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

[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 regard 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 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 the item by item and bit by bit of the bill but 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, and that is 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 had asked for these. They did not know.

Did the provinces ask for these hospitals? No. Did public health ask for these hospitals? No. Who asked? Public Works says that Public Works asked for them.

We asked, "Who in Public Works?" They answered that they just told us and that it was Public Works.

Apparently, if we look at GEDS, which is the government employees directory, we will see someone called “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, guess how many of those hospitals have actually been delivered or used. It is zero. 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. 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?