the cold. It is not believable and it is shameful.

I am outraged about that. I am proud that people in Elmwood—Transcona sent me here to relay that message to the government. I am going to keep doing that until that money gets into the hands of seniors who can then get back into their homes and out of the jeopardy they are in because the government cannot be bothered to take on its own bureaucracy, which is telling it something that needs to be done cannot be done, when we all know that is not true.

That outrages me.

I am outraged that people during the pandemic were dying in personal care homes because of years of cuts, at the federal and provincial level, to health care. We know our system has been under-resourced. Those cuts did not come because Canada could not afford to do those things. Over the years that those cuts came to our health care system, the corporate tax rate in Canada went down from 28% to just 15%. That is a huge decrease. That is almost a 50% tax cut to the largest corporations in Canada, while our government was telling us it could not afford to pay its fair share of health care to the provinces.

That is shameful.

What is more shameful still is that we are two years into this pandemic and there has hardly been a long-term care centre in Winnipeg that has not had a COVID-19 outbreak. There has been no work done by the federal government to convene the provinces to talk about better national standards and funding those standards.

I am not talking about the federal government telling the provinces what to do. I am talking about convening them so they can talk about best practices, so that every Canadian can benefit from the best things our provincial governments are doing to serve Canadians in long-term care, and then ensuring the federal government is at the table to help resource those things.

That was the power of—

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

Mr. Speaker, we are studying Bill C-8, the bill to implement last fall's economic update. There is not much to it. We more or less support the bill, but there is one thing we take issue with. I will explain what I mean in a few minutes.

I would like to remind my colleagues that part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations. Everyone supports the new refundable tax credit for ventilation expenses made to improve air quality. Obviously, we support expanding the travel component of the northern residents deduction. Expanding the school supplies tax credit from 15% to 25% and expanding the eligibility criteria to include electronic devices is great. That is not a problem. A new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses is important. We are happy to see it included, and we support it.

Part 2, which is a hot topic in this debate, contains the much-touted 1% tax on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. We agree in principle, but we have a big problem. The problem is that, of all possible taxes, property tax is the only one not under federal jurisdiction.

The goal itself is a noble one. We could discuss the 1% tax. Would it really be effective? We could discuss that. However, there is a very troubling precedent being set here. My colleagues will remember what happened with income tax. The federal government said that it was a temporary measure to finance the war effort, but we are still sending half of our income tax to Ottawa today. There is nothing more permanent than a temporary tax measure implemented by the federal government. That is what we are concerned about.

Will the federal government acquire a taste for this sweet, sweet tax revenue once it has tried it and want to go back for more?

This is a big problem. It is troubling because this is an area under municipal jurisdiction. We know that municipalities are having serious financial difficulties, and this is their jurisdiction. If, from now on—not right away, but in a few years—the federal government came back to demand some of that revenue, there would be less for the municipalities. There would be an even greater fiscal imbalance.

We therefore have a serious problem, and we are asking the government to please find another way of implementing this policy, because interfering in property tax, which is under municipal jurisdiction, is a serious problem and a dangerous precedent. Although the intention is noble, as I have said before and will say again, the method is a problem because of the precedent it would set.

Could the government come to an agreement with the provinces and municipalities so that they could levy the tax instead?

There are other ways of solving the problem, with capital gains, for example, but this one poses a serious threat. Right now, the Bloc Québécois is still deciding whether it will support Bill C‑8 because of this measure. The principle is noble, but, in our opinion, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Part 3 provides for a six-year prescription period for the Canada emergency business account. That is great.

Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund. I would like to take this opportunity to give a shout out to the President of the Treasury Board, who is listening attentively to my speech. I thank her. The bill talks about supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools. We fully support this, and we support part 5, which authorizes payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of supporting coronavirus disease 2019 proof-of-vaccination initiatives.

Part 6 supports COVID-19 tests. There is a lot of money involved, and we are obviously on board with that too.

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 this is important.

This is not a historic implementation bill. These are good measures, even the measure in part 2 that we have doubts about. The goal is noble, but once again, the precedent it would set is troubling.

Governments are often judged on what they achieve in their first 100 days. In our opinion, there could have been much more in Bill C-8.

Throughout the election campaign and since the beginning of the pandemic, we have heard a lot about the labour shortage. There are many different measures that could be put in place to mitigate this issue, such as a tax credit that would make it easier for young retirees to continue working. Earlier this week, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec told the Standing Committee on Finance that many young retirees would be willing to work one or two days a week if they did not have to give all their earnings back in income tax. The Bloc Québécois would have liked to see something like that in this bill. It would not have been very complicated, and it could have been included, but it was not.

The other important point is the fight against tax havens. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance wrote a book on the subject. It is important. We need to take action and move forward. We have been calling for this for years now. Just under a year ago, when the last budget was tabled last spring, the minister assured us that the fall update would fix the web giant problem by taxing their revenue to offset unpaid taxes, as is done in other countries. Last December we were even pretty sure that something was going to be introduced.

It is frustrating that there was nothing about this in Bill C-8. We have been hearing for years now that measures are on the way, but they keep getting pushed back. We are almost beginning to feel like a donkey chasing a carrot in the fight against tax havens, but the carrot is always just out of reach. We should not be taken for donkeys.

I would now like to talk about health. Earlier this afternoon the government sent out the Minister of Tourism to speak to the government's Bill C‑8. The minister said that the government would negotiate health funding with the provinces “when the time is right”. I think now is the right time. It was the right time last year, it was the right time during the pandemic and it was the right time even before the pandemic. The time has been right for 20 years. Frankly, the government needs to smarten up.

Everyone knows that the health care system is struggling, emergency rooms are swamped, and the pandemic has posed challenges for hospital care, emergency care and life-saving care. This is all because the health care system and sector has been weakened and damaged by 20 to 25 years of underfunding by the federal government. It is as simple as that.

After the 1995 referendum, there was a renegotiation with respect to deficits and the debt, which were too high. Ottawa's solution to the problem was to reduce transfers to the provinces. Jean Chrétien then chose to mock Quebec among his G7 colleagues telling them that the funny thing about reducing health transfers was that everyone would protest at the National Assembly of Quebec and the other provincial legislatures, but he would be fine. It was that decision by Ottawa to reduce its health transfers that has compromised the system. Today, we are paying the price during the pandemic.

The government can say that it spent a lot of money during the pandemic, but to be clear, that spending is not recurring funding. We need recurring funding. The government said that it has been spending more every year. That is true, but it is not contributing its fair share when we consider that health care system costs are going up 6% while the government is increasing its share by only 3%. The government is actually contributing less and less every year. For the government to say that it is spending more every year is dishonest. That is clear from even a cursory analysis of the situation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that, even with the extraordinary expenses incurred during the pandemic, the pressure of public funding rests squarely on the shoulders of the provinces. This has to change.

I also wanted to talk about seniors. We need to do more for them, particularly with respect to inflation. There was also a lot of talk about social housing. Action needs to be taken on that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, February 2, in the House, I want to pay homage and respect to my party leader, who resigned today from being party leader of the official opposition. Being in the job of party leader in an opposition party is an incredibly difficult job, and he has done yeoman's work over the past couple of years. In a time when Canada was locked down, expectations of what we needed to do as a country changed dramatically and we continue to try to adapt. This is a difficult time to be in this kind of job, and I pay respect right now to him and his family for having committed and having given so much to this country, to our party and to this Parliament.

I am here today to address the new Bill C-8 proposed by the Liberal government about how to address some more spending that we need to commit for coming through COVID, some of which we find is going to be on the backs of Canadians again.

The bill is in seven parts. I cannot address all seven parts adequately in this sitting in the next 20 minutes, so I am going to focus on the real estate part of this bill. My colleague across the way spent a lot of time on the real estate section of this bill as well.

Starting in the 2022 calendar year, we are going to look at a 1% federal surtax on passively held non-resident owners of real estate in Canada. That means that foreigners who buy real estate in Canada are going to pay an extra 1% annually on the value of the real estate, much like a municipal tax for those people who own property or own their single-family home. Therefore, we would transport some of this tax mechanism that usually rests at the municipal level, and we would put it onto the federal government's balance sheet at this point in time. For what effect, I do not know but it would be an overstep into municipal jurisdiction.

It seems a bit of an overstep and I will give some examples, but first I am going to refer to what my colleague across the way was referring to, a report by an organization called Generation Squeeze, which was commissioned by a crown corporation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to look at ways to get more housing built in Canada. It did not look at better ways to get more housing built in Canada. What it looked at and what it reported to CMHC, which it was of course paid to do, was ways to tax more housing ownership in Canada. Its proposal was much like this one: a 0.5% surtax annually applied on properties over $1 million. I know that sounds like a big number, but the annual surtax doubles on properties over $2 million.

Vancouver itself has an empty homes tax already, effectively the same thing as what Generation Squeeze is providing, except it is 3% of the assessed value and it has been applied since 2017. Now there is 0.5%, 1%, 3%, but there is more. The Province of British Columbia has a speculation and vacancy tax applied on such properties, starting at 0.5% for a resident and going up to 2% for an offshore property owner. That has been applied since 2018, so with 3% plus 2% plus 0.5% plus this proposed 1%, we really are just tacking on and on here and really overstepping as far as which level of government is collecting this.

What are we trying to accomplish in this?

Foreign ownership still accounts for approximately 7.7% of Vancouver home purchases. We are still getting a lot of foreign ownership growing into the housing base in the Lower Mainland, despite the fact that we are tacking on significant taxes here that were supposed to slow this down. This is a great discrepancy between the actual people who work in the city and the people who are coming to live in the city. That is one of the major factors that is pushing up housing prices in Canada, but particularly in the Lower Mainland.

Have we looked at the increase in home values under the current Liberal government?

In the last six years, the price of a typical family home has gone up 87%. Since the government has come to power or shortly thereafter, six years ago, the average price of a family home in Canada is up 87%. That is inflation. Since 2016, when it was at $476,000, it is now $811,000 according to the Canadian Real Estate Association.

Are we trying to jam the price above $1 million just to collect a proposed federal surtax? The average house in Toronto and Vancouver now sells for over $1 million. Think about it: A home that costs over $1 million in two of Canada's large cities. That is not counting the interest paid on the mortgage. It is not counting the upkeep required on a regular basis. It is not counting the maintenance. It is not counting the furniture and window coverings. To get into a home now, it is over $1 million for a starter home. The cost of home ownership is going through roof in Canada, and that is not just bungalows, split-levels or two-storeys, but all single-family homes.

What has caused this?

The government keeps professing that it needs to spend more, and thus collect more, to build more housing in Canada. Who is going to pay this tax? It is the home sellers who, according to Generation Squeeze, are primarily retirees. They have made gains in the value of their homes that is not taxable at the federal level, so they obviously deserve to pay more tax in their retirement years, according to Generation Squeeze. This is a ridiculous oversight of the financial snapshot faced by retirees in Canada, many of whom are and will be augmenting their incomes by working longer and receiving government programming like the guaranteed income supplement. The proposal from Generation Squeeze, commissioned by an arm of this government, is an inequitable tax grab on some of our most vulnerable citizens. I will oppose it strongly.

Why are seniors having difficulty saving for retirement? It is inflation, inflation, inflation. Things are costing more, but people's incomes are not going up on a commensurate level. It is a real monetary factor that this government does not really pay any attention to. As the Prime Minister said during the election, he does not really think about monetary policy, unfortunately. Government should be thinking about monetary policy.

I would point out to the government that, this year, CPP payments for everybody in Canada have been increased in their payroll tax by 10%. If a 10% increase in our CPP is not more reflective of the inflation people are actually feeling, then I think the government is trying to mask something here. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has said that its investments are sound for what it is expecting to spend for the next 75 years, but the government thinks a 10% increase in deductions is important at this point in time. That might tell us what the government thinks the real rate of inflation is in this country, because most consumers have lost faith in the numbers calculated by Statistics Canada and the Bank of Canada. These statistics are meaningless as far as what they are experiencing in the stores, with their rents and at their doors. Everything they pay for in Canada is going up significantly more than indicated by Stats Canada or the Bank of Canada.

Housing takes up more than 11% of our gross domestic product, partially because we do not have much more gross domestic investment going on in this country, so most people are building into housing at this point in time. Also, this is double of where it has usually been in this country. It is usually around 4% to 5%, but it is now north of 11% of our gross domestic product going into residential housing at this point in time. It has been that way for a number of years, yet, supposedly, we are short of housing stock. What housing stock? It is single-family homes, to be precise, and starter homes.

I can tell members that, when knocking on doors in Calgary Centre, when I knocked on condo doors, I saw some of those buildings had a 50% vacancy rate, and there is a 10%-plus vacancy rate in apartment buildings. However, developers are still building more condo buildings, encroaching on neighbourhoods filled with single-family homes, and this is referred to as “densification”. Condo resale prices are down 15% over the past six years in Calgary, and Calgary's downtown commercial core has been decimated by the government's aimless policies towards Canada's most productive industry, oil and gas.

The City of Calgary's approach is to spend taxpayers' dollars to retrofit some of the vacant office towers into residential towers, in the hopes of bringing life back into the downtown core, at a cost of over $400,000 per door, which is in contrast to a new build at $250,000 per door.

We are overspending to solve a problem the government created in the first place, so we are just supposed to ignore the negative effects of the outcome of what we are doing here. We cannot go on doing that. We have to look at the outcomes.

For a young condo owner, a loss of 2.5% per year on a condo is a daunting issue, especially as they try to get into a single family home at some point in time. We have government dollars chasing retrofits to a problem the government created, and around and around we go. Someone is paying the bill.

Let us go back to inflation. We have incurred over $560 billion of deficit spending over the past two years. One-third of it, over $170 billion, had nothing to do with the COVID pandemic. Never miss out on a good crisis to move an agenda forward, as the Liberals have said.

Let us look at more things here, as far as inflation goes. Let us look at what we are abetting here in the process. Let us look at where the numbers are actually leading us. As members know, I am somewhat analytical at looking at what the solutions to these problems might be.

Some of this money coming into Canada, such as 7.7% of the purchases in Vancouver, is still foreign money coming in. Investment properties are on top of that from Canadian investors, but much of this foreign money is not clean foreign money. Much of it, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International, is actually money laundering. It is what is called “snow washing”. Snow washing happens more in Canada than in any other country in the G20 for one reason: because we allow it to. The government keeps the rules loose on money laundering coming into Canada, and it is a shame for us in an international sense around the world.

In a national criminal intelligence estimate, the Canadian Criminal Intelligence Service said that money laundering of about $133 billion per year was one of the factors driving up real estate prices in Canada. In the last year, let us recall, real estate prices went up 26% for a typical family home in Canada. That is corruption. We are allowing corruption to enter Canada.

I know some people think that it is just the money part of corruption, but the money part of corruption leads to all other kinds of criminality. When we actually invite dirty money into the country, we are inviting everything else associated with that dirty money into the country.

Let us take a look at the fentanyl deaths on the streets of our cities, including Calgary, where I live. Fentanyl deaths and overdoses and homeless people living in the streets have abounded over the last number of years because of these laws that allow people to launder their money in Canada and bring with it the commensurate crime that arrives with money laundering. This is a problem we need to address. The government needs to address it.

I am concerned that the government does not want to address it, because it is complicit in a lot of areas where it is actually involved in what we will call “shady practices”. That includes SNC-Lavalin and the cover-up of what happened there and the ditching of one of the brightest lights on the Liberal front bench when she tried to expose what was going on there. This includes the WE scandal and the hundreds of millions of dollars that was buried in bureaucratese before we could get to actually following the money trail.

That brings us to where we are today: How do we come through this? We need to build a system that is not inflationary and does not continue to have government money thrown at the wall while continuing to not solve problems and issues like housing. Housing is a big issue. Putting a 1% extra tax on top of housing is not part of the solution. Curbing foreign money laundering is in the federal government's bailiwick and should be instituted as quickly as possible.

I know I am running out of time, but it is my pleasure to be here today again. I do propose that we actually start with legislation that leads somewhere and, as opposed to an extra tax that is already being applied locally and provincially in many areas in Canada where it is a problem, that we look at how we address money laundering laws in Canada.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health transfers, the government always tells us that it invested heavily during the pandemic.

It is true that it invested heavily, but if it is short of money, it can always get some by cracking down on tax havens. Last spring, everyone was pleasantly surprised to see that the Minister of Finance appeared to be taking a firm stand against tax evasion in her budget. Since then, nothing, radio silence. There is nothing in Bill C‑8 that would allow us to go after the money in the places where it ends up.

Can my colleague explain why tax havens are not mentioned in Bill C-8?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows, as I do, that the amounts in Bill C-8 are in addition to the amounts in Bill C-10, but let me share my reflection. When I was at the doors of constituents before the election, the three things that kept coming up the most were climate change, COVID supports and child care.

I was in a particular area of my riding that has not always been, let us say, the most politically friendly, but there was a woman on her doorstep who asked me to come and sit with her, so I did. She asked me to look at the three houses to the left of hers and the three houses to the right of hers, and then to take a good look at her house. She said that all seven of those houses would have been gone without our government's supports. She told me that we had the block's support because we had saved the block.

To the parliamentary secretary's question, the average across Canada is that our government provided $8 out of every $10 in COVID support. In Alberta, that number is $9 out of $10. That is how much the federal government has had the backs of Edmontonians, Calgarians and Albertans through this COVID pandemic, and we will continue to do so.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we look very closely at what is in Bill C-8, it is to do what we said we would in the fall economic statement, and that is to provide $1.7 billion to get rapid tests into the hands of provinces and Canadians.

As we have said all along the way, and I thank my hon. colleague for his lens on this issue, we are going to continue to do what we need to as a government to get rapid tests into the hands of provinces and into the hands of Canadians, so we can stay safe in our communities and ensure that we can move about our communities in a safe and responsible way.

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

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report in which he expressed concern about the late tabling of Canada's public accounts, and about the government's accounting for money and the way it is spent.

The situation we have before us is that in Bill C-8 there is a proposal to spend $1.72 billion on COVID-19 rapid tests, and then of course we just heard a question of privilege about Bill C-10, which proposes to spend $2.5 billion on rapid tests.

Is the intention that the amount in Bill C-10 would replace and get rid of the clause in Bill C-8 for purchasing rapid tests, or is the idea that the government is asking for money in two places and ultimately intends to spend about $4.2 billion on rapid tests?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ways and Means

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

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

(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)