Bill C-8 (Historical)

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.

Opposition Motion—Rules and Service Levels for Travel

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is not a problem. I will not use things that excite the members, when they are unable to control their emotions in this House. I will move on to the rest of the point, because I clearly upset the members opposite.

What I will speak about is simply the fact that the Conservatives have not based policy decisions in this House on experts, on science or on the testimony we heard at the health committee, when I was a member of that committee. We stand here today and members opposite talk about listening to the science. Time and again we heard experts. Our chief public health officer, Dr. Tam, was personally attacked by Conservatives when they disagreed with her expertise.

I find it a bit rich to stand in this place and to hear the Conservatives say, “Bring out the experts; bring out the testimony.” When we do that, when we table that information, when we have witnesses at committee, when we have reports and when we have that expert testimony, the Conservatives make personal attacks against our chief public health officer. I notice that the heckles went silent, because the Conservative members know it is true, that there are those on their benches who made personal attacks against public health officials who disagreed with them.

In addition to that, we talk about the mandates or any protections across the country throughout the pandemic. Throughout the pandemic, we constantly said that there is no silver bullet and that vaccines are the safest, most effective way for us to get through this pandemic, but there are also layers of protection, and that is crucially important. Those layers of protection are going to help prevent people from getting severely ill and clogging up our emergency rooms and hospitals, and that is what the Conservatives do not understand.

There are layers of protection, not only to protect the most vulnerable, but to protect businesses by not having to enter lockdowns. If we remove every layer of protection throughout this pandemic and businesses have to close, where would the Conservatives be to defend and support those businesses? I know Conservatives did not support them when we moved measures in the budget and in Bill C-8. They voted against the supports those businesses needed.

We put in place layers of protection to help ensure, as the pandemic unfortunately is not over and COVID is still around, that we protect society, protect individuals, protect businesses, and protect our health care workers and our health care system. These are the very people those members call heroes and then attack at committee and try to discredit on social media.

I find that, while the Conservatives might try to position or package some of their motion to act like they are on the side of people, throughout this pandemic they have flip-flopped consistently whenever they felt the political mood suited them.

I turn to some of the comments I heard in this place earlier that accused the government of simply trying to punish people who have differences of opinion or who want the freedom to have a different view on things. I find this incredibly rich, considering what we all saw last night. Among the Conservative benches, they do not have the freedom to listen to science, and they do not have the freedom to speak out and have their own opinions. I heard heckles yesterday when members of our side voted in a free vote. The Conservatives criticized our members for having free votes, yet yesterday the member for Abbotsford rightly pointed out the dangers the member for Carleton was spreading about our democracy and the independence of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. What happened to the member for Abbotsford? He got the boot.

When it comes to Conservatives, the only freedom of choice they have is to listen to whatever leader happens to be running the show at the time. Therefore, it is really hard to take the Conservatives seriously when they talk about mandates, the health and safety of Canadians, and freedoms, when the Conservative benches do not even have freedom of opinion or freedom of speech. Frankly, the member for Abbotsford spoke truth to power, and he got booted to the backbench.

It is really hard to sit here and listen to Conservatives try to defend the health and safety of Canadians when they themselves are not open to listening to experts and scientists or understanding the layers of protection in place to help keep Canadians safe, keep businesses open and keep travel available. They speak about restrictions around the world, but Canadians going even to the U.S. still require testing. There are protections there. There is nothing wrong with the Canadian government doing everything in our power to ensure that there are no lockdowns in this country, that businesses can stay open, that Canadians can remain safe and that our health care heroes can have the ability to keep our health care system functioning well.

The key here is that, if we truly believe in freedom and supporting Canadians across this country, then we should not be listening to the Conservatives, who block freedom of speech and ignore when their own members speak truth to power.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked who among the Conservatives is a firefighter. The reality is that they are all pyromaniacs. We have seen over the course of the last few months how they have blocked systematically every single piece of legislation. We are talking about teachers and farmers asking members of Parliament to pass legislation like Bill C-8. The Conservatives never offered an explanation. They never said they were blocking it because there was a reason for it. They just blocked it for the sake of blocking.

What we see now, after last night's travesty, is a group that seems to have as its only goal anarchy and chaos in the House of Commons. My question for my colleague is this: Why?

Online Streaming Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that the cultural aspect of our lives is extremely important. For years, we have had the means to allow Canadians across the country to hear the voices of other Canadians, to listen to music, to watch movies, to watch television and to experience a Canadian culture that is extremely complex and very diversified.

When I think of Quebec culture, for example, I remember the first time I listened to Robert Charlebois, on a Sunday evening, because we could listen to French radio at home, in New Westminster, British Columbia. He was the first Quebec artist who forged my understanding of the diversity of Quebec's cultural life.

What artists are telling us is that there is currently a real imbalance in the system. Consequently, as talented as they may be, artists cannot fully reap the benefits of all their potential, as artists, to create and to promote our cultural life and to make it so complex and so profound.

That is really the message tonight. Our artists across the country are saying there is something wrong with the system. We have web giants, these massive companies, that are foreign-owned and the Conservatives support them to the detriment of Canadians and Canadian artists. These companies make these enormous profits while paying scraps to Canadian artists.

As we know, the reality is when we are talking about the word “censorship”, we are throwing it around so loosely when it comes to Bill C-11, and I will come back to that in just a moment. The reality is the censorship that takes place now with the web giants is the algorithms that withhold Canadian content from Canadians. Even Canadians trying to access that content cannot do it because of the algorithms that are not shared or not transparent that censors what Canadians can see and what Canadians can hear. That is the reality.

As members well know, other countries are putting forward legislation so that these web giants, these massive foreign-owned corporations, that pay no taxes in Canada and do not show the responsibility they should be showing in Canada, actually have to be transparent on the algorithms that control what people see, what people watch and what people can hear.

The idea that we put in place an update to the Broadcasting Act makes sense, because it establishes a level playing field so we do not see the situation we are seeing now. We see that Canadians musicians have lost 80% of their income as more and more of their product goes online and they get paid less and less by the massive web giants that are supported, for reasons I do not understand, by some members of this House.

As that happens, it is important for Canadian MPs to step up and try to level the playing field. Musicians losing 80% of their income should be something that all members of Parliament should be concerned about. About $3 billion has been taken out of musicians' pockets. That should be something that all Canadians are concerned about.

I talked earlier about listening, for the first time, late one evening in New Westminster, British Columbia, to a Quebec artist, Robert Charlebois, and understanding the incredible depth of Québécois culture. When I was growing up, I was able to listen to Rush, Gordon Lightfoot and Bachman-Turner Overdrive and so many other Canadian artists that would not have been able to get into the market if the American record companies and the American broadcasters had told Canadians what they could or could not listen to. That is the reality here.

When we have foreign companies deciding what Canadians can watch and listen to, we need to establish a level playing field so our Canadian artists can shine through.

The Conservatives, who are opposed to this legislation moving forward, even to get answers on it, should understand that not one of them has quoted a Canadian artist or musician tonight. They cannot, because artist associations, everyone from the Canadian Independent Music Association to ACTRA, are all very supportive of the legislation. What, then, should we be doing tonight in this debate?

My Conservative colleagues, and I have respect for them, have said that they simply do not want this legislation to move forward, just as they have been saying for months that they do not want any other legislation to move forward. We have seen it with Bill C-8. Teachers were asking for their tax credit and the Conservatives said they would not pass it. We have seen it with Bill C-19 and dental care, which the NDP pushed forward. For the first time, there was an affordable housing platform, and the Conservatives said they did not want that to move forward either.

On Bill C-11, as we have heard in the debate tonight, the Conservatives have talked about three concerns. First off, they reference a bill that no longer exists and say they did not like it. That is fair enough, but that is not the bill we are debating. Then they talk about a bill that may be coming in a year or so that deals with online harms, and they say they do not like that bill either. Well, that debate will be in a year.

Then they say, about this bill, that they believe in a level playing field, but they have some questions. At the same time, however, they do not want this bill to go to committee, where we can get answers to the questions they have asked. Some of the questions they have asked around the CRTC are legitimate. How it defines its powers is a legitimate question, and I have that question too.

We would love to have the bill come to committee, because the committee, as part of our legislative process, is the place where we get answers to questions. We could sit here to midnight every single night, but we are not going to get the ministry and the CRTC to answer our questions until the bill gets to committee.

This is where it becomes passing strange. We have had debate now for a number of days. We should be referring the bill to committee. If Conservative members do not want to vote for the bill they do not have to vote for it. However, for them to say they are going to stop any member of Parliament from getting the answers they are asking around the bill by refusing to have it go to committee does not make any sense at all.

It is also not respectful to the artists from coast to coast to coast who have been asking for years to have a level playing field. They have been asking for years for us, as members of Parliament, to play our role and establish a level playing field to allow them, finally, to have some presence in the online world so that Canadian content can shine and the web giants will not decide what Canadians get to see and hear.

This is really the challenge this evening. We will be sitting until midnight, but the Conservatives will say they want to keep sitting and sitting and will say the same things. As I mentioned earlier, they have debated a past bill that no longer exists and a future bill that may or may not exist, and on this bill, they say they have questions.

We should all agree that the way to get answers to those questions is to refer the bill to committee and allow the heritage committee to sit down and get answers from the minister and the CRTC. In that way, we could respond to our legislative role, which is to make sure that as we pass this legislation, it is done in the most effective way possible and actually does what it purports to do: level the playing field for Canadian artists so that our musicians, actors and all of the Canadian cultural and artistic sphere can shine.

We know that when there is a level playing field, it is not the web giants deciding what Canadians can see and hear. When there is a level playing field, Canadian artists will shine. My message to the Conservatives is to let Canadian artists shine. Let us get answers to the bill. Let us get this bill to committee.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the chamber and speak on behalf of the residents of Chatham-Kent—Leamington and, indeed, on behalf of agriculture across Canada.

I am also pleased to speak to my colleague from Huron—Bruce's private member's bill, Bill C-234, which affects so many constituents, including our own family farm.

The bill seeks to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act by adding natural gas and propane to the list of qualifying farm fuels, and that is for the purposes of both grain drying and heating and cooling farm buildings.

I did have the opportunity to speak to this bill's predecessor, Bill C-206, in the previous Parliament where it was passed, only to die in the other place when the Prime Minister called the unnecessary election.

Our farmers are the first environmentalists and our farmers are great competitors. They can hold their own against anyone, but not with one arm tied behind their back. They cannot continue to be first-rate environmentalists when they are hamstrung by policies that their competitors do not face.

Before getting into the specifics of this bill, I wish to remark on four different framing points that will outline where I am going.

One, as I just stated, as individuals, farmers are environmentalists by nature and by necessity. The drive to leave the land in a better condition than when they found it is innate to every farmer that I know. Farmers are environmentalists by necessity. It is the condition of their land, the condition of their flocks and of their herd that supplies the farm family with a return on their labour, on their investments and on their inputs, so it is in their own self-interest to leave the vehicle of their own prosperity in better condition for the next generation.

Two, collectively, agriculture has a strong record of reducing its environmental footprint, be it through the adoption of low till or no till; be it through the refinement of working through nutrients, such as through the lens of the 4Rs, putting the right nutrient at the right place at the right time with the right amount; be it through more intensive use of cover cropping or rotational grazing. Farmers have largely done all of this without regulation and without additional taxation or without an additional government-imposed price signal. I will come back to that point in a moment.

Three, agriculture has a strong record of innovation, of adopting new technologies, such as the use of GPS technology on the farm, the use of variable rate technology in seeding and in crop protection products, robotics in our dairy sector, and climate controls and automation in our greenhouse sector. Believe me, as soon as a viable commercial alternative to fossil fuels is available in rural Canada, farmers will adopt it and quickly, without the stick or a price signal embedded in a tax. That leads me to my final framing point.

Four, by and large, farmers are price takers. They cannot effectively pass along cost-input increases to their buyers.

Let these four points set the stage for my remarks on Bill C-234. When we initially debated its predecessor, Bill C-206, the harvest from hell in 2019 had just occurred in western Canada. That really demonstrated the need for this carbon tax exemption. It was a particularly wet fall where, with frost and rainfall, et cetera, interrupting the harvest, the use of natural gas and propane was required to put the grain into a storable condition.

Farming in Ontario and in eastern Canada requires the use of grain dryers each and every year, particularly for grain corn, but also for soybeans, wheat, canola, oats, et cetera.

When we studied Bill C-206 in the previous Parliament at committee, we did look at alternatives to fossil fuels. In many parts of our economy, electrification is a potential alternative, but given the obvious nature of agriculture being situated in rural Canada and the lack of our grid capacity, this is simply a non-starter.

We also looked at a second option, and that was the use of crop residues as a fuel source. That means gathering them after harvest and then burning them in heaters. While there are some prototypes being trialed, they are simply not available at scale.

Even more problematic with this approach, crop residues are incorporated into the soil or are left on the surface, and they become organic matter for our soils. They sequester carbon and they increase soil organic matter levels, which help both with crop production and our climate goals.

The voluntary adoption of reduced or eliminated tillage provided improvements in soil moisture retention, a reduction of soil erosion and, of course, an increase in carbon sequestration, all without the imposition of a tax. This is something that was not acknowledged in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

It does not make sense to apply a tax to reverse the environmental improvements that the farmers put in place voluntarily. However, the question remains, does it make any sense at all to apply such a tax on fossil fuels to increase the agricultural community's focus on reducing the use of fossil fuels? The answer to that is no, for several reasons.

There simply are not commercially viable, scalable alternatives to using natural gas and propane available today, but because there are not viable alternatives, the demand for fuel tends to remain unaffected by price. That makes these additional fuel charges simply an additional tax and an inefficient policy to lower carbon emissions. This very fact was confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The recent budget, which has been alluded to in other speeches here this evening, did put some more funds into the agricultural clean technology fund to upgrade present drying systems to a higher efficiency, but these funds only have the potential to update 500 of the 50,000 grain dryers across Canada. That is 1% of them.

Also, as opposed to granting an exemption from paying the carbon tax, they have proposed in Bill C-8 a rebate program to maintain, in their words, a “price signal” to the farm community to change their ways even though there are no viable alternatives.

I explored with several of my constituents the impact of these two approaches. My riding is a large rectangle and in the northeastern corner, Ron and Francine Verhelle farm with their family. This past year, they needed 89,670 litres of propane to dry their almost 7,000 tonnes of corn. They paid over $5,550 in carbon tax. If the 2022 conditions on their farm are the same, they are anticipating that cost to go up to almost $7,000 this year. Under the Liberal plan, the eligible farm costs on their farm would have to be over $3.2 million using the planned $1.73 per thousand in eligible farm expenses in order for that rebate to recoup their carbon tax cost. Farm input costs are definitely skyrocketing, but fortunately they will not be that high or no farmer will be in business this coming year.

Paul Tiessen and his family farm just down the road from my home farm. They are a third generation grain farm and their total natural gas bill for 2021 to dry 107,000 bushels, or just over 2,900 tonnes, of corn this past year was $10,010, of which almost $2,500 was a carbon tax. Under the Liberal proposal that would have been in place for 2021 rebating back $1.47 per thousand in expenses, they would only get a fraction of their carbon tax cost returns from this past crop.

My final point is simply to call for basic fairness in the marketplace. Our Canadian grain competes directly with American grain. It is priced off of the Chicago Board of Trade. No customer of grain will pay more for Canadian grain because it incurs a carbon tax, not if they can source it from the Americans.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act did exempt gasoline and diesel fuel on the farm for this very reason and Bill C-234 is looking to correct the oversight regarding natural gas and propane for grain drying and barn heating and cooling.

Surely if the government cannot control its spending ways, it does not have to use farmers' bank accounts as a cashflow mechanism to finance its own spending. Making farmers pay this carbon tax in the fall and then having them file their taxes the following spring to apply for a rebate, all that does is return a portion of their costs plus now incurring all the administrative costs on the farm and the administrative burden on government to manage this program.

In fact, this past budget estimated that cost for the government alone to be $30 million. What does that do? All that does is serve to increase the size of government and not add any additional value to our climate goals.

In conclusion, I would again urge all members of the House to support passing a bill that removes the potential of being at cross purposes for lower greenhouse gas emissions. Please support the removal of a tax where the users have absolutely no viable options and please support basic inherent market fairness.

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the suggestion by my hon. colleague. There is going to be an opportunity to debate the Standing Orders. It will take place in June. It is essential that members take part in that debate. I, myself, always endeavour to speak extemporaneously because I do think something gets lost in prepared remarks, but that is a conversation for all members to have, to be able to reflect upon what rules best serve this place.

I share the member's frustration. My preference would be to work with all parties to be able to accommodate a calendar where we have fair and reasonable debate, but it has become clear, and it was over months and months with Bill C-8 when there was absolutely no progress made, and nothing offered to even get any progress, none whatsoever.

In terms of this bill, the reality is that Canadian artists and Canadian cultural producers, the people who tell the story of this country, are demanding action. It is time to move forward. There has been an enormous study of this issue. There is going to be an opportunity to move to committee to study the issue further, and of course it is going to come back to the House yet again.

Let us move forward. Our artists and our creators deserve that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with the point the member made. It is passing strange to me that the Conservatives say that they are upset they do not have enough time to speak, yet they move concurrence motions, which block their ability to speak. They did this on Bill C-11 in this Parliament when they cut three hours of debate time and stopped their own members from being able to speak. We have seen this obstruction happening on every level.

This bill, in its previous iteration, had 28 days at committee to hear witness testimony. It had six days previously and four days now. Frankly, based on the experience with Bill C-8, we would have been here for the next four years for them to still have their comments, to stand up and say the things they want to say.

The reality is that we have to move forward. They do not have the ability as one party to obstruct this place and block it from doing its work. It is essential that we move forward.

There will be an opportunity at committee. There will be an opportunity when it comes back to the House again. There were all the opportunities that existed before, and there are still opportunities at committee and when it comes back to the House for a further reading in the future. There is more than enough time to continue having these conversations.

Permanent Residency for Temporary Foreign Workers

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, last week, my colleagues were nodding off because we were discussing Bill C-8 so late at night, so this week, I want to keep things a little lighter.

There is no need for my colleagues to worry. I will not upset them too much this evening. In fact, I am even going to be optimistic.

Motion No. 44, which was moved by my hon. colleague from Surrey Centre, is very timely. The good weather is returning and Quebeckers are already dreaming of summer and starting to plan their vacations. Lac-Saint-Jean is preparing for a wonderful, sunny season, or so we hope, when it will welcome visitors from all over Quebec, Canada and the world.

Do members know what makes us famous the world over?

Other than our many kilometres of gorgeous beaches, our breathtaking scenery and our wide-open spaces, Lac-Saint-Jean's claim to fame is most definitely our blueberries, haskap berries and strawberries. If members ever get their hands on a quart of these berries, they will understand why Quebeckers are so proud of their regional products. Many like to pick them themselves, but most wait patiently only to make a mad dash for the fruit stands or grocery stores around the world that sell them.

All these things, and many others, are possible because of temporary foreign workers. As everyone knows, the labour shortage is causing problems for our farmers. Year after year, the complexity and cost of bringing new workers into the regions is an endless challenge for our agri-food business owners.

Of course, the lack of employees is not specific to the agricultural sector. No sector seems to be spared, but immigration is part of the solution. That is why I understand the motivations of the member for Surrey Centre in moving his motion, since I share his eagerness to facilitate access to permanent residency for foreign workers.

Companies in the vast agriculture and agri‑food sector are having serious problems and are constantly grappling with the complicated and costly process of bringing in temporary foreign workers. Under the circumstances, giving weight to in-Canada work experience is not a crazy idea. Making it easier for these workers to obtain permanent resident status could even help keep these workers in the regions.

Motion No. 44 gives some hope to businesses in the rest of Canada that are impatiently waiting for an easy way to bring in workers to fill the labour shortage affecting their operations.

In my opinion, it is certainly not a bad idea to amend the criteria for switching from a temporary visa to a permanent visa given the needs and realities of Quebec and Canada. This must be done if we want the sector to recover from COVID-19, among other things.

That said, at the risk of repeating myself, the Bloc will oppose any decision that tramples on Quebec's jurisdictions. That is why I want to remind my colleagues that the Bloc Québécois will agree to the motion on one simple condition: The motion must respect the Canada-Quebec accord. It is as simple as that.

I realize that the wording is, on the whole, quite general. The motion calls on the government to examine the evidence, incorporate data on labour shortages, identify mechanisms and consider certain occupations in economic immigration programs. That is no big deal. In terms of the more binding elements, we just need some reassurance. Point (a) of the motion calls for “amending eligibility criteria under economic immigration programs”.

It is vital to remember that Quebec is solely responsible for selecting economic immigrants and, therefore, for the various criteria and programs that determine whether a temporary foreign worker is eligible to obtain permanent status in Quebec. In other words, it is not up to the federal government to determine the eligibility criteria for permanent status in Quebec.

Assuming that the division of immigration responsibilities between the federal government and Quebec will be respected, my interpretation is that the motion would not apply to Quebec. As I mentioned a minute ago, immigration is, and I want to stress this, one part of the solution.

The two major challenges facing the Quebec and Canadian labour markets are labour shortages and skills shortages.

That makes immigration attractive, of course. Temporary immigration often enables employers to fill positions that Canadians are typically not interested in anymore, whereas permanent immigration enables employers to fill these positions and recruit talent internationally. This is not the miracle cure either, though. It will come as no surprise to anyone that immigrants are human beings, not production line inputs. They are exactly like the people who elected us and who want us to ensure decent working conditions.

Often we fall into the trap of taking the easy way out. That is only natural. It is human. Having a real discussion about the working conditions for less valued jobs is much longer and more difficult than turning to immigration. Reviewing all of our business assistance policies and modernizing the funding criteria is also a long process. Promoting training and environmental protection is not always simple. We have a long way to go in terms of fast-tracking the digital shift and business automation when we ourselves are still using fax machines.

In short, immigration is necessary because we need a quick, easy solution, but that does not change the fact that it is a band-aid solution. I would encourage all my colleagues to elevate the discussion in the long term.

Speaking of the long term, I want to come back to the Canada-Quebec accord for a moment. If the motion before us today simply seeks to facilitate access to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers and will not impact immigration levels, then I would like to talk for minute about the implications of the immigration levels.

The increase in immigration levels announced in early February 2022 by the Minister of Immigration is worrisome for the future of Quebec, particularly its cultural and linguistic future. Facilitating access to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers should not result in an increase in Canadian immigration levels, which are already too high. We agree that the process should be faster and easier, but we do not agree with higher levels.

The plan to further increase immigration volumes from 184,606 in 2020 to 431,000 new permanent residents in 2022 and 451,000 in 2024 means admitting 1.33 million permanent immigrants in just three years. This is an 80% increase from the immigration thresholds that existed before the Liberal Party of Canada took power in 2015. On a per capita basis, Canada is already one of the western countries with the highest number of immigrants. These figures apply only to permanent immigrants, in other words, those who obtain permanent residence.

Section 2 of the Canada-Quebec accord establishes an important objective for Quebec: preserving Quebec's demographic weight within Canada and ensuring that the integration of immigrants into the province is respectful of its distinct identity. This accord requires Ottawa to take into consideration Quebec's advice on the number of immigrants that it wishes to receive, when setting immigration thresholds for the country as a whole.

Was Quebec consulted before these targets were set?

It would be surprising. The federal government is not fulfilling the terms of the Canada‑Quebec accord with respect to increasing its threshold. The influx of such a large number of immigrants in such a short amount of time has several consequences for Quebec. First, it is one of the causes of the accelerated decline of French, which we have been seeing for 15 years. What is more, exceeding our capacity to accommodate people contributes to the housing crisis and the rising price of real estate. The first victims of the housing crisis are the poor, who often include newcomers. That may not bother the Liberals, but it bothers me. Ottawa also discriminates against francophone immigrants who want to live or study in French in Quebec.

As Frédéric Lacroix said, wilfully or not, Canada is actively sabotaging Quebec's efforts to attract francophones. As a result, Quebec's relative weight in Canada declined for the 11th census in a row from 28.9% in 1966 to 23% in 2021. That decline will pick up speed.

I expect we will be told to accept X number of immigrants as though, once again, they were just numbers, not human beings. The decline of French throughout the greater Montreal area, the housing crisis and harmonious integration will take a back seat.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to share some reflections with respect to the budget and the implementation act, Bill C-19.

I want to start by talking about housing. In my view, the extent to which all levels of government work together to address the skyrocketing cost of housing will define my community over the coming years. I am sure this is true for the communities of many other members in this place as well.

Last year, as I have shared before, there was a 35% increase in the cost of housing in Kitchener. What does that mean? It means we have seen, by the last point-in-time count, a tripling in the number of folks who are living unsheltered. We are seeing encampments continue to grow, where folks are resorting to living in tents. We are seeing students who are unable to move out of their parents' homes and unable to afford rent, as well as seniors on fixed incomes whose anxiety continues to rise as they see their rent rising too. I often think of the health care workers I met this past summer, who shared with me that they were planning on leaving and heading further west because they, too, could not afford the soaring cost of rent.

As I have done here before, I want to start by sharing what I appreciate about what is in the budget, and that is some early signs that the federal government may be finally beginning to take some meaningful action when it comes to addressing the cost of housing.

A specific example is that there is significant investment in this budget with respect to co-op housing. Back in the eighties, in 1982, there were 6,500 units built that year alone of deeply affordable, dignified co-op housing. I have personally had the experience of living in co-op housing. I can attest to how important co-ops are and ensuring that units remain affordable in perpetuity. In this budget, there is a commitment to build 6,000 units. Now, that is not in one year but over several years, but it is significantly more than the 477 that were built in 2020. It is a $1.5-billion investment. Those are the kinds of investments I would like to see more of.

There is also a commitment to reinvest more funding in the rapid housing initiative, a program that has been oversubscribed. What does that mean? It means that great organizations like Indwell, which is looking to repurpose faith communities to build affordable housing, have not been able to get funds in the past. My hope is that, with a renewed commitment to the rapid housing initiative funding, which has $1.5 billion allocated to it, more organizations like Indwell will be successful in securing funds to build more affordable units.

There is also a commitment to end the blind bidding process, which we know would only allow for more information to be shared that could also address the crisis we are in.

I want to mention two items that were in the budget but are not in Bill C-19. One is removing the preferential tax treatment currently given to house flippers. I hope the government will ensure that this is in future legislation. It was committed to in the budget, as well as the housing bill of rights. It would ensure the requirement of a home inspection, which is one of the things that would help address the overheated market.

Of course, we do need more investments from both the federal and the provincial governments in non-market housing and other ways to reduce the commodification of housing.

There are several items I remain deeply concerned about. I will start with climate, because no doubt we need to be honest. If we want even a 50% chance of keeping global average temperature increases below 1.5°C, which is what is required for a livable planet, and we do our fair share of the global carbon budget, it means 86% of our known fossil fuel reserves in this country need to remain unextracted. To do so means that we will need to invest in workers, in their upskilling and retraining, to ensure they have access to the economy of the future.

There are organizations like Iron & Earth, a worker-led not-for-profit that has been calling for $10 billion to go to workers for a prosperous transition, to ensure they have access to the support they need. Instead, what is in the budget is $7.2 billion directed toward carbon capture and storage, a new fossil fuel subsidy, at a time when we are being told these would be phased out. That is exactly what we need to be doing. We need to be phasing out these subsidies and prioritizing those funds to workers and to proven climate solutions.

When it comes to health care, this pandemic has exacerbated existing gaps, so I want to pause to reflect on a few other significant gaps that I would encourage the governing party to move forward on.

The first is with respect to mental health. Many parliamentarians will say the words “mental health is health”, and I am glad that more folks are saying those words, but we need to treat it that way. Mental health advocates across the country have been calling for a new Canada mental health transfer to provinces. While the budget mentions an intention to engage in this, the only commitment is to a wellness portal. While I am sure this is a worthy investment, we need to be mindful of the significant dollars that are required from the federal government to move toward parity in mental health funding so that it is true that mental health is health and we can eliminate the wait times we see across the country, and certainly in Waterloo-Wellington. I am hearing that this remains the case in our community as well.

When it comes to long-term care, I had the chance to ask the Prime Minister directly last week about the safe long-term care act, which has been talked about in the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, and when there will be plans to introduce that act. There is no mention of that in Bill C-19 or in the budget. In fact, the only mention of long-term care in the budget was the money that was allocated in 2021.

Just a few days ago, I was speaking with a woman who was reflecting about her mom, who is waiting for a bed in long-term care. With tears in her eyes, she shared that she did not know whether her mom would make it out of hospital and into long-term care. I think of the personal support workers I have spoken with, who have shared that they do not get to give four hours of care. They are lucky if they do four minutes of care a day. We know there is more that the federal government can and should be doing to put standards in place when it comes to investing in long-term care. I would encourage the governing party to prioritize doing so.

Last, I will pause to reflect on following through with promises made to Canadians with disabilities. It is actually one of the areas that I have been encouraged by in my time in this place. We now have 100 MPs from all parties, including four colleagues in the Waterloo region, who have all said that it is time to follow through.

We know that Canadians with disabilities are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. About 40% of those living in poverty are Canadians with disabilities, and it is 1.5 million people across the country. The governing party has promised to introduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit, a guaranteed income for every Canadian with a disability across the country. In this place, I have had the chance to share stories of folks in my community about what it means to them not to have access to this and what it means to be living in poverty as a result of not getting appropriate supports.

I continue to encourage the governing party to introduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit. I will pass my thanks again to the 103 MPs from all political parties who have come together to say we can do better and we must.

Some might say, “Well, wait a second. This all sounds well and good, but can we afford these things?” I want to close by sharing some of the ways we can afford these significant and important investments, and we do not need to do it simply by increasing debt.

We can and should stop gifting oil and gas companies, which are making record-breaking profits, billions of dollars and should reinvest it. We have had a lot of promises about taxing the rich, but the budget reduced the campaign promise for a 3% surtax on some of the largest companies, whose profits soared in the pandemic, down to 1.5%. It avoids any talk of an inheritance or a wealth tax. Even the vacancy tax, as I have shared in this place before, in Bill C-8 was down to 1%, and it exempts every Canadian and every corporation in the country. In Vancouver it is up to 5%, and in doing so, they have been able to reinvest millions of dollars in affordable housing. Of course, there is no talk of closing corporate tax loopholes, which we know is a measure we need to do.

With that, I will close and welcome questions.

Government Programs

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

Mr. Speaker, we have spent five days trying to get this bill passed, but the problem with the Conservative Party is that it gets in the way of our work at every turn. That is what happened for four months with Bill C‑8.

That is also what is happening here at a time when Canadians are in dire need of these supports. We know beyond a doubt that the bill needs to be passed, and the committee and the House will have plenty of opportunities to keep debating the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, debate is essential, but the problem on the other side of the House is the Conservative Party's obstructionist tactics, which continue day after day. It took four months to pass Bill C-8, and that is completely unacceptable.

Unfortunately, we need to work as quickly as possible. There will be several opportunities for debate in committee and at third reading.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share concerns with how long it took to get Bill C-8 through this place. I also recognize and appreciate that the government House leader is a reasonable person.

However, let us be honest about what is in Bill C-19. Climate is mentioned only with respect to the climate action incentive's being delivered once a quarter as opposed to once a year. I do not see a section in here that implements dental care.

If this does move through time allocation, does it mean we will see more substantial climate legislation? Does it mean we will see legislation for the Canada disability benefit? Over 100 MPs from all parties in this place have made clear they want to see the government move forward fast on that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree. Sometimes in the thrust and parry in this place, we can lose the purpose for which we come here. Again, I would go back to what we did with the Conservatives on Bill C-3. That was a great opportunity to work together. We absolutely have a supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. We are working on a lot of important issues, from affordable housing to the environment to the dental care plan that the member referenced, but I would suggest to the members opposite that, just as we did in Bill C-3, there remain opportunities for every member in the House.

This is the fifth minority government that I have had the privilege to serve in. I have seen it done all ways, and I can say that when I was in opposition I spent my fair time both criticizing the government and trying to obstruct at different moments. However, when I lost, which I did in 2011, the reflections that I had were the opportunities that I had to get things done.

We are going to be here for a while, is my guess, and, instead of moving things to obstruct every day, I would invite Conservative members to come and have a conversation with us about the things they are hearing from their constituents that they want movement on. It is totally fair that they are going to vote against some bills and totally fair that every once in a while, to make a point, they might want to obstruct, but I hope they will also reflect that when we were trying to deal with a bill like Bill C-8, after it being dragged out for more than four months, this is where we wind up. It is not healthy. There is a better way to work together, and I extend that bridge. I thought that we had a really good start and I would like to get back to it.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, after more than four months of dealing with Bill C-8, which was dealing with the previous fall, it became apparent that we would be lucky to get to the coming fall if we had not used measures to move it forward.

There were critical supports there for teachers and for workers. Similarly, regarding the budget implementation act, it is not just that there are important measures in it to be taken on everything from housing, to banning foreign investment, to labour mobility and reducing, by half, corporate and small business tax breaks. There are so many things that are essential here. It is everything that also flows behind it. We have a responsibility to that.

I would say that at the onset of my time as House leader, going back to December, the Conservatives came forward with good proposals on Bill C-3, and we were able to work together. We had an opportunity when they came forward on Bill C-4 to move it forward because we recognized it.

We are in a minority government, and how we comport ourselves is a choice for each of us. As the government House leader, I recognize the minority status that we are in and that we are going to be in the House for a period of time. I would imagine that Conservative MPs want to do some things here and want to get some things done.

I can imagine that standing up every day on dilatory motions and obfuscating has to get pretty old for you guys at some point. You want to take some things back to your constituencies, and I am willing to work with you on that. Come forward with stuff.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the government House leader could provide his thoughts on the fact that we have a legislative agenda, which incorporates the changing of laws, and we have budgetary measures. It is a government agenda that does ultimately need to get through. There is nothing wrong with opposition parties critiquing it and offering amendments: changes and so forth. I am not in opposition to that. It is the official opposition's attempt to frustrate all things in all ways; for example, on Bill C-8.

Could he provide his thoughts on Bill C-8, which was the fall economic statement? It ultimately passed the House after the budget was released, a couple of weeks back. The Conservatives did that through frustrating, filibustering and concurrence reports. They even attempted to adjourn the House. They had different ways to prevent the bill from being debated. I am referring to Bill C-8.

Can he provide his thoughts in regard to Bill C-8?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Here are the facts, Madam Speaker. Two concurrence motions have been moved: one on fisheries and one on ethics. There was an important issue with respect to fisheries coming out of committee and, of course, important issues as they relate to the scandalous behaviour of the government on ethics.

Bill C-8 was introduced December 16, and we had 10 weeks when the House was not sitting. What did the Liberals expect for the fall economic statement, when we are not going to have debate on this?

The other thing we are seeing is that before the coalition agreement with the NDP, the NDP sided with the government 89% of the time on votes. Since that coalition agreement, it has sided with the government 95% of the time. It is not surprising to me that I am hearing the NDP House leader parroting the talking points of the government.

The fact is that we are seeing a decline in democracy. This is the government's attempt to seize complete control over this place on important legislation, such as Bill C-19, when members have the right to speak and members have the right to move motions. We have those rights because these are important issues to Canadians.

Will the government House leader just admit that he is contributing to a further decline in democracy in this country, and that Canadians did not vote for a coalition agreement between the NDP and the Liberals? They actually voted for an effective opposition, including the Conservative Party, which, by the way, is the official opposition: Her Majesty's loyal opposition. We will continue to do our job, despite the fact that the government does not want us to do it.