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

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to begin debate on Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act, 2021. This legislation builds on important measures enacted by another critical piece of legislation that received royal assent in December, Bill C-2, which provided certainty to Canadians and Canadian businesses in the face of the omicron variant. Like this legislation, Bill C-2 provided essential and targeted support for businesses still deeply affected by the pandemic, including the Canadian tourism sector, which continues to be one of the most affected by COVID-19.

As the Minister of Tourism, I want to reiterate that our government remains fully committed to supporting the tourism industry in these difficult times so that it can quickly get back on its feet and prosper.

I have said it many times and I will continue to say that Canada's economy will not fully recover until our tourism sector recovers. With the support measures that our government has put in place since the beginning of the pandemic, I am convinced that local tourism businesses will recover from the pandemic and be better positioned to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them in the future.

I can say, as the Associate Minister of Finance and as the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre, that first and foremost, the best way to keep our economy growing and supporting businesses like those in our vibrant tourism sector is to win the fight against COVID-19. Bill C-8 includes numerous measures to win this fight, including $1.7 billion to help the provinces and territories secure the additional rapid tests they need to keep Canadians safe and healthy, including through expanded school and workplace testing programs.

Access to rapid tests is important for breaking transmission chains, especially for new variants like omicron, and for protecting the people around us.

Our government also supports the provinces' and territories' proof of vaccination initiatives.

Developing a standard proof of vaccination would help fully vaccinated Canadians to travel within the country and internationally, and despite the claims of some it is an essential tool in protecting Canadians. Let me be very clear. Vaccine mandates and proof of vaccination credentials protect our families, our workplaces and our communities. They give us the confidence to have a meal at a restaurant, attend community events with families and friends, and even begin to travel safely in accordance with public health guidelines. This is also another way we can support Canada’s tourism sector, by making Canadians and international visitors feel safe as they explore all that our country has to offer.

As I always note, safety comes first, then travel. Bill C-8 would support these efforts by allocating the necessary funds, some $300 million, for the government to reimburse provinces’ and territories’ expenditures related to the implementation of their proof-of-vaccination programs.

Bill C-8 will also support Canadians' health and safety by investing in adequate ventilation, which can help reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission. Whether it is ventilation for a classroom, shopping centre or meeting room, the government is determined to help businesses and organizations improve the ventilation and air quality in their buildings and to ensure Canadians' safety.

Many small businesses are on the front lines in the fight against the pandemic. They want to do their part and make indoor air cleaner, but investing in equipment to improve ventilation can be very expensive.

That is why in Bill C-8 we are proposing a refundable tax credit for small businesses of 25% of qualifying expenses made to improve air quality.

Our government also wants to improve ventilation in schools and protect students, teachers, school staff and parents from outbreaks. To do this, Bill C-8 proposes to provide up to an additional $100 million to provinces and territories through the existing safe return to class fund. This funding would continue the support provided through the original $2-billion safe return to class fund by specifically targeting ventilation-related improvement projects.

As the pandemic continues to affect the lives of Canadians, our government knows that elevated inflation, a global phenomenon driven by the unprecedented challenge of reopening the world’s economy, is leading Canadians to worry about the cost of living. We understand concerns about the higher cost of living, and we are taking action.

Our government has cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the top 1%. Building on the success of the 2015 and 2019 middle-class tax cuts that lowered taxes for millions of Canadians, our government has put more money in the pockets of Canadians. We are also working with provinces and territories to implement a Canada-wide $10-a-day community-based early learning and child care system that would make life more affordable for families and create new jobs. Because of this measure, the fee reductions in the coming year would help deliver thousands of dollars in tax savings to families with young children.

Additionally, on December 13, our government and the Bank of Canada announced that we would renew the 2% inflation target for another five-year period, which will keep the bank focused on delivering low, stable and predictable inflation in Canada.

As members can see, our government is already working hard to address the cost of living and to make life more affordable for Canadians.

For example, we are proposing to increase support for teachers, whether they are teaching from home or in the classroom. Teachers have shown, throughout the pandemic and always, that they are willing to go above and beyond to make sure their students receive a high-quality education.

To support teachers and early childhood educators in Canada, we are proposing, with Bill C-8, to expand and enrich the eligible educator school supply tax credit.

Bill C-8 also seeks to address housing affordability through the implementation of a national, annual 1% tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underused, something our government announced as part of budget 2021 to crack down on underused housing. The bill would introduce a new act, the underused housing tax act, to ensure that non-resident, non-Canadian owners, particularly those who use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing, pay their fair share of Canadian tax, beginning in the 2022 calendar year.

Be assured that this is not a new capital gains tax, as the opposition continues to misinform Canadians. It is a sound fiscal measure to address housing affordability. Bill C-8 would also support Canadians living in northern parts of the country by expanding access to the travel component of the northern residents deductions to give all northerners, including those who do not receive travel assistance from their employers, the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses.

Our government has put in place unprecedented relief measures throughout the pandemic to support Canadian families and businesses. As we continue to provide targeted support to those who need it the most, we will be there for Canadians.

As we emerge from COVID-19, we are focusing on jobs and growth, and we are making life more affordable so that Canadians can prosper. Bill C-8 would continue to support our government's work on this important issue.

Colleagues, we are all tired. We are all eager for this pandemic and the challenges it has created to become things of the past. Our message to Canadians from coast to coast to coast is clear. It is that our government is taking action to win this fight, to support Canadians and businesses, and to keep them and their families safe.

That is why I call on my colleagues here today to join me in supporting the passage of this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a comment the minister made with respect to vaccine mandates.

One of the concerns I am hearing from my constituents is particularly around how the government's vaccine mandates are affecting services and the access that people have to them, whether or not they are vaccinated.

We have the truckers' mandate that is in place, and of course we know that most truckers are vaccinated, but removing those truckers from the road who are not vaccinated creates a significant strain in terms of goods. We recognize that they work alone and that they have to abide by other public health measures when they visit restaurants, etc.

We could talk about the public service mandate that is impacting my constituents' ability to access government services. We are seeing significant backlogs in terms of immigration and other services that people need to access from government. Constituents of mine need those services. It does not matter whether they are vaccinated or unvaccinated, they are impacted by these mandates because the impacts on supply chains and the impacts on access to government services are very significant.

Recognizing that the vast majority of Canadians have gotten vaccinated, but that these mandates are still having a significant impact on the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, could the minister comment to my constituents on why he thinks these mandates, and their impacts on Canadians, my constituents and his, are justified?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we need to look at as Canadians is the fact that the fight we have here is against COVID, and the number one tool we have in our tool kit to defeat COVID is the vaccine program.

To that effect, I have to congratulate truckers across the country for the fact that 90% of them are vaccinated. Our commitment was to ensure that we would continue to encourage and, in the case of federally regulated industries, mandate vaccines to keep Canadians, our families and our communities safe. We fought an election over this. We will continue to work through supply chain issues.

The number one mission that we have as a country is to get fully vaccinated and to make sure that we end this fight against COVID.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.

I have a question for him about the new federal tax on underused housing. The government claims that this new tax will bring in some $700 million over four years and that will help fix the housing crisis. Earlier this week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the tax would bring in $100 million less than that. Quebec is currently in need of around 50,000 new affordable social community housing units.

I would like to know how this money will help build social housing units in Quebec and across the country. Does the minister truly think that this amount will fix the housing crisis?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question and for her dedication to affordable housing.

This is a concern in my riding of Edmonton Centre and in the entire country. The revenue that this new tax is expected to bring in will be added to the significant amount of money, $72 billion, that we have already allocated for the national housing strategy.

Furthermore, the rapid housing initiative will help build affordable housing from coast to coast, and that includes Quebec. This is a priority for the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, for our government and for me.

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

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report in which he expressed concern about the late tabling of Canada's public accounts, and about the government's accounting for money and the way it is spent.

The situation we have before us is that in Bill C-8 there is a proposal to spend $1.72 billion on COVID-19 rapid tests, and then of course we just heard a question of privilege about Bill C-10, which proposes to spend $2.5 billion on rapid tests.

Is the intention that the amount in Bill C-10 would replace and get rid of the clause in Bill C-8 for purchasing rapid tests, or is the idea that the government is asking for money in two places and ultimately intends to spend about $4.2 billion on rapid tests?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if we look very closely at what is in Bill C-8, it is to do what we said we would in the fall economic statement, and that is to provide $1.7 billion to get rapid tests into the hands of provinces and Canadians.

As we have said all along the way, and I thank my hon. colleague for his lens on this issue, we are going to continue to do what we need to as a government to get rapid tests into the hands of provinces and into the hands of Canadians, so we can stay safe in our communities and ensure that we can move about our communities in a safe and responsible way.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion between members of Parliament and their constituents to try to get a better sense of the type of legislative support that Ottawa should be providing.

I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on some of the consultations he has done in Edmonton or in Alberta. What does he think about the federal government's participation in his home province of Alberta?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows, as I do, that the amounts in Bill C-8 are in addition to the amounts in Bill C-10, but let me share my reflection. When I was at the doors of constituents before the election, the three things that kept coming up the most were climate change, COVID supports and child care.

I was in a particular area of my riding that has not always been, let us say, the most politically friendly, but there was a woman on her doorstep who asked me to come and sit with her, so I did. She asked me to look at the three houses to the left of hers and the three houses to the right of hers, and then to take a good look at her house. She said that all seven of those houses would have been gone without our government's supports. She told me that we had the block's support because we had saved the block.

To the parliamentary secretary's question, the average across Canada is that our government provided $8 out of every $10 in COVID support. In Alberta, that number is $9 out of $10. That is how much the federal government has had the backs of Edmontonians, Calgarians and Albertans through this COVID pandemic, and we will continue to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a former tourism industry operator myself, I am passionate about this industry and know it is still hurting. The tourism sector has been walloped. There are obviously other service sectors that have suffered, such as restaurants and so on.

I want to ask the hon. minister specifically about the ground transportation sector. Regional bus companies, whether it is Maritime Bus in Atlantic Canada or Wilson's bus lines here in B.C., have been asking about their coach lines.

Big bus companies such as Greyhound have left British Columbia, and Alberta coach companies are privately owned. We need federal government funding support to maintain ground transportation. Does he have any thoughts on how that agenda is moving forward?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her devotion to the tourism sector and to this particular issue.

Let me just say, to begin, that through the pandemic we invested $15 billion in Canadians and businesses in the tourism sector. The critical importance of Bill C-2 legislation passing in December was also extremely important, with $7.2 billion and an extra $4.5 billion in reserve in case we needed it and, as we have seen, we do. These supports are critical because, the member is right, the tourism sector has been walloped. It is important that we work together.

To the member's particular issue, it is an active conversation. There is a jurisdictional issue with the federal government and provincial and territorial governments, so I am happy to get back to the hon. colleague on this particular question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to health transfers, the government always tells us that it invested heavily during the pandemic.

It is true that it invested heavily, but if it is short of money, it can always get some by cracking down on tax havens. Last spring, everyone was pleasantly surprised to see that the Minister of Finance appeared to be taking a firm stand against tax evasion in her budget. Since then, nothing, radio silence. There is nothing in Bill C‑8 that would allow us to go after the money in the places where it ends up.

Can my colleague explain why tax havens are not mentioned in Bill C-8?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I can say that the government is addressing this important issue. I think we can show just how much we have done, with the Canada Revenue Agency, to deal with this problem. I will take note of the question.

With respect to health transfers, we invested $63 billion in the health care system. The Prime Minister said today that, when the time is right, we will have the conversation with the provinces and territories.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, February 2, in the House, I want to pay homage and respect to my party leader, who resigned today from being party leader of the official opposition. Being in the job of party leader in an opposition party is an incredibly difficult job, and he has done yeoman's work over the past couple of years. In a time when Canada was locked down, expectations of what we needed to do as a country changed dramatically and we continue to try to adapt. This is a difficult time to be in this kind of job, and I pay respect right now to him and his family for having committed and having given so much to this country, to our party and to this Parliament.

I am here today to address the new Bill C-8 proposed by the Liberal government about how to address some more spending that we need to commit for coming through COVID, some of which we find is going to be on the backs of Canadians again.

The bill is in seven parts. I cannot address all seven parts adequately in this sitting in the next 20 minutes, so I am going to focus on the real estate part of this bill. My colleague across the way spent a lot of time on the real estate section of this bill as well.

Starting in the 2022 calendar year, we are going to look at a 1% federal surtax on passively held non-resident owners of real estate in Canada. That means that foreigners who buy real estate in Canada are going to pay an extra 1% annually on the value of the real estate, much like a municipal tax for those people who own property or own their single-family home. Therefore, we would transport some of this tax mechanism that usually rests at the municipal level, and we would put it onto the federal government's balance sheet at this point in time. For what effect, I do not know but it would be an overstep into municipal jurisdiction.

It seems a bit of an overstep and I will give some examples, but first I am going to refer to what my colleague across the way was referring to, a report by an organization called Generation Squeeze, which was commissioned by a crown corporation, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to look at ways to get more housing built in Canada. It did not look at better ways to get more housing built in Canada. What it looked at and what it reported to CMHC, which it was of course paid to do, was ways to tax more housing ownership in Canada. Its proposal was much like this one: a 0.5% surtax annually applied on properties over $1 million. I know that sounds like a big number, but the annual surtax doubles on properties over $2 million.

Vancouver itself has an empty homes tax already, effectively the same thing as what Generation Squeeze is providing, except it is 3% of the assessed value and it has been applied since 2017. Now there is 0.5%, 1%, 3%, but there is more. The Province of British Columbia has a speculation and vacancy tax applied on such properties, starting at 0.5% for a resident and going up to 2% for an offshore property owner. That has been applied since 2018, so with 3% plus 2% plus 0.5% plus this proposed 1%, we really are just tacking on and on here and really overstepping as far as which level of government is collecting this.

What are we trying to accomplish in this?

Foreign ownership still accounts for approximately 7.7% of Vancouver home purchases. We are still getting a lot of foreign ownership growing into the housing base in the Lower Mainland, despite the fact that we are tacking on significant taxes here that were supposed to slow this down. This is a great discrepancy between the actual people who work in the city and the people who are coming to live in the city. That is one of the major factors that is pushing up housing prices in Canada, but particularly in the Lower Mainland.

Have we looked at the increase in home values under the current Liberal government?

In the last six years, the price of a typical family home has gone up 87%. Since the government has come to power or shortly thereafter, six years ago, the average price of a family home in Canada is up 87%. That is inflation. Since 2016, when it was at $476,000, it is now $811,000 according to the Canadian Real Estate Association.

Are we trying to jam the price above $1 million just to collect a proposed federal surtax? The average house in Toronto and Vancouver now sells for over $1 million. Think about it: A home that costs over $1 million in two of Canada's large cities. That is not counting the interest paid on the mortgage. It is not counting the upkeep required on a regular basis. It is not counting the maintenance. It is not counting the furniture and window coverings. To get into a home now, it is over $1 million for a starter home. The cost of home ownership is going through roof in Canada, and that is not just bungalows, split-levels or two-storeys, but all single-family homes.

What has caused this?

The government keeps professing that it needs to spend more, and thus collect more, to build more housing in Canada. Who is going to pay this tax? It is the home sellers who, according to Generation Squeeze, are primarily retirees. They have made gains in the value of their homes that is not taxable at the federal level, so they obviously deserve to pay more tax in their retirement years, according to Generation Squeeze. This is a ridiculous oversight of the financial snapshot faced by retirees in Canada, many of whom are and will be augmenting their incomes by working longer and receiving government programming like the guaranteed income supplement. The proposal from Generation Squeeze, commissioned by an arm of this government, is an inequitable tax grab on some of our most vulnerable citizens. I will oppose it strongly.

Why are seniors having difficulty saving for retirement? It is inflation, inflation, inflation. Things are costing more, but people's incomes are not going up on a commensurate level. It is a real monetary factor that this government does not really pay any attention to. As the Prime Minister said during the election, he does not really think about monetary policy, unfortunately. Government should be thinking about monetary policy.

I would point out to the government that, this year, CPP payments for everybody in Canada have been increased in their payroll tax by 10%. If a 10% increase in our CPP is not more reflective of the inflation people are actually feeling, then I think the government is trying to mask something here. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board has said that its investments are sound for what it is expecting to spend for the next 75 years, but the government thinks a 10% increase in deductions is important at this point in time. That might tell us what the government thinks the real rate of inflation is in this country, because most consumers have lost faith in the numbers calculated by Statistics Canada and the Bank of Canada. These statistics are meaningless as far as what they are experiencing in the stores, with their rents and at their doors. Everything they pay for in Canada is going up significantly more than indicated by Stats Canada or the Bank of Canada.

Housing takes up more than 11% of our gross domestic product, partially because we do not have much more gross domestic investment going on in this country, so most people are building into housing at this point in time. Also, this is double of where it has usually been in this country. It is usually around 4% to 5%, but it is now north of 11% of our gross domestic product going into residential housing at this point in time. It has been that way for a number of years, yet, supposedly, we are short of housing stock. What housing stock? It is single-family homes, to be precise, and starter homes.

I can tell members that, when knocking on doors in Calgary Centre, when I knocked on condo doors, I saw some of those buildings had a 50% vacancy rate, and there is a 10%-plus vacancy rate in apartment buildings. However, developers are still building more condo buildings, encroaching on neighbourhoods filled with single-family homes, and this is referred to as “densification”. Condo resale prices are down 15% over the past six years in Calgary, and Calgary's downtown commercial core has been decimated by the government's aimless policies towards Canada's most productive industry, oil and gas.

The City of Calgary's approach is to spend taxpayers' dollars to retrofit some of the vacant office towers into residential towers, in the hopes of bringing life back into the downtown core, at a cost of over $400,000 per door, which is in contrast to a new build at $250,000 per door.

We are overspending to solve a problem the government created in the first place, so we are just supposed to ignore the negative effects of the outcome of what we are doing here. We cannot go on doing that. We have to look at the outcomes.

For a young condo owner, a loss of 2.5% per year on a condo is a daunting issue, especially as they try to get into a single family home at some point in time. We have government dollars chasing retrofits to a problem the government created, and around and around we go. Someone is paying the bill.

Let us go back to inflation. We have incurred over $560 billion of deficit spending over the past two years. One-third of it, over $170 billion, had nothing to do with the COVID pandemic. Never miss out on a good crisis to move an agenda forward, as the Liberals have said.

Let us look at more things here, as far as inflation goes. Let us look at what we are abetting here in the process. Let us look at where the numbers are actually leading us. As members know, I am somewhat analytical at looking at what the solutions to these problems might be.

Some of this money coming into Canada, such as 7.7% of the purchases in Vancouver, is still foreign money coming in. Investment properties are on top of that from Canadian investors, but much of this foreign money is not clean foreign money. Much of it, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International, is actually money laundering. It is what is called “snow washing”. Snow washing happens more in Canada than in any other country in the G20 for one reason: because we allow it to. The government keeps the rules loose on money laundering coming into Canada, and it is a shame for us in an international sense around the world.

In a national criminal intelligence estimate, the Canadian Criminal Intelligence Service said that money laundering of about $133 billion per year was one of the factors driving up real estate prices in Canada. In the last year, let us recall, real estate prices went up 26% for a typical family home in Canada. That is corruption. We are allowing corruption to enter Canada.

I know some people think that it is just the money part of corruption, but the money part of corruption leads to all other kinds of criminality. When we actually invite dirty money into the country, we are inviting everything else associated with that dirty money into the country.

Let us take a look at the fentanyl deaths on the streets of our cities, including Calgary, where I live. Fentanyl deaths and overdoses and homeless people living in the streets have abounded over the last number of years because of these laws that allow people to launder their money in Canada and bring with it the commensurate crime that arrives with money laundering. This is a problem we need to address. The government needs to address it.

I am concerned that the government does not want to address it, because it is complicit in a lot of areas where it is actually involved in what we will call “shady practices”. That includes SNC-Lavalin and the cover-up of what happened there and the ditching of one of the brightest lights on the Liberal front bench when she tried to expose what was going on there. This includes the WE scandal and the hundreds of millions of dollars that was buried in bureaucratese before we could get to actually following the money trail.

That brings us to where we are today: How do we come through this? We need to build a system that is not inflationary and does not continue to have government money thrown at the wall while continuing to not solve problems and issues like housing. Housing is a big issue. Putting a 1% extra tax on top of housing is not part of the solution. Curbing foreign money laundering is in the federal government's bailiwick and should be instituted as quickly as possible.

I know I am running out of time, but it is my pleasure to be here today again. I do propose that we actually start with legislation that leads somewhere and, as opposed to an extra tax that is already being applied locally and provincially in many areas in Canada where it is a problem, that we look at how we address money laundering laws in Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member would not want to intentionally mislead the House. I know he would not want to do that, but the reality is that when he says that we would be adding a 1% tax on the sale of housing, he knows better. He knows it would be specifically with respect to non-resident, non-Canadian vacant land or unused housing. However, he is projecting it as though it would be a 1% tax. He equated it to a municipal property tax, and I am sure he knows better than that.

Would he like to correct the record and acknowledge that it would be for non-Canadians and non-residents on vacant land or unused residential housing?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I left the impression that it was for anything other than what he described, I am remiss and I apologize. If that is the way he took those remarks and if I misspoke in that respect, he is exactly right. It would be for foreign money that is coming into Canadian property.

As I said earlier, it would actually be on top of a municipal tax that is applied to it, and a provincial tax as well, including a transfer tax of 20%. What I am suggesting to him is to take a look at the federal government's incursion into the same taxation measures that municipalities and provinces are already taxing and ask why the federal government needs to be there, as opposed to acting where the federal government currently has jurisdiction and addressing the money laundering laws.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-8 addresses the housing problem.

We need to remember that the national housing strategy was put on the back burner for 20 years, which prevented the construction of 6,000 housing units a year. Also, the Front d’action populaire en réaménagement urbain said that we failed to build more than 80,000 social housing units since 1994. In Quebec, we need about 50,000 housing units.

What does my colleague think about the proposals in Bill C-8?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I understand most of what my colleague said.

It is important to see what kinds of buildings are being built in Canada right now. Do the condos we are building meet the population’s current needs? We need to address the current gap relative to single-family homes, especially in cities.

I hope I answered my colleague’s question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be talking about the issue of housing here today in the House of Commons.

There absolutely has been an astronomical increase in the cost of housing over the last five or six years. I has been particularly acute in the last two years, but we have to note that this is part of a longer-standing trend. House prices in December 2010 were at about $345,000; by November 2015, they were at about $450,000. Now they are at about $713,000. Just n the five years between 2010 and 2015, that is still a 32% increase, and that coincided with another government that was largely absent when it came to the housing file.

The fact of the matter is that these prices, even if we go back to 2010, are still out of reach for a lot of Canadians. The answer has to be substantial investment in rent-geared-to-income housing and housing that is non-market housing, a strategy that would not treat our homes as if they are a commodity to be traded on the market. That answer requires public expenditure.

The member continues to say the answer to the housing crisis is for government to stop spending money. That clearly cannot address the issue with the kinds of rent-geared-to-income housing that we need in order to address a significant part of the housing crisis in Canada. I would like to know what the member proposes if it is not any kind of government spending. If developers were going to build housing for all the Canadians who need it, presumably they would have done it by now, and they do not just need another incremental tax break to finally start doing that. That is not their business, so what is the member's proposal for a real solution to get the kind of housing built that we need in this country?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is an excellent colleague on the finance committee and he comes up with some great proposals going forward.

I think I did address in my speech, and I hope he heard it all, some of the solutions we have for bringing down the escalating prices of Canadian houses. One is to address money laundering.

Money laundering by foreign buyers in the Canadian marketplace is excessive. It is like any purchase: When there are a whole bunch of excess buyers in the marketplace, it inflates the cost. Those foreign buyers are coming here for one reason, and one reason only: because it is safe to launder money in Canada, more safe than it is in the rest of the G20. That money is arriving on the shores of Canada and going into one of the safest investments in Canada, housing.

Who is being impacted by that? It is people who work in Canada, who are having the housing that they usually occupy being bought as an investment and being occupied sometimes by people who do not work here or live here. That is a problem, and that is what we need to address more than anything else.

My colleague addressed the issue by saying the government needs to invest much more in this sector. The government invests in sectors because there is a short-term gap. This gap is growing, and it is not because we are not building enough in Canada. As I said in my speech, we spend a far greater percentage of our gross domestic product on residential housing than any other of the G7 countries. There is a reason for that: We are building the wrong kind of product. We are building product for investment, primarily foreign investment, that is not necessarily the right foreign investment we are looking for.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the issue of a capital tax or an equity tax on homes came up in 2019, the Liberals have been denying it. I would like to take them at their word, but since then, as my hon. colleague mentioned in his speech, CMHC, a Crown corporation of the Government of Canada, requisitioned a report on the recommendation of its former head, Mr. Siddall, from Generation Squeeze, which recommended this very policy.

I appreciate the fact that members opposite have been denying that they are going to do this, but why have they not specifically repudiated this report, particularly after Mr. Siddall went public and endorsed this recommendation himself after he was no longer head of the corporation?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Siddall, the former head of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, did accept and did hire Generation Squeeze to give him this report. That is government money, a quarter of a million dollars. We are still trying to figure out if it paid a quarter of a million dollars for one report and another quarter of a million dollars for the second report. We have asked for that answer and we have not received it yet.

One of the issues is that we are pushing money to people to come up with solutions, but the solutions they are providing have nothing to do with the problem they are supposedly addressing. An extra surtax on the sale of a house when it is sold is a capital gains tax, whether one calls it that or not. This is the inequity I talked about in my speech.

Who is going to pay that tax? Canadian senior citizens are going to pay that tax, by and large, and that is a shame, because we are doing everything we can to keep them above the inflation line as a result of the diminishing returns they are getting because of inflation in this economy. Fixed incomes get hurt the most by inflationary economies. We need to make sure we stay above that. Adding a tax onto our seniors is the wrong approach.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the pandemic is not over and people are struggling, yet his party has fought consistently to claw back support to individuals, including calling to abolish the CERB. We know rent is going up and we know groceries are going up, and we know that support is not coming and people are ending up on the streets, including seniors who had clawbacks to their GIS.

I wonder if the member's concern extends to ensuring people continue to get the support they need and whether he would consider implementing instead a permanent guaranteed livable basic income for all.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a fan of a guaranteed basic income. I am a fan, frankly, of making sure that our monetary base stays relevant. As we inflate that monetary base, we effectively devalue the spending power of the money that people have. By devaluing that spending power, we are actually hurting the people who have to spend that money on basic goods. We should get ahead of it. If we do not debase the currency, we will not have to do more spending later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by asking the consent of the House to share my time with my esteemed colleague and friend, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, the motion is carried.

The hon. member for Joliette.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are studying Bill C-8, the bill to implement last fall's economic update. There is not much to it. We more or less support the bill, but there is one thing we take issue with. I will explain what I mean in a few minutes.

I would like to remind my colleagues that part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations. Everyone supports the new refundable tax credit for ventilation expenses made to improve air quality. Obviously, we support expanding the travel component of the northern residents deduction. Expanding the school supplies tax credit from 15% to 25% and expanding the eligibility criteria to include electronic devices is great. That is not a problem. A new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses is important. We are happy to see it included, and we support it.

Part 2, which is a hot topic in this debate, contains the much-touted 1% tax on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. We agree in principle, but we have a big problem. The problem is that, of all possible taxes, property tax is the only one not under federal jurisdiction.

The goal itself is a noble one. We could discuss the 1% tax. Would it really be effective? We could discuss that. However, there is a very troubling precedent being set here. My colleagues will remember what happened with income tax. The federal government said that it was a temporary measure to finance the war effort, but we are still sending half of our income tax to Ottawa today. There is nothing more permanent than a temporary tax measure implemented by the federal government. That is what we are concerned about.

Will the federal government acquire a taste for this sweet, sweet tax revenue once it has tried it and want to go back for more?

This is a big problem. It is troubling because this is an area under municipal jurisdiction. We know that municipalities are having serious financial difficulties, and this is their jurisdiction. If, from now on—not right away, but in a few years—the federal government came back to demand some of that revenue, there would be less for the municipalities. There would be an even greater fiscal imbalance.

We therefore have a serious problem, and we are asking the government to please find another way of implementing this policy, because interfering in property tax, which is under municipal jurisdiction, is a serious problem and a dangerous precedent. Although the intention is noble, as I have said before and will say again, the method is a problem because of the precedent it would set.

Could the government come to an agreement with the provinces and municipalities so that they could levy the tax instead?

There are other ways of solving the problem, with capital gains, for example, but this one poses a serious threat. Right now, the Bloc Québécois is still deciding whether it will support Bill C‑8 because of this measure. The principle is noble, but, in our opinion, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

Part 3 provides for a six-year prescription period for the Canada emergency business account. That is great.

Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund. I would like to take this opportunity to give a shout out to the President of the Treasury Board, who is listening attentively to my speech. I thank her. The bill talks about supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools. We fully support this, and we support part 5, which authorizes payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of supporting coronavirus disease 2019 proof-of-vaccination initiatives.

Part 6 supports COVID-19 tests. There is a lot of money involved, and we are obviously on board with that too.

Part 7 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers. All this is important.

This is not a historic implementation bill. These are good measures, even the measure in part 2 that we have doubts about. The goal is noble, but once again, the precedent it would set is troubling.

Governments are often judged on what they achieve in their first 100 days. In our opinion, there could have been much more in Bill C-8.

Throughout the election campaign and since the beginning of the pandemic, we have heard a lot about the labour shortage. There are many different measures that could be put in place to mitigate this issue, such as a tax credit that would make it easier for young retirees to continue working. Earlier this week, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec told the Standing Committee on Finance that many young retirees would be willing to work one or two days a week if they did not have to give all their earnings back in income tax. The Bloc Québécois would have liked to see something like that in this bill. It would not have been very complicated, and it could have been included, but it was not.

The other important point is the fight against tax havens. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance wrote a book on the subject. It is important. We need to take action and move forward. We have been calling for this for years now. Just under a year ago, when the last budget was tabled last spring, the minister assured us that the fall update would fix the web giant problem by taxing their revenue to offset unpaid taxes, as is done in other countries. Last December we were even pretty sure that something was going to be introduced.

It is frustrating that there was nothing about this in Bill C-8. We have been hearing for years now that measures are on the way, but they keep getting pushed back. We are almost beginning to feel like a donkey chasing a carrot in the fight against tax havens, but the carrot is always just out of reach. We should not be taken for donkeys.

I would now like to talk about health. Earlier this afternoon the government sent out the Minister of Tourism to speak to the government's Bill C‑8. The minister said that the government would negotiate health funding with the provinces “when the time is right”. I think now is the right time. It was the right time last year, it was the right time during the pandemic and it was the right time even before the pandemic. The time has been right for 20 years. Frankly, the government needs to smarten up.

Everyone knows that the health care system is struggling, emergency rooms are swamped, and the pandemic has posed challenges for hospital care, emergency care and life-saving care. This is all because the health care system and sector has been weakened and damaged by 20 to 25 years of underfunding by the federal government. It is as simple as that.

After the 1995 referendum, there was a renegotiation with respect to deficits and the debt, which were too high. Ottawa's solution to the problem was to reduce transfers to the provinces. Jean Chrétien then chose to mock Quebec among his G7 colleagues telling them that the funny thing about reducing health transfers was that everyone would protest at the National Assembly of Quebec and the other provincial legislatures, but he would be fine. It was that decision by Ottawa to reduce its health transfers that has compromised the system. Today, we are paying the price during the pandemic.

The government can say that it spent a lot of money during the pandemic, but to be clear, that spending is not recurring funding. We need recurring funding. The government said that it has been spending more every year. That is true, but it is not contributing its fair share when we consider that health care system costs are going up 6% while the government is increasing its share by only 3%. The government is actually contributing less and less every year. For the government to say that it is spending more every year is dishonest. That is clear from even a cursory analysis of the situation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that, even with the extraordinary expenses incurred during the pandemic, the pressure of public funding rests squarely on the shoulders of the provinces. This has to change.

I also wanted to talk about seniors. We need to do more for them, particularly with respect to inflation. There was also a lot of talk about social housing. Action needs to be taken on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I hope that the member opposite recognizes the work our government has done during the pandemic to support the provinces. We have paid out billions of dollars to support provincial health care systems.

We also supported Quebec by sending soldiers to long-term care facilities. I hope he recognizes the government's leadership during the pandemic.

My question is the following: Does the member support the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers to help pay for additional health care costs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague for his excellent French. I find we do not hear French often enough in the House. I tip my hat to him and thank him.

I recognize that the government has done a lot to support people during the pandemic, but it did not do it alone. We had a minority government, and I can say that the Bloc was an excellent partner. We brought forward several proposals made by various organizations and we worked together for the common good.

Tariff barriers are a provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois believes in respect for jurisdictions, and we condemn Ottawa's penchant for always interfering in areas that are none of its business when it fails to solve the problems that do fall under its responsibility, for example border protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I am going to speak in English. I am a little rusty right now and will try next time.

The member was speaking about federal and provincial jurisdiction. One thing that has frustrated me during the pandemic is that there has been a lot of pointing of fingers. The federal government has been telling provincial governments what it thinks they should or should not be doing with policies, rather than stepping up in the federal area of jurisdiction.

We had a federal minister telling provinces they should bring in mandatory vaccinations. Aside from thinking that is a terrible policy, I think the federal government should be focusing on areas of its own competence where we have seen problems, such as a lack of procuring rapid tests earlier on and the disaster that is being created as a result of the truckers' mandate.

Would the member agree with me that rather than sticking its nose into provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should focus on doing its job better? It is a tough question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for starting off his comment in French. His French is excellent, and I am sure he could have said the whole thing in French.

Naturally, we do not always agree with our fellow MPs. Take vaccination, for example. The Bloc and the member alike know that vaccination falls within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, but we want everything to do with that to be evidence-based. That is how Quebec is operating.

The Bloc condemns Ottawa's tendency to stick its nose into areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. Ottawa tells them what they should do and imposes conditions, but it is not doing anything about the issues under its own jurisdiction. We would like to see a little humility. The federal government is not the supreme omnipotent ruler of everything.

For example, for health care, what the provinces need is more transfers and more money with no strings attached and no standards. The people who actually work in health care know this, but those at a distance do not. This reminds me of the British Home Rule and how Great Britain ran the colonies. That is how Ottawa is behaving.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to a City of Edmonton report released in 2019, there were 2,800 folks living in poverty and without a home in my city of Edmonton. One of the Bloc members mentioned some of the program deficits from 1994 related to the implementation of social housing. Recently, I spoke with members in my community, like Judith from the Bear Clan Patrol, who knows from working directly on the ground that this number is about 3,200 people today. Social housing is a key part of the solution: more units, more housing.

Would the member agree that the housing crisis cannot be fixed merely by a 1% tax that does not address things like a flipping tax or looking at how housing auctions are done? Would the member agree that we need to build more units now?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.

It makes me so sad to see how the gap between rich and poor seems to have widened in recent decades. There is more poverty because we are investing less in social housing, which is not to be confused with the bad concept of affordable housing. Meanwhile, the richest are gaining greater access to perks such as tax havens.

The state is supposed to narrow the wealth gap, not widen it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Brantford—Brant, The Economy; the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to my new team members: Meili Faille, who is a former Bloc Québécois MP, Anaïs Thibodeau and Mishka Caldwell‑Pichette, who are probably watching right now. A warm welcome to them all.

I listened closely to members' speeches on this bill to implement the federal government's priority measures. I found the speech given by the member for Joliette to be particularly interesting.

I have an opportunity to remind members that even though Ottawa may be shelling out billions of dollars during this pandemic, the government is still trying to avoid showing the leadership expected of it to help those doing their part to ensure a real economic recovery.

I salute the contribution of all the political actors who realize the challenges we face in the regions and who, like me, will demand recognition for the importance of these vast territories, Abitibi—Témiscamingue in particular, and demand investments befitting their people and their aspirations. What we want is a real economic recovery for the regions.

As an aside, I want to salute Patrick Perreault of Métal Marquis and the great leadership he has shown with the Table Métal Abitibi-Ouest. Faced with a serious labour shortage, the people in that group know how to be proactive.

Although everyone is affected by and dealing with the pandemic, people still have every right to expect the government to speed up measures that affect the public directly. Let us not forget that voters declined to give the Liberals the privilege of a majority government, and rightly so.

I want to make it very clear that the Liberals do not want to solve anything at the end of the day. They systematically refuse to acknowledge the ongoing problem that is putting a stranglehold on the finances of Quebec and the provinces.

Let us have a look at what is in the minister's economic update. The government is maintaining the Canada health transfer escalator at 3%, which is the legal minimum and below the annual increase in health care costs, until 2027. What are the actual needs when it comes to the health transfer?

Quebec and the provinces are unanimously calling for an immediate payment of $28 billion to cover up to 35% of health care costs, followed by a 6% escalator. This is what the provinces are talking about when they speak with the minister and her officials.

To put that in perspective, the Abitibi‑Témiscamingue region accounts for roughly 2% of the population of Quebec, so it should receive around $120 million in recurrent funding every year. The problems we are having, in obstetrics for example, could be solved with permanent funding from the federal government through a transfer to Quebec.

As I see it, the federal government's categorical rejection of the provinces' demands is nothing new. A lot of ink has been spilled on this subject. However, people now have a better understanding of the significance and consequences of Ottawa's inaction. People are seeing how worn out, inert and craven the Liberal government is.

Let us not forget that ordinary people, our heroes, are the backbone of the health care system. I commend the leadership of Caroline Roy, CEO of the CISSS of Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, and her entire team, as well as the nurses and all the health workers in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue and elsewhere. I thank them for their work and encourage them to keep going.

People are wrong if they think they will never understand what a fiscal imbalance is. The pandemic crisis has exacerbated problems in health care, and the on-the-ground impact of underfunding is very real. I am sure my esteemed colleagues will agree that the money should be in the provinces' hands, not in the federal government's coffers.

Now, where is the investment the government promised, the tens of billions it was going to spend to lay the foundation for a strong recovery and create wealth without falling back on the oil economy of the last century? How about accelerating investment in aerospace, green energy and forestry? Those sectors are important to Quebec.

I have asked myself the same question my colleague posed about the utility of the new tax and its impact on unoccupied buildings owned by foreigners, and I recognize that this overheated market needs cooling.

What the Liberals are serving up now are measures that were announced in the 2020 economic statement, in budget 2021 and in a public consultation carried out last summer that, may I remind the House, did not attract much interest.

It is worth noting that this is the first time the federal government has stuck its finger in the property tax pie. It is all part of the Liberal pattern of interference. The federal government should work with the Government of Quebec and the City of Montreal rather than encroach on their jurisdiction.

The government should not be allowing property owners to leave their units vacant and unoccupied during a housing shortage. This measure does nothing to help regions like Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, which is also experiencing an unprecedented housing shortage. The solution is investments in affordable housing and transfers to the provinces. Once again, the federal government is infringing on an area of provincial jurisdiction.

I would also be remiss if I failed to mention the needs of Abitibi—Témiscamingue residents. I live there, and it is a region blessed by nature. However, in order to live there and develop the area, we need to act now and make sure it is developed in a sustainable way. We will never succeed in solving our labour shortage issues if we choose to be content with strategies that do nothing meaningful to ensure the vitality of our region and our homes. That does not reflect the strong economy that we have in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

We are in a position to capitalize on the emerging critical mineral economy, but I have some concerns. We want to process our resources close to where they are extracted. The current paradigm needs to shift. No more plundering our resources and sending them elsewhere in the world to be developed. We want these resources to be processed close to where they are extracted, in the mining regions.

The government needs to respond to our strategies to revitalize the forestry industry and develop new forest-based products.

We also have the right to promote our agri-food industry, what we process locally, and to make it easier to get our local products to market and ensure they can be competitive. What can be done to get more of the local products that our agri-food industry produces into the hands of a wider public?

Access to high-speed Internet is very important for SMEs and is critical to helping them go digital and claim their share of the market. There are apps available to them now, but they need access to high-speed Internet to use them. Some business owners are unable to access the tools to market their products.

According to the Agri-Food Innovation Council, small and medium-sized businesses in the industry cannot adopt some new technologies as quickly as their competitors in the United States and Europe because technological advancements rely on high-speed Internet access. GPS and videoconferencing are just two examples of this. People in urban areas take these things for granted, but people in many rural parts of Quebec and Canada do not yet have that luxury.

I think everyone understands what I am talking about. The government can make a real difference for the thousands of people in rural communities by adopting policies and measures that will enable economic undertakings to succeed.

On December 9, I spoke to the House in detail about the affordable housing shortage. The regions need money to build desperately needed housing. This is an unprecedented crisis.

The current housing situation in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue, in Quebec and in Canada is a perennial one caused by the chronic housing shortage, among other things. That is why building new homes is key.

We know that the need and the demand for housing will very likely continue to increase in the coming years. The government should therefore learn from the mistakes made in recent years and find innovative ways to stimulate the construction of housing, especially social, community and truly affordable housing.

I will now address one of the items in this budget statement. I believe that we need to get rid of fly-in, fly-out work and stop thinking of commuter workers as a magic bullet that will solve the labour shortage in remote areas. This system causes capital flight and does not attract new residents. I am really worried about this measure. Are we going to be able to let people develop resources in Abitibi‑Témiscamingue and then spend their wages elsewhere? Are we going to go so far as to pay for them to do that?

I think we need a new paradigm, one that encourages people to move to the regions and to settle in the area where the work is found. This measure seeks to expand the travel component of the northern residents deduction by giving them the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses. I am concerned that it will encourage specialized tradespeople to deduct their travel expenses from their income when they work in remote areas. In other words, this measure would cancel out much of the efforts being made by elected officials in remote areas.

This phenomenon is occurring at a time when the regions have a high birth rate. What kind of future will young families have in remote areas? Instead, should we not encourage people to move to the regions permanently to promote settlement and promote special status for Abitibi‑Témiscamingue in particular?

This could offer a long-term response to the labour shortage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will proceed in English, because I have a direct question.

I would agree with the member opposite, particularly on the importance of the forestry industry and agriculture. I know that is big in Quebec. It is big in my own area in Nova Scotia.

I have had interactions with the member before on the oil and gas industry. I know his answer will be that we are a petrostate and it has prevented Quebec from having its success. However, what I find challenging is how that resource has been so crucial for all of Canada, including for his province and mine.

Will he at least recognize that Quebec receiving transfers through equalization, which is driven in part by the revenues generated through the oil and gas sector, has been of benefit to the country and of benefit to Quebec, notwithstanding the fact that, yes, we are going to be making a transition in the days ahead?

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, if there is one thing I will never bother to whine about here, it is equalization. Quebec never gets its fair share of budgets. Meanwhile, billions pour in for southern Ontario's automotive industry and for oil and gas.

The issues raised by the automotive industry include the processing of the critical minerals required for electric vehicles. Where will the lithium from our regions, particularly Abitibi—Témiscamingue, be processed? Will it be done near the source? Will it create jobs? Money does not need to be transferred, but can we at least spend our own money that will be generated by creating salaries and jobs in the regions? The entire economic system needs to change.

Otherwise, there is only one solution: Quebec independence.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague to take a deep breath. Quebec receives the majority of Canada's equalization payments.

That being said, my question relates to another subject. My colleague was talking about Abitibi and its fly-in, fly-out workers. There is no need to go that far. I live in La Pocatière. Many people who work in La Pocatière live in Quebec City and commute a little over 100 kilometres every day.

Right across the province, we need employees and people to come and work in our areas. I would like to ask my colleague what measures he would have liked to see in the budget or in the 2021 economic and fiscal update to help keep people in his region.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology for the question. Regarding the health transfer, I want to note that when we talk about the fiscal imbalance on the one hand and the absence of $6 billion in health transfers to Quebec on the other, to me that amounts to the same thing. Quebec is being taken for a ride, and I will never allow that.

On the issue of the labour shortage, there are also some solutions. We agree that the budget statement does not offer any tangible solution to the labour shortage problem. For example, hundreds, if not thousands, of students from francophone countries are systematically rejected. There is a problem with the system right now, seeing as a certain “systemic discrimination” is causing these people to be rejected.

Back home in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, there have been four such cases. These people are part of the strategy to attract workers to address the labour problem. These are people who are coming to study here in specialized fields at our universities and CEGEPs and who will fill jobs in the labour market. We want to welcome them to our regions, but right now, Ottawa is preventing us from doing so.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of housing has skyrocketed, and I want to thank the member for bringing up the housing crisis. In my riding of Victoria, people are struggling. We need affordable rentals. We need housing that has rent geared to income. We need more co-op housing. We need home ownership to be within reach.

After decades of inaction from Liberal and Conservative governments, investors and big corporations have taken over the market. Speculators continue to buy properties to renovate and resell quickly for a profit, outbidding families and driving up prices in communities across Canada.

Housing is a human right and the government's half measures are not working. Now we see that the Liberal's approach is not only too little, but also has multiple loopholes.

Does the member agree that instead of protecting wealthy speculators who drive up the cost of housing, the government should introduce a tax on flipping, while making significant investments to build truly affordable housing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern.

We absolutely need to focus on building social housing. We will have to find ways to fund it. I dream of seeing a new plan for figuring out how to maximize land use and build new housing across Canada. It is the challenge of the century.

We must ensure that everyone has access to affordable housing. One of the solutions for finding money is the fight against tax havens. That seems obvious to me. It is time to take action.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-8. It is my first time giving a speech in the House in the new year. It is not my first time on my feet but my first time speaking at length, so it is my first time speaking in the House since the omicron wave seriously took hold. I want to take a moment to recognize what a punch in the stomach it has felt like to Canadians across the country, many of whom had some hope that we were getting beyond the pandemic. When this wave came, I think many of them felt all of those many feelings we have been feeling over the past two years kind of condensed into a new wave of the pandemic.

I want to give special thanks to all the frontline workers we talked about at the beginning of the pandemic, who never went away and never stopped doing those important tasks even though the limelight shifted away from them.

Health care workers continue to labour in really difficult circumstances, and they are overworked, tired and under-resourced.

Teachers and child care workers have had to face the pandemic all the way through. In this particular wave, and I will speak to my own experience in Manitoba, they were having the challenges of remote learning and are now having to deal with full classrooms and students and colleagues who are getting sick, or they are getting sick themselves.

Grocery store workers are putting themselves at risk once again. As my colleague from Windsor West has rightly pointed out, some of the big grocery chains said that when another wave came they would bring back hero pay to recognize the risks workers are taking in order to help Canadians, but they have not stepped up to reinstitute that pay.

All of these things together are leading to a lot of outrage, and I am going to talk a bit about some of the things I find particularly outrageous today and that inform my work.

I am outraged when I get emails, as I did today, about another senior who has lost their life, not because of the pandemic directly but because they took the government at its word when it said it would be there to have their backs, would support them through the pandemic and told them to apply for help when they lost their job. They did. They applied for CERB.

Because the government could not figure out its own rules, and that is probably the most charitable interpretation, or because it did not care, it decided to claw back those benefits that were supposed to be for working seniors in need through the guaranteed income supplement. Not only did the government do that and not catch it before it happened, but the government was advised at least as early as May of 2021 that it was happening and it chose to do nothing about it. The government chose to do nothing about it.

One could say that the government did nothing about it until it happened, except that it happened in July and it still did nothing about it. The Liberals called an election and did nothing about it. They came back from the election and did nothing about it. It took weeks of persistently raising this in the House of Commons to get an announcement, and that announcement did not solve the problem because that money still is not in the pockets of seniors who are in dire need.

The money is not in the pocket of the senior I heard about today, the senior with type 2 diabetes who could no longer afford the food and medication they needed to be healthy and passed away. I have an email open in front of me about a couple from Mississauga who are in dire straits. The two of them are trying to live on $1,300 a month because their GIS payments are gone.

The government says not to worry and that it has a solution with a one-time payment in May or June. There are already seniors who are no longer living and who cannot receive that payment, and there will be more by May or June. That outrages me. It outrages me on the substance of the matter, because Canada should do better. It outrages me because it breaks the promise the Prime Minister made to people in this country that the government would be there for them.

Instead, on a principle of bureaucracy, the Liberals are not, because they could not figure out their internal systems, or they did not have the right lists or they were not sure about this or maybe needed to do that. This is after just proving to the country that when the political will exists they can roll out a program to millions of Canadians almost overnight.

Liberals expect us to believe that, for those seniors who were already receiving money from the government, already on a list, already in a system where we were paying them, they cannot find a way to get money into those seniors' hands so that they are not dying in the cold. It is not believable and it is shameful.

I am outraged about that. I am proud that people in Elmwood—Transcona sent me here to relay that message to the government. I am going to keep doing that until that money gets into the hands of seniors who can then get back into their homes and out of the jeopardy they are in because the government cannot be bothered to take on its own bureaucracy, which is telling it something that needs to be done cannot be done, when we all know that is not true.

That outrages me.

I am outraged that people during the pandemic were dying in personal care homes because of years of cuts, at the federal and provincial level, to health care. We know our system has been under-resourced. Those cuts did not come because Canada could not afford to do those things. Over the years that those cuts came to our health care system, the corporate tax rate in Canada went down from 28% to just 15%. That is a huge decrease. That is almost a 50% tax cut to the largest corporations in Canada, while our government was telling us it could not afford to pay its fair share of health care to the provinces.

That is shameful.

What is more shameful still is that we are two years into this pandemic and there has hardly been a long-term care centre in Winnipeg that has not had a COVID-19 outbreak. There has been no work done by the federal government to convene the provinces to talk about better national standards and funding those standards.

I am not talking about the federal government telling the provinces what to do. I am talking about convening them so they can talk about best practices, so that every Canadian can benefit from the best things our provincial governments are doing to serve Canadians in long-term care, and then ensuring the federal government is at the table to help resource those things.

That was the power of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am sorry to interrupt. Would the hon. member be able to move the microphone up? Interpretation is having a hard time. There is a lot of popping coming off of the microphone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am glad in principle that the government is looking at having some kind of tax for underused housing. However, I think it will be important to interrogate that seriously at committee, because initial analyses suggest that there are loopholes that we could drive trucks through in this legislation. There is a lot more we need to do to tackle the problems of the housing market, some things the Liberals themselves promised in the last election, like banning blind bidding. That was a platform commitment of the Liberal Party.

Why is that not here? What could they possibly be waiting for? Are house prices not high enough? Do they need to escalate faster for the Liberals to make good on their own election commitments? Give me a break. That stuff should at least be here.

We also know that we need a serious plan, not the national housing strategy they love to tout, because it is inadequate. We need to get more real units, and I am not talking about so-called affordable housing, which has a technical definition that really just means “high rent” for most people, rent they cannot afford.

We need to build housing with rent geared to income, and we need to explore non-market options, like co-ops and other things like it, so that we take the speculation out of enough of the housing market that people really can access housing. That would also help relieve cost pressures among people for whom home ownership is a real goal. It would be a larger group if prices came down, as it was not that long ago. That would help them out too by relieving demand in the housing market and helping to lower prices overall.

These are things that we really need to be doing. I look forward to having an intensive study at committee of this new proposed underused housing act. I think that is a good piece of parliamentary work. However, we are kidding ourselves if we think it is really going to change the fundamental trajectory of the Canadian housing market, not just in the last two years, as the Conservatives would have us believe, but over the last 20 years, during which prices have been going up consistently because we have had federal governments that, since the mid-nineties, have not come to the table with enough funding to build enough non-market housing to relieve serious pressure on the market. That absolutely needs to happen.

There is more money proposed for things we need, particularly rapid tests, and we are quite supportive of that. There are some questions, though. I did ask the Associate Minister of Finance about this earlier, and I was somewhat dismayed that he did not have an answer. In Bill C-8 there are proposals for money for rapid tests, and in a stand-alone bill, Bill C-10, the government proposed to spend money on rapid tests. Bill C-8 asks for $1.72 billion for rapid tests and Bill C-10 asks for $2.5 billion for rapid tests, and the Associate Minister of Finance and the government could not give a clear answer to whether it is asking for $4.2 billion combined, the $2.5 billion in Bill C-10 or the $1.7 billion in Bill C-8.

I think Canadians should know, and I think Parliament should expect to have some reliable reporting on those numbers as we go, because as we know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, not that long ago, said the government, when it came to tabling its public accounts, was considerably late and was an outlier among other G7 countries. I think the government really needs to get with the program. There has been a need for a considerable amount of public spending, but the fact that we need to spend is not a reason not to report well on what the money is being spent on and not to do it in a timely way. In fact, it becomes that much more important that the government reports well and in a timely fashion on its spending when so much money is going out the door and so quickly. There are certainly things to talk about in that regard.

Suffice it to say, while I am not impressed by the extent to which many of the things we need to do to rise to the moment are not in here, whether they are in facing the pandemic or the climate challenge, I am not of the view that this is a reason for things not to proceed. However, I really think the government needs to figure out how to rise to the occasion and move forward with a sense of urgency, particularly, to reiterate it one more time, the extent to which is has to internalize the sense of urgency required when it comes to seniors who have had their benefits clawed back by the government. They are not just losing income; they are also losing access to provincial programs in many cases. They were part of their support network and kept them housed, fed and alive. All of that has been called into jeopardy because of the government's refusal to act swiftly in May of last year when it knew that this was going to be a problem. This is something the government absolutely has to act on with urgency.

It also has to address all the people who are still out of work because of the pandemic. Let us not kid ourselves. We all know somebody, at least one person if not more, who is struggling to get back to the job they had or to get enough hours in a new job and who cannot support their family. The 40% cut to pandemic benefits was bad enough, going from $500 a week to $300 a week, but in addition to that, with the Canada worker lockdown benefit, the government made it way harder for people to access help. My office is hearing from people in Elmwood—Transcona and from people across the country who are trying to access this benefit at a time of incredible need and cannot access it. They are being told that it should take a matter of days for a response, but they have waited weeks and still have not gotten a response. The government had a system that was providing income support for a lot of people, and when it ended, the government was still providing support to about 900,000 people. What it was replaced with is not adequate to the task, both in terms of how much it delivers and in terms of the criteria that people have to navigate to access it.

As I said, Bill C-8 can certainly go to committee and there are things worth looking at, but this is not the kind of leadership we need at the moment. The government has to do more to rise to the occasion. I will continue to be here, as will my New Democratic colleagues, to press the government to rise to the occasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the overall assessment the member made when he talked about seniors. As a politician for over 30 years, I have witnessed many years of NDP governments at the provincial level in Manitoba and many years of Progressive Conservative governments, and I can tell the member that in the last five or six years, since the Prime Minister, his cabinet and my colleagues have been at work, we have done more to support seniors in real, tangible ways.

The member talked about corporate tax breaks. I would like to remind him that there were maybe six corporate tax breaks from the NDP in the Province in Manitoba while there was a need for funding in long-term care, which was the total responsibility of the NDP provincial government.

Does the member see any hypocrisy there? Would he not recognize that as a government we have been very progressive in providing for and being there for our seniors, because it is the right thing to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member what is different. In this case, we had seniors who were working to top up their guaranteed income supplement benefit, but they lost their job when the pandemic started. They were told to apply for help and that they would get some supplementary income to replace what they had lost. When they said it was a little more than they usually make, the government said not to worry and to just apply. It said, “We have your back; there's not going to be any penalty.”

Some seniors ended up fixing their car, some fixed their teeth and some paid bills that were in arrears. Then the time came to assess them for the guaranteed income supplement for next year, and without the government having told them, their pandemic benefit counted against them in the calculation of their GIS. This represents not only their GIS, but a bunch of other programs for which GIS enrolment is a precondition and that support them. The government just started clawing it back. The government knew for months that this was coming, but it did not care and did not do anything about it.

Now people are being evicted and some are dying. That is a huge difference. This has to do with the government and how it has managed its own internal bureaucracy, and it is costing lives. That has not happened before.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful, passionate, sincere speech my colleague just gave. We do not always agree on everything, but he spoke from the heart.

I think he and I have observed two facts. Any social worker or economist would agree that, regardless of the government's attempts to make us believe whatever it says by throwing numbers at us, seniors are getting poorer. Instead of helping the people who built Quebec and the rest of Canada, the people to whom we owe our quality of life, our freedom and our democracy, we are letting them get poorer. That is the first fact.

The second is that the rich are rapidly getting richer. The ultrarich are making even more money than before, plus they are hiding their money in tax havens.

In light of those two facts, I would like my hon. colleague to explain why this government is doing nothing for seniors and, to add insult to injury, why it is not tackling the tax haven problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I think we can do a lot more for seniors and for all Canadians who need support. This is not just about direct financial support. I am also talking about more funding to help the provinces upgrade their health care systems, for example. That can come from the federal government.

There is also the issue of tax loopholes and tax rates for large corporations and the wealthy. A few months ago we learned that 1% of Canadians own 25% of all wealth. That is not sustainable.

The government cannot fund all of the services Canadians need without more revenue. We have a serious problem when 1% of the population has this kind of wealth and does not contribute its fair share.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate having the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. I am really disappointed in the House today listening to the member for Winnipeg North talk about something that he clearly does not understand.

The reality is that a few days ago, a senior in this country was put into the ICU because they could not get their GIS after it was clawed back. It meant that a member of our community, of our country, could not get the medication for their type 2 diabetes and could not feed themselves in a way to stay healthy. They went into the ICU and last night they died. That is a human being, a senior in this country, who worked hard to build our country and did nothing wrong. Like every other working Canadian who lost their job, they applied for the only money they could to make ends meet. I really hope the government will listen to Campaign 2000, which is requesting, desperately, a small payment in advance so that seniors do not have to wait more months.

I am wondering if the member could talk about how long seniors have to wait for the government to take seriously the deaths among seniors that are due to its decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for North Island—Powell River for the all the work and advocacy she has undertaken on this file since we first found out about this.

The reality that is stark, which we are seeing very clearly, is that poverty kills. Poverty can kill people just as sure as the pandemic can. It is why it was so important to have a full economic response and financial response to the pandemic. That is why the New Democrats fought so hard for a benefit of $2,000 a month. It is why, given that we are clearly not out of the pandemic, it was wrong for the Liberals to cut that down by 40%. It was wrong for them to claw it back from seniors.

I do not know how long we will have to wait for the government to make this right. However, I know there are many seniors out there who cannot afford to wait any longer than they already have. The government needs to find a way to act on an urgent basis.

Campaign 2000 had two calls. One was for a direct emergency payment to affected seniors, and the other was for a housing fund to get the ones who have already been evicted or who are facing eviction rehoused or kept in their home. The government should do both. It needs to pick at least one so that we can get these seniors off the streets and somewhere safe. Then they can make it to a day when the government is finally ready to offer compensation.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech of my colleague from Winnipeg. There was one thing that he raised in that speech that I want to ask him some questions about.

He talked about the federal tax rate going from 28% to 15% at the same time as the federal government, under the Chrétien Liberals in 1992, 1994 and 1995, actually reduced the contribution from the federal government from 50% of health care funding down to its current level of 22%. Of course, that thrust a whole bunch of costs onto the provincial governments, which have to invest that money now, but it also ceded those tax points from 28% to 15%.

My hon. colleague over there from Elmwood—Transcona does not seem to like that idea. However, the issue is that it is supposed to allow those provinces that space to fill.

My colleague knows that health care costs have gone up in every province, yet our health care outcomes have not met the increase. We still have desperate need for better facilities, yet we are not getting great outcomes. Can he tell us what he thinks the solution to this should be?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the other decrease in the corporate tax rate from 22% to 15% happened under the Harper government, and that it did that while it reduced the escalator for federal funding to provinces for health care. Therefore, there is enough blame to go around between Liberals and Conservatives for the diminishing amount of money that goes out to the provinces.

Part of the solution, frankly, is the health accord model, in which the federal government brings provinces around the table to talk about best practices. I worked in the minister of health's office in Manitoba, and some of the things we saw the most success on were the five priority areas coming out of the 2004 health accord. This was because provinces decided what the priorities were and how to measure progress, and then they had federal money to meet those standards.

That is when we see progress: when we get together, plan and fund success. That is the promise the Liberals broke when they were elected in 2015 after running on a new health accord. Shame on them. That is the model we need to get back to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, as I recall, the question that was asked was how many hospitals have been built by the provinces as a result of federal funding. I perhaps would have said that was a foolhardy question: to ask how we are building hospitals in the middle of a pandemic. The monies that are being provided are to try to stopgap the challenges that the health care system is seeing right now.

However, I will answer his question. Yes, we are there to help provide support to the provinces and territories. Let us be honest as parliamentarians: The entire western world right now has a large baby boomer demographic going through. The idea that we will fix all issues in health care overnight is foolhardy, and the reality is that right now we are focused on making sure the health care system does not collapse.

As we get beyond the pandemic, we do have to talk about revitalization to strengthen the health care system in the days ahead.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and congratulate him on his efforts to learn French. He began his speech in French and he is getting better every day.

I noted several very interesting points in his speech that I would have liked to discuss. However, he ended by talking about small, or modular, nuclear reactors. I always get it wrong, but I think both terms can be used.

I find it interesting to hear the current Minister of Environment and Climate Change say that the government will not say no to new provincial projects involving this new technology. Meanwhile, just a few years ago, he himself was campaigning against that very same technology, particularly because of the danger toxic waste poses to the environment.

I would have liked to hear my colleague from Kings—Hants talk about the fight against tax havens and about seniors, but now I want to hear his comments on this technology. Does he really think it will help protect the environment by capping and reducing our greenhouse gas emissions?

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize but I am going to answer in English because it is a direct question, and I want my answer to be very clear.

Yes, as a member of Parliament, I absolutely believe that SMR technology is going to be crucial for us to reduce emissions associated with the production of oil and gas, for us to meet our environmental targets, and to create economic prosperity in this country.

I am not a member of the cabinet. I am a member of Parliament, and my job is to bring forward the ideas that I think are important. I would suspect that although my colleague opposite might agree with absolutely everything her party stands for, perhaps there are other areas where she can think outside the box. I cannot speak for our party on this issue, but it is where I stand as a parliamentarian.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the pandemic continues on and that it is getting harder for families to make ends meet. Families are struggling, yet the government has cut back supports and in fact has clawed back support from seniors. The Liberals have not gone after their corporate friends. They have actually gone after seniors and families trying to make ends meet.

I am wondering where my colleague is on the current cutbacks that have been made by the government, and whether he is willing to at the very least give a one-time payment in the interim to seniors who have been impacted by GIS cutbacks, some of whom are actually ending up on the streets. As our colleague for North Island—Powell River indicated, we actually lost a senior due to poverty yesterday.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre is certainly a passionate advocate every time she is on her feet in this House.

I have a number of seniors in my riding, including those I would consider vulnerable, and I am proud of the work our government has done. Let me address the question first as it relates to the GIS clawback.

The government, in the economic update, said that we absolutely will be addressing that issue. It is a $700-million measure that the government is putting forward. I hope the member opposite will be going back and telling her constituents that the government will do this. With regard to the timeline, I am not the Minister of Finance, but I am happy to say that I know this is a priority for our government, and it will be addressed.

However, let us go back. On the old age security increase and guaranteed income supplement increase, we have increased the thresholds at which people have to start paying taxes, which also supports low-income seniors. The government is certainly proud of its record, and we have no reason to be disappointed, because we have been there for seniors throughout.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, at the end of the speech the member said he did not have enough time to cover everything he wanted to cover. I would like to give him an opportunity to speak on the so-called blue economy and how it would affect his province and the province I come from. It is so important.

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

Madam Speaker, I did spend time in Newfoundland this fall. What a beautiful part of the country. I know the member has one of the best areas from coast to coast.

The blue ocean economy that the member mentioned is extremely important. There is a $1.5-trillion opportunity that exists in ocean technology and innovation. We had the opportunity as the Atlantic caucus to engage with Kendra MacDonald, CEO of Canada's ocean supercluster. They are doing tremendous work, and I know it matters to that member's riding. We need to continue that work through the superclusters, whether it be the automation one in Ontario or the protein industries supercluster in the west. Those five superclusters are doing tremendous work, and we need to continue to support them.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my good friend from Kings—Hants about some of the statistics he quoted, including the one about the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Surely he has some better numbers than that, because that is clearly not the case when we look at the country as a whole and when we look at the nature of what he is talking about here.

The member said Conservatives need to pick a lane. Which lane are we in as far as overspending by $560 billion goes? The Parliamentary Budget Officer says $176 billion had nothing to do with COVID. Money has been spent on COVID, which we have supported while we get through this pandemic, but could the member please tell us why the government had to spend $176 billion extra on things that had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic?

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

Madam Speaker, let me congratulate the member for Calgary Centre. He is very articulate, and I really appreciate his opportunities and interventions in the House.

I will say that I was quoting, and he will have to go back into Hansard to see if I misrepresented. I was quoting that Canada has the best net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and that number is quoted directly from Finance Canada. If he takes issue with it, I would encourage the member to raise it in his committee.

What I find ironic about the Conservative Party is that when I ask the question back as to what program they would not have supported, there is very rarely any answer as to what that would be.

To answer the member's question, the pandemic is front and centre in terms of the issues that the government is tackling, but we have other issues to tackle, such as reconciliation, climate change and continuing to support different innovations in the economy, as we were just talking about. The idea that the government could only spend on the pandemic and not on other priorities is certainly not the way we see it on this side of the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, although I really did appreciate the references to the provincial chief medical officer, Dr. Kieran Moore, a good friend of mine from Kingston, I fail to see the connection the member was trying to make between what those medical professionals were saying and the state of the pandemic we are in now.

I do not think the member is incorrect at all when he says the pandemic is moving into an endemic state and that COVID will be with us for a while to come, but that is what this bill is specifically about. It is about starting to put resources into places so we can deal with the endemic state that the pandemic is entering into. For example, we are making sure we give schools, through the provinces, money to improve their ventilation systems and we are making sure we help provinces with their proof of vaccination certificates.

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

Madam Speaker, the Province of British Columbia was able to handle its vaccination certificates just fine. That clause in this bill is a political clause more than anything else. We already have the technology in every province to implement that system. What we need to look at now is when we can move past that so that people can get their lives back to normal.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The Bloc Québécois is very concerned that the government has remained silent about the health transfers Quebec and the provinces have called for. As my colleague talked about in more depth earlier, the federal government has been failing in its duty to transfer sufficient health care funding to the provinces for a very long time. Now this problem has caught up with us.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the fact that the government absolutely does not want to hear about immediate health transfers with no strings attached for the provinces and Quebec so that we can finally deal with this urgent situation.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

I agree with some of what she was saying. We need to let the provinces do what they want when it comes to managing our health care and education systems. The federal government needs to respect the provinces' jurisdictions.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from the Conservative bench.

Many aspects of the bill, particularly the sections related to housing and pandemic relief for schools, are in fact good measures. However, what I am concerned about is where the government has not put the resources.

There are many things in the bill that, of course, have some good aspects to it, but there are many that do not. One of the biggest aspects that I believe is missing, and that I hope the member can comment on, is related to making sure that there is support and resources for enforcement to ensure that our health care providers across the country are truly protected, and also to ensure that we provide the resources, as the member from the Bloc just mentioned, for more support for the provinces.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points, and I thank the member for Edmonton Griesbach for the question.

I believe that the Government of Canada should not be choosing which provincial program it wants to support. Provinces are better off making those decisions on the ground. They know where to allocate their resources most effectively.

Secondly, on housing, the government could have done what the House agreed to do in June, which is to ban foreign buyers, and not make a complicated taxation system that will have very little to no effect on the role of foreign buyers in our market already.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that the member promised he would get to the bill and he did not, he did address the issue of science and the evolution of science. In particular, he used an example about masks.

The member would have us believe that because some people questioned the use of masks in the beginning, and as we have evolved through our understanding of the virus we have now come to the conclusion that certain masks, i.e. cloth masks, are not as good as others, that somehow means those people were right.

What the member is basically trying to do is say that science is the process of proving that because we claimed it in the beginning, when it is not. Science is a process of evolving through learning about the disease, learning about how it is transmitted, and learning about how masks work.

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

Madam Speaker, the member had a very confrontational tone in the process of posing the question. I am not sure if we actually disagree, very much, on what the process of science is. What I said is what I think he said at the end, which was that the process of scientific inquiry requires asking questions, challenging received wisdom, experimenting and putting forward hypotheses, and then that empirically grounded process of questioning leads to new conclusions.

I made a point in my remarks about the importance of that process and of legitimate empirical questioning of received authority. At the time the member refers to, I was looking at the science on masks. I took a bit of a risk as a member of Parliament by saying that I thought our public health authorities were wrong in their advice not to wear masks. I said that at the time, which was maybe a bit of a risk, but I read the empirical evidence and I thought that it was an important thing to say. It turned out that the thing I said was correct. It shows the value of empirically grounded questioning.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, to be honest, I am not sure where my colleague was going with all that. He said a lot of things in his speech that I find problematic, including the fact that he is questioning the science here.

I am not sure that we are all ready to say that people are free to think differently and to believe that what science is telling us now is wrong. He suggested that people have been imprisoned for disagreeing with the government.

I find that freedom is a convenient excuse for a lot of things, and we are seeing that in the streets right now. Is my colleague saying that the health measures that have been put in place to combat the virus are not legitimate?

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

Madam Speaker, there were many things I could respond to in that question, but I probably will not have time for them.

The member was sort of saying that freedom is used in a lot of different ways these days, and that freedom could be used in this way and that way. My point is that there is this space for human freedom that should go beyond the things that I like. I might say that people should get vaccinated, but that does not mean that I should force that view on other people. That does not mean that I should try to coerce people by saying they should be fired, for example.

There is a legitimate space for individuals to say that, for whatever reason or through whatever process, they have come to a different conclusion. I believe we have to retain the idea of classic liberalism that individuals should be able to make choices about themselves and their own private spheres without being threatened with job losses or other consequences for coming to different conclusions.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's speech was a welcome attempt to find some place where we could have a conversation without yelling at each other. We need to find more occasions like that. I have had similar conversations about vitamin D, and wonder why we cannot, after we start being out of the pandemic, open up a space where we could provide the evidence and convince each other that we need vaccinations, but maybe we need other things as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind words. I look forward to hopefully being able to see her in Ottawa at some point soon and to continue that conversation.

I have also launched a great new podcast called Resuming Debate, which is entirely dedicated to this idea of civil conversations, substantively with other members about issues. I encourage everybody to download it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As I go to resuming debate, I will, unfortunately, have to interrupt. The member will be able to continue his speech when this is before the House again.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I hope that podcast is not going to be monetized; otherwise, the member might find himself in a slight conflict of interest having just used this floor to advertise it.

I realize that I am going to be cut off, so maybe I will further conclude on the question I had for the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

What I was getting at was not that I have a difference of opinion with him in terms of allowing science to take its course, but I have a problem when people start saying, “The answer is vitamin D”, or “The answer is that masks don't work”. When people are saying this stuff without having any kind of scientific background to support it, that is when it is problematic.

It is like me saying to you, Madam Speaker, that it is four o'clock, and you say “No, it's not four o'clock”. Then, five minutes later I say, “It's four o'clock,” and you say, “No, it's not four o'clock”. Then I say it again, and you say “Yes, it's four o'clock now,” and I say, “See, I told you I was right.”

[An hon. member]

No, that is not the same.

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

That does not make any sense.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, it is. My point—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would remind members that they will have a chance for questions and comments, maybe not today, but they will still have a chance for questions and comments. I would ask them to hold on and let the hon. member do his speech because he is limited in time this evening.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe I will be invited on the podcast and we can have this conversation there.

The point that I was trying to make was that, when we look for those answers, we have to look for them through the proper processes and get those answers through the scientific process. What I fear in what I heard in the member's speech is that he is trying to validate some claims that were made previously that ended up becoming true and saying they were right all along. I just do not agree with that.

I do not agree with a number of the comments that I heard today. I do not agree with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon who said that the part of the bill that talks about supporting the proof of vaccination is somehow a political tool. I encourage him to go and talk to the Premier of Ontario, who is more than willing to take assistance from the federal government in order to make these programs successful and make sure that they work. The member then completely downplayed the situation by saying, “Any province can develop an app, show an app, etc.”, as if to suggest that it is that simple. The reality is that it is not and we know that.

Just last night, I walked into the Rexall at the corner of Metcalfe and Nepean Street and there was a gentleman who, I am going to assume, was one of the protesters. He was holding a phone, without a mask on, in front of the face of the clerk saying, “You can't make me wear a mask”, and essentially challenging this individual. I think it is extremely problematic.

Therefore, when the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon talks about—

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member is inferring that I am opposed to wearing masks when my question had to do with vaccination status in—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is debate and I would ask the member to hold that for his comments. There is very limited time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that, when it comes to the proof of vaccination and the resources that it will require, it is a lot more than just the “app” that the member said every province already had. It is about putting the right supports and mechanisms in place to support provinces and territories, the supports that they are asking us for and that they want in order to help them get through this.

I recognize that I will have to use the rest of my time tomorrow to conclude my remarks, and I look forward to talking about this. There is a lot in this bill. In particular, I want to talk about the housing tax that relates to non-Canadians, non-residents and the member for Calgary Centre's obsession with trying to conflate it with other issues that the Conservative Party has been touting around for the last few years about Liberals and housing. I look forward to the opportunity to do that tomorrow.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have 16 and a half minutes the next time this matter is before the House.

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

[Carol Hughes, NDP, The Assistant Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader had 16 minutes left for his speech.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I note that you were in the Chair when I last spoke to this, so I am sure you are sitting on the edge of your seat waiting to hear the remaining 16 minutes of my speech on this topic. I appreciate that some of my colleagues from across the way are as well.

When we last spoke to this, I was referencing the fact that I was concerned about some of the discussion I was hearing from across the way, in terms of the government's motive for this particular piece of legislation. Last evening I mentioned that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon claimed the objective of helping provinces and territories with proof of vaccinations across the country was somehow just a political tool, because provinces and territories were able to handle that on their own.

My issue with that was that for some reason there always has to be a hyperpartisan and political reason that is put forward by the other side as opposed to, perhaps, just the willingness to want to help Canadians and to move forward with things. My tone yesterday evening certainly was one of skepticism based on the fact that this narrative continually comes from across the way.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon specifically said that this was just a tool to help fuel the partisan fire. As a matter of fact, earlier in those comments he talked about the fact that this pandemic was now moving into an endemic stage and that we have to come to terms with it. I thought it was an interesting discussion. He was basically accusing the government of insisting on driving fear by bringing forward motions or bills such as this one in an attempt to somehow distract from the fact that this was moving into another stage of the pandemic.

I agree with the member that this pandemic, which we have been going through for two years, is reaching the endemic stage, and I agree totally with his comments that we will be dealing with COVID-19 for quite a while. There is not going to be that one defining moment when COVID-19 suddenly does not exist anymore. We are not going to wake up one morning and just have no more coronavirus. That is not going to happen.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan spoke at length about the evolution of science. He would know that the evolution of science, and the scientists out there, are pretty much saying the same thing: that this coronavirus will enter an endemic state and it will be here with us for some time to come.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was saying that this bill was somehow trying to fuel the anti-freedom movement that he proclaims the government is hell-bent on. When I look through the various parts of this bill, I look at it completely differently. If members look at the actual items that are proposed in this piece of legislation, they could not help but see that this is about preparing for the future, endemic part of coronavirus.

We talk about procuring millions of rapid tests for provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Millions have already been supplied, but we are talking about ensuring that millions more can get throughout the country so that the capacity is there to continue rapid testing. We know that, because coronavirus will be with us for quite some time, this is going to be one way that we can try to control it as best we can: by finding out who has it and when, and helping to protect people and prevent the spread of it.

Another item in this is protecting children by making sure that we invest in proper ventilation in schools throughout the country. Elementary schools and high schools would primarily be in those categories. Again, going back to the science that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is so willing to tout, we know that the science is saying that this airborne virus moves very quickly through indoor settings that do not have proper ventilation.

As we prepare for coronavirus to be with us for a while, why would we not start investing in having the proper ventilation systems in schools? Why would we not help provinces with that? Everybody knows we do not have jurisdiction over education, but we can certainly help from a resource perspective in providing the necessary tools to make schools safer. This is not about fearmongering. This is about providing resources right now so that for years and months to come, however long this takes, schools would be in a better position to fight coronavirus.

We talk about support for workers in businesses through changes to CEBA and EI, which are taking care of people when they have to take time off work. My wife and I have a small business in Kingston. We have an employee who had to take two days off as he waited for the results of his COVID-19 test. Because the province of Ontario has three days of sick pay, businesses across the province of Ontario can help support those employees who have to be off work through the WSIB program. At least in Ontario, that is the case.

This is about continuing to extend supports to businesses and individuals throughout the country as they are faced with dealing with COVID-19 and what is being requested of them. The truth is that there are a lot of employees out there who would probably say they feel fine. They know they just had a test, but they want to go back to work and not take the time off. We know that from a societal perspective it is better to hold them back a couple of days until they get that result before reintroducing them into their workplace. Should we not, from a societal perspective, be supporting those individuals and those businesses?

There are also a host of tax credits that would benefit Canadians, including the ventilation improvement tax credit for small business, which is, again, about helping the ventilation of stores and businesses. I think of my riding of Kingston and the Islands and the downtown area. It is one of the first downtown areas in the country. It is very old, with a lot of limestone buildings that are two hundred or three hundred years old. They do not have the best ventilation systems. These are businesses that have had to close for weeks and months on end at times. Rather than forcing them through some kind of regulation to increase ventilation, why not provide support so they have a fighting chance of surviving? There has also been talk about teachers and farmers and increasing supports to them.

We know that the bill would implement a national tax on value-added, non-resident, non-Canadian owned residential real estate in Canada. I would like to talk about this one for a moment because the member for Calgary Centre's speech yesterday would lead one to believe that this tax was going to be applied to everybody.

I said that he knows this is about non-residents and non-Canadians who have vacant land or unused residential buildings. He agreed to that and concurred with me that I was right, but he then went on to say it is just another added level of taxation and that we are adding another level to the municipal taxes that exist through property taxes, as if to conflate the two issues. He was acknowledging that I was right in my claim and that he had not provided all the information, but then he tried to conflate the two issues again in the same answer to that same question.

This is one of the things that makes me the most frustrated when I have to debate with Conservatives in this place. Time and time again, I find it is as though, as long as we can slightly alter the narrative, even if it does not resemble the truth, it is okay as long as it results in political gain. Therefore, I come back to the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon when he, in his discourse, was doing exactly what I am now indicating that I am concerned about.

The problem with this is that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon did not come here, look at the elements of the bill, and say that we forgot seasonal tourism and that is one thing he is concerned about. He could have said that he has a number of seasonal tourism operators who may have made a lot of money in the summer, but who are not now, and as a result, they are missing some of the benefits from Bill C-2, and he would really like this bill to dig into that in committee.

My point is that, rather than coming forward and highlighting some of the challenges in the bill and identifying the problems so we can make it better, which is the role of the opposition, he came forward and tried to suggest that this is more about antifreedom and continuing to take freedoms away from people.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan started his speech yesterday by promising that he was only going to talk about freedoms and the lack thereof for a couple of minutes and then get back to the bill, which he never did. Members can go back and review Hansard. He spoke the whole 10 minutes on those two issues, and I sat here in silence.

I thought of getting up on a point of order for relevance at one point, but I know that really never results in anything, and of course, I do not want to take away from the member's ability to run a 10-minute continuous clip on Facebook later, or on his podcast—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I think we need to question the relevance of my colleague's comments. I would appreciate it if he would get back to the matter at hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

What the hon. member just said is not really a point of order but more a matter of debate, so I would ask him to wait. There are just under four minutes left in the speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was just picking up where the previous speaker had left off as it relates to relevancy.

In any event, at the core of this, it comes back to what a lot of my debates in the House are about. I actually can say that I really appreciated, although it was not under the right heading, what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan debated last night, and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said the same thing. I do not think that this is the bill under which to be having that debate with him, and I disagree with him fundamentally on some of the ways in which he is trying to make linkages.

Nonetheless, I appreciated the discourse because at least it came from a place of trying to challenge ideas and the way that we move forward. Despite the fact that I disagree with it, I see it as being more productive than just coming in here and saying that the government has failed here, here and here, and that it is trying to lock down our lives and our freedoms and so on and so forth, and therefore this bill sucks. That is really what I hear a lot of the time, and what I have heard for six years. I would implore my colleagues across the way to genuinely look at examples where we can fix this bill. I will be the first to lend my voice to that.

I mentioned seasonal tourism a few minutes ago. There were some unfortunate consequences to some of the supports that came along previously. One is that there are business owners out there who plan an entire year for three or four months of business. This is in a lot of tourism businesses, and seasonal tourism businesses in particular, of which I have a number in my riding. The problem is that sometimes, in the way that we calculate things, we base it on the last 90 or 120 days or whatever it might be.

In the middle of September, if we tell people that they have to qualify based on the last 120 days, but they had to employ people for an entire year, and their revenue was not significantly lost during that short time, but over the whole year they saw a 60% or 70% revenue decrease, we are not capturing them. I would suggest, then, that we have work to do in terms of correcting and making sure that the supports are getting to the business owners who need them. Therefore, I hope that when this bill gets to the point of going to committee, this is one of the issues that can be looked concerning CEBA and helping some of those businesses, particularly in the hardest-hit sectors.

I recognize that my time is coming to a close. I know the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is very disappointed by that, but we can perhaps pick this up on his podcast later on.

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

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for referencing my podcast, Resuming Debate, which people can download on all available podcast platforms. He might be so lucky as to be a guest one of these days. I do enjoy my exchanges with him on Twitter, especially the last one we had, of which I will not identify the ratios involved, because I do not want to cause too much pain across the way.

I did want to talk about the issue of rapid tests, because Conservatives have been raising the importance of rapid tests. Of course, rapid tests are a tool that was available to us long before vaccinations were available, and today we are recognizing that vaccination is an important tool, but that people still can get COVID-19 if they are vaccinated. We have some examples of colleagues in that situation. We recognize the importance of rapid tests.

The government was very late to be talking about or recognizing the value of rapid tests. Now there has been a shift in just the last few weeks in the way it talks about them, and I would say that is a welcome shift. We welcome the government eventually coming to recognize some of the things we have been saying in the official opposition for a long time.

In my province of Alberta, we do have an opportunity for people who are not vaccinated to still be able to access restaurants if they have had a rapid test. Does the member think a reasonable alternative for people, in the context of the cross-border mandate and other issues, would be to have a rapid test that shows they are COVID negative?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would encourage the member to recognize that it is not the number of one's Twitter likes that matters; it is perhaps more the content that is put out there.

Nonetheless, to his questions specifically about rapid tests, this government delivered. I know I can speak at least of Ontario, the province I am from. This government delivered millions of rapid tests to the provinces. How the provinces choose to use those, when they choose to deploy them, where they choose to store them and how they choose to distribute them is completely up to them. In terms of his question about another alternative in restaurants in his home province of Alberta, I would suggest he talk to Premier Kenney about that.

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I guess it would not be a question and answer period without a question about health transfers coming from the Bloc, so I can appreciate that. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, this government has provided eight out of every 10 dollars related to COVID supports. We have worked with provinces and delivered money and resources to provinces when the provinces have asked.

I am unaware of a time that a province has asked for a significant support related to dealing with COVID-19 when the federal government was not there to support them. I know the Bloc Québécois has a particular issue with health transfers by and large at the highest level, that one annual turnover of a payment, but to suggest that, because we are in a pandemic right now and the federal government has not increased health supports, the federal government is not interested in helping provinces, is absolutely incorrect.

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for bringing that up.

To be completely honest, this is an issue that I am not very much aware of, so I appreciate his bringing that issue up here. I hope that he or his colleagues have the opportunity to bring it up at committee when this bill goes to committee, and I look forward to learning more about it when it comes back. I do thank him for providing a concern relevant to this bill, and I am looking forward to advancing some kind of change with respect to it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Kingston and the Islands for his speech.

One of the elements of this bill includes a commitment of about $100 million in budget 2021 to provide transfers back to farmers in backstop provinces, including his own here in Ontario, particularly for those farmers who are not able to move outside with the different technologies. I know that the member resides in an urban area, but he would have rural areas and the agriculture heartland around him in southeastern Ontario.

Can the member opposite talk about how important it is to make sure that those farmers have that benefit coming back to them and of course incentivize them to adopt new technologies to reduce emissions on farms, which is going to help our long-term competitiveness?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for that question.

Yes, it is absolutely critical that we provide supports and resources to farmers. Although I might be from an urban riding, I certainly depend on rural Canada to feed myself and my family and my friends and neighbours. It is important that we have the necessary tools in place. It is important that we help farmers prepare for the future and for new technologies that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

With regard to greenhouse gas emissions, this government has been very clear since day one that we are not going to put the burden squarely on one person or another. We want to attack this from a holistic, societal perspective when it comes to dealing with our greenhouse emissions. Will we be there for farmers in this regard? Yes, we will, just as we will be there for small businesses in urban settings and larger businesses as they look to make this transition.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the contribution from the member for Kingston and the Islands.

The member opposite mentioned in his speech that he is open to potential solutions or ideas to improve the bill before us, and one that I would throw to him is in regard to travel and tourism.

Would the member support relaxing some of the travel regulations that are in place so that international visitors could be allowed into this country, which would stimulate economies like his and mine, areas that have a significant reliance on international visitors?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing that I want more than for all travel restrictions to be gone throughout the entire world.

My riding depends on tourism and visitors, but I think it would be extremely problematic for me, as a non-expert in the field of pandemics and medicine generally, to comment or suggest that this is what we need to do right now.

We rely on the experts to advise us at various times on the best course of action. If we have a problem with the information that we are getting from the experts because we do not believe them, maybe that is a different discussion, but in the meantime we have people we trust and depend on to provide us with information so that we can make the best decisions on behalf of Canadians, and if those include travel restrictions, then I will support those recommendations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I stand again with a very heavy heart, as I did a few days ago, to speak on behalf of my constituents, who are going through an incredibly terrible time right now because of the unpeaceful protests that are taking place on the residential streets of downtown Ottawa.

I have to say that I was so disappointed to see the Conservative members standing outside and cheering these protesters who are taking peace away from people who live in this community.

I am going to very quickly read an email that I received from one of my constituents. She wrote, “I am again horrified seeing our holy Jewish Star of David sported on jackets, desecrated by anti-vaxxers, which, along with the swastikas on flags, is terrifying for me and unspeakable for anyone who cares.”

Let us give them back their peace and end this protest.

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

Madam Speaker, I have said many times that there were acts, some of which the member just outlined, that have to be dealt with. Those individuals have to be held responsible for those actions. If criminal charges are necessary, they should be charged criminally and the law should be enforced. We support that.

However, the member opposite completely ignores how we actually got to this point. There are people who are taking time and money out of their own lives to travel across the country, in some cases, to try to get the government to listen to them. These are people from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, who feel the government has left them behind and has no care in the world for them. That is unfortunate, because they have a valid argument. Yes, there are people who need to be called out for their wrong actions, but to ignore the message that is being sent is a failure on the government's part.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague started off today talking about how much the steps the government has taken to help Canadians have cost, and I agree with him. What I disagree with him on is the fact that the New Democrats will always say that we should be supporting Canadians to get through this pandemic and we should continue to support Canadians as this pandemic carries on.

One of the things I struggle with is that he and his party voted with the government, with the Liberals, against a wealth tax to make revenue, to have that be more balanced.

Why did he vote with the Liberals? Why did the Conservatives stand with the Liberals again against a wealth tax?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's work on the committees we have sat on. The contributions she makes are greatly appreciated. I have learned a lot from her.

The government does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. The government is spending more than it ever has. However, what is actually going right at this exact moment? There is a massive housing bubble. Inflation is at a 20-plus-year high. Veterans are still waiting in line for their services. Indigenous communities are still waiting for clean water. We need to see results from the government. Increased spending is not a badge of honour if there are no results that follow.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to go off on a bit of a tangent because something has been nagging at me since this morning.

I am sure my colleague knows that the survival of French in Quebec and Canada is a big challenge right now. Last spring, the Conservatives even voted in favour of a Bloc motion recognizing that Quebec is a nation whose only official language is French. That is quite an important symbol.

The government, though, is sending all the wrong messages. For one thing, it appointed a unilingual anglophone Governor General, and this week, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, a department that is key to the survival of French, held a press conference in English only.

Yesterday we learned that the new interim leader of the Conservative Party does not speak French. In other words, the new leader of Canada's official opposition is unable to understand one-quarter of the country's population. Does my colleague feel that sends the wrong message?

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know there is a general attitude around relevance, but we did see, in questions to my friend, basically a number of members making S.O. 31s instead of asking questions that were in any way germane to the debate. I wonder if you could make a ruling or come back to the House and advise us of the appropriate parameters, because it seems to me that talking about someone's facility in a language is totally unrelated to the topic of debate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will certainly take this into consideration. However, the hon. member is well aware that there is a margin of flexibility for individuals to be able to make comments. They do not necessarily need to ask a question. A member can make a comment if they wish. It is all part of the debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite talking about some of the concerns of his constituents, and I want to take this opportunity to talk about some of the concerns that my constituents are facing right now daily because of the unpeaceful, unlawful protest that is taking place.

For example, I just received an email from a gentleman who wrote:

My wife and I live about 10 blocks west of Parliament Hill, and while not in the thick of it, we are close enough to be continually impacted by the protesters' activities. Besides the continuous blaring of horns, we are completely disgusted by the actions of these protesters. They are rude, aggressive and intimidating in the local stores and indoor spaces. One of the nearby parking lots seems to be used as a massive urinal. Insults and firecrackers have been hurled at people wearing masks who are simply passing by. I'm sure that you all have heard these stories and more on the news.

That is the impact on my community. This protest needs to end now.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member that, just like we do for those who are delivering speeches in the House, the questions and the speeches should be related to the actual debate that is before the House. I just want to remind the hon. member to ensure that his questions are relevant to the discussion that is before the House.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for those comments. I do not believe there was a question there, necessarily, but obviously everyone in this chamber supports the right to peaceful protest in Canada. To the extent that a protest moves beyond that, obviously again, we all support the proper measures being taken.

I do not live in the member's riding, of course, so I cannot comment on the specifics of what has been seen, but I think all of us in the House are on the same page in that respect.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it sounds like my hon. colleague and I have likely heard many similar things in our own ridings.

Throughout the course of the pandemic, I heard from many business owners in my riding that the programs brought forward had rigid criteria. Many of them were falling through the cracks and were not able to access some of the support services. Specifically, tourist camps and seasonal businesses had a lot of difficulty and, as the member mentioned, a lot of new businesses as well were having trouble getting off the ground. I would agree wholeheartedly with the member's characterization there.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji, and qujannamiik to the member from northern Ontario. I am glad to say that I am from a more northern territory, and that the information the member has shared is drastically worse in the north. According to a 2017 statistic, 76% of Inuit over the age of 15 from all over the north suffer from food insecurity. Having said that, many of the other statistics show that there is already a lot of food insecurity across Canada.

These people need help, not more cuts for the working people who are losing their income and paying more for their bills. Why do you want to make their lives even harder?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member needs to address comments through the Speaker and not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Kenora, a brief answer please.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to engage with the member for Nunavut in the chamber. I would like to congratulate her on her election and welcome her to this place. She made a very important point of not spending more or less, but spending more efficiently and spending smarter.

Over the past few years we have seen each year that the government has increased funding for Nutrition North, which is the flagship program to deal with food insecurity in the north, yet each year, as the member noted, food insecurity is getting worse. The government is spending more and getting worse results. It is certainly time for a change.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to yet another positive piece of legislation that I would encourage all members of the House to support. It is going to be interesting. I am expecting that members from the New Democrats, the Bloc and the Green Party will support this piece of legislation. I hope I am not being too presumptuous in the hope that we will get that support.

The interesting dynamic at play here is going to be how the Conservative Party will vote on this legislation. One member says “against”, and that is my fear because if they wanted to listen to what their constituents had to say, I believe they would be supportive of this legislation. I will not be surprised if they vote against it. After all, the very first piece of legislation that we introduced after the election was Bill C-2, which ensured that we could continue the ongoing supports for Canadians from every region of our country. Think of small businesses and the lockdowns, and the financial support that the Government of Canada continued to provide so that we would be in a better position to get out of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I was surprised that the Conservative Party of Canada voted against that legislation. I do not understand it. On one hand they talk about the importance of small businesses, but when it came down to supporting small businesses, they voted against Bill C-2. Here is a bill in which they could redeem themselves, at least in part, by getting behind this legislation and supporting it. I listened to a couple of speeches this morning and they highlight some issues—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry I have to interrupt, but there is a lot of feedback coming from the other side of the House. I would ask members, if they have thoughts about questions or comments, to jot them down so that they do not forget them. They will have an opportunity to ask not five minutes' worth of questions, but 10 minutes' worth of questions after the hon. member finishes his speech.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if the opposition would like, I would give leave so there could be unlimited questions and answers, as opposed to 10 minutes.

The point is that the legislation before the House today is solid, good legislation that should be supported by all members. The Deputy Prime Minister, the cabinet and government members in particular have fed into this legislation some initiatives that each of us should be supporting. I would like to highlight a few of them.

We often hear about taxation. There is an incorporation of some taxation policy within this legislation. The legislation also talks about ventilation expenses. Those that would qualify under a tax credit would improve the quality of the air we are breathing.

There is a good clause that ensures that we deal with housing. We had a member this morning talk about the cost of housing. In this legislation, we are putting into place a 1% annual tax for those individuals who are buying up condos, apartments and houses with no intention of living in them. They have no intention of renting them out. The people who are non-resident, non-Canadians are now going to pay a 1% annual tax on these. When the Conservatives talk about doing something on housing, this is doing something on the housing issue.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You are doing nothing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, millions of dollars in taxes is significant, I would suggest to the member. However, will Conservatives oppose that? We need to remember that this is the Conservative Party that opposed the 1% tax we put on Canada's wealthiest a few years back. What will Conservatives do with this tax?

We have supported our schools. They want to improve their ventilation systems, so there is better air quality for school children in the different regions of our country. We have support for our provinces and territories in regard to proof of vaccination in this legislation. We have support for rapid testing. Canadians are interested in receiving rapid testing.

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

A little too late.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. Members need to be careful with heckling. They could be embarrassed by some of the things they heckle across the way.

I remember Conservatives at one point jumping from their seats and hollering from the skies, saying, “We want rapid tests.”

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Two years ago.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it was two years ago, as one member points out.

The federal government acquired well over 100 million tests. As of December, 2021, most of those tests that we purchased long ago were not being used. When we had the COVID-19 variant and the demand started to pick up, we, as a government, purchased over 100 million additional tests.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, many members in the House might have questions and comments for the hon. member. Many of us are waiting until the question and answer period for that. I would ask you to consider the importance of ensuring that those who are speaking have a chance to do so, and that those who ask questions have a chance to do so after the speech is done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I greatly appreciate the hon. member raising that. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, I would ask the official opposition members to please hold on to their thoughts, questions and comments, and not to think out loud. It is interrupting the debate in the House. I hope they will ensure that they adhere to that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has 13 and a half minutes remaining.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, how quickly time flies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his maiden speech. I hope we have a lot of opportunity in the future to hear him speak again and not be muzzled like the rest of his colleagues. A lot of the back-and-forth with my hon. colleague is good-natured, despite his rather dysfunctional relationship with the truth.

This is a serious and non-partisan question for my colleague. There is new spending in this bill. New spending is required to go through Treasury Board processes. The departmental results that came out yesterday show that one out of every four programs put forward by the government have not gone through the required Treasury Board processes.

Would he identify which in this bill is the 25% that has not gone through the required legitimate Treasury Board processes?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, after listening to the member for the past two days, it has been quite enlightening to hear that everything is just fine and dandy, thank you very much. It has been a revelation to hear how wonderful his party's programs are and how they leave no one behind.

Basically, what is everyone complaining about?

There seems to be no nuance here. He was talking about bacon two days ago. It was so suspicious that I was wondering whether this could be the next government sponsorship scheme.

How are we supposed to believe that we are socially progressive when the main universal support program for seniors, namely old age security, available to people age 65 and over—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are some members, in particular in the opposition benches, who would portray that the sky is falling, that it is nothing but doom and gloom. There is a bias to make everything look terrible. From my point of view, I see the glass as half full. I see the things that this government has achieved.

Being a parliamentarian for over 30 years, I appreciate and value what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short time span, especially if we factor in a pandemic. If anyone wants to debate the issue of seniors, given the background work that we have done on seniors and that we continue to do today, I would welcome opportunities to do so wherever possible on that issue. That is how confident I am in terms of the things that we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, how completely out of touch does the hon. member have to be to practically dislocate his shoulder patting himself and the Liberal Party on the back for leaving out hundreds of thousands of vulnerable seniors for a decade until they qualify for Liberal old age supports? The Liberals continue to move the goal posts on our most vulnerable people, including my seniors here in Hamilton Centre. What are the Liberals going to do for those under 75 years of age?

Do not even get me started on the GIS clawbacks. Seniors have to wait until May to receive the compensation promised to them following the GIS clawback. In the meantime, many of them are being evicted from their homes in the middle of winter. This bill does not provide any support for that. Why do the Liberals think it is acceptable for seniors to be evicted from their homes and forced to use our food banks?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has two approaches when it comes to seniors. I was sitting in the Manitoba legislature for many years when the NDP was in government, and that was a different approach. That is why I say I will compare our approach in dealing with seniors any day to the NDP approach for over a decade in Manitoba. We have accomplished a great deal; it does not mean that we cannot do more. We will continue to strive to do more.

The 10% for those aged 75 and over was an election platform commitment. It was a promise. Is the NDP saying that we should not fulfill our promise? Is the NDP going to roll it back? Is that what the New Democrats are suggesting for those who are aged 75 and over? Shame on them.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member for Winnipeg North. I appreciate his comments with respect to housing in particular. I know he has a shared interest in addressing the cost of housing. As he knows, in Kitchener Centre the cost of housing has gone up 35% in the last year alone.

The member spoke about the underused housing tax that is in this bill. My question is with respect to the number of exemptions to the applicability of that tax, specifically the non-resident and non-Canadian exemptions. The list goes on and on. The work is being done to introduce this tax, but I wonder if the member could share more about the reasons that the list of exemptions is as long as it is.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my basic understanding is that non-residents or non-Canadians who are buying up condos and houses in Canada are part of the problem in driving up cost. Those individuals would have to pay a 1% annual tax. I see that as a positive contribution to dealing, at least in part, with a very serious issue for Canadians.

The member and I have had discussions before on housing, and he and I are particularly in sync on housing co-ops and alternative types of housing. I am a big fan of housing co-ops. I would like to see more done on housing co-ops. I think there is more that we can do in working with other organizations that deliver housing, such as Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity in Winnipeg's north end has built more new houses in infill environments than any government has, whether provincial, federal or even municipal. They are an outstanding organization.

Let us get behind some of those types of initiatives that I know my colleague and friend also supports.

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

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

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

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

Later it says:

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I need to allow time for the member to respond.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as a local member of Parliament in Ottawa, the member has done exceptionally well in conveying a powerful message that it is time for the protesters, in essence, to leave with their semis and the other things they brought to Ottawa. Ottawa needs to get back to a more normal situation, as the government House leader talked about and as the member just said. The protests have been heard, and it is time to allow things to get back to normal here in Ottawa.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague from Ottawa Centre, he has risen several times now to comment on the occupation of downtown Ottawa.

We are all aware of the situation. I am well aware. However, we are having a debate and we would like the questions and comments to relate to the matter at hand.

It might be a good time to point that out to my colleague.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have enormous respect for your work, but the right of a parliamentarian to discuss issues in this House is sacrosanct. The fact that we are talking about a bill that has to do with the pandemic ties directly to the issue of people, particularly the women on Metcalfe and Gloucester Streets, being harassed and threatened. That is his right. The Bloc might not like it, but it is his right to ask these questions in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again I want to remind members, as I have, that there is a bit of flexibility in the discussion. However, it has to be related to the bill. I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I want to thank the member for supporting me. I will not be silenced when amplifying the voices of my community in this House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to see the bill debated. I would like to see hon. members from every party stand in the House and speak directly to Canadians about the new expenditures and about economic stimulus.

Economists all over are saying that right now we can bounce back. COVID will be over and we can bounce back, but what are the Liberals doing? They are finding an excuse to cripple Canadians with more debt and more inflation. In my riding, people cannot afford to pay any more. They cannot do it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, what the Conservative Party of Canada is saying right now is that if economists around the world are telling the government not to spend any more money, not to continue the housing balloon and not to cripple Canadians with mounting debt, the Conservative Party of Canada has a responsibility to protect Canadians by trying to hold the government to account so that it does not spend $541 billion extra, some of it with no measures. What I would like to see is lower taxes and incentives for companies, not massive and monstrous public spending by the Liberal government.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member raised affordability in his deliberations, which is important. However, one other aspect to government, other than just taxing and spending, is regulation.

I want to ask the member, especially because he is from a rural community, how he feels about the current pricing for wireless broadband for rural Canadians. Does he agree with the Rogers-Shaw takeover?

Lastly, is it not time to bring in some type of price control given the fact that we have some of the highest costs? Consumers cannot pay them, but Internet is important for our accessibility at school, in business and in education. Should we have a regulated industry?

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

Madam Speaker, I was hoping I would get this question.

The Conservatives believe in the free market and free market enterprise. No matter how much money the Liberal government continues to spend, rural Internet in my constituency does not improve. The reason is that private companies own the infrastructure, the federal government regulates it and the lines and cables in my riding are attached to public telephone poles. The public owns the poles, the companies own the fibre cable, regulations come from the federal government and the equipment is owned by private companies. This creates monopolies. It puts government in the bad position of being forced to spend its own money, and people do not get a better source of Internet. What I want is top-of-the-line Internet for everyone in my constituency, and if the government is going to spend $540 billion every day I come here, we should have it by now.

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

Madam Speaker, we are in the fifth wave of COVID, and I do not know how many waves of government spending we have seen in response to it. Could my hon. colleague comment on whether that spending could have been far more targeted? We finally see measures to address more rapid tests, but we have one-third of the capacity of our neighbour to the south regarding critical care in this country. Each wave has put a few people into the hospital in critical care. If we had had more capacity there, would we have needed all of these waves of spending?

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

Madam Speaker, with the COVID-19 measures, the government has continued to lock down. With testing, the rollout of vaccinations and PCR tests, a lot of things were late and a lot of things were in short supply. The N95 masks, which were supposed to be the best masks, were in short supply. Yes, I think the government could have managed COVID a lot better in terms of our health care system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member opposite brought up that question, because, in fact, the Liberal government has completely failed on rapid testing. We have been calling for rapid testing since back in 2020. There are other countries across the world that have had rapid testing widely available to families for almost a year now. We have completely failed in rapid testing, and it is one of the major reasons why we have had to have perpetual lockdowns. It is one of the biggest failures of the government over the last two years.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it difficult to follow my Conservative friends when talking about housing. They are obsessed with the deficit, and rightly so, because the deficit is increasing and we do not print money.

However, the housing crisis is very real. How can we fix it? My colleague mentioned the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who estimates that the number of Canadian households in need of affordable housing will increase to 1.8 million within five years.

This will be a huge undertaking. The Liberal government is currently investing, giving and lending money through different programs to create affordable housing, but priced at $2,200 a month in Montreal. That is outrageous and only helps the private sector.

It is clear that the government is going to have to get involved in this major housing crisis. What are the Conservatives' proposals for fixing this problem?

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

Madam Speaker, this was definitely a big topic of conversation during the past election. We have given many recommendations over the last year to the government, many of which have not taken place.

We have to remember that this is a government that has now been in power for more than six years and all of its policies have failed. In the last year alone, we have had a 30% increase in housing. Its policies are failing and it doubles down on a lot of its existing policies, which are absolutely not working.

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

Madam Speaker, I did not hear very much from the member regarding the specific contents of the bill. While I share her concern about the government's overall response to the pandemic, I want to ask a question about specific parts of the legislation before us.

There is a tax credit in here for small businesses to improve indoor air quality and ventilation in response to the pandemic, and $100 million to improve ventilation in schools. This is a big issue. Ventilation in buildings is one of the most important ways we can prevent the spread of COVID-19.

If not this approach that the government has presented, what is the member's idea for improving ventilation in buildings across our country?

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

Madam Speaker, that piece is one of my favourite parts of this legislation. However, once you add all of the parts together, you get this incredible amount of spending. Even though there might be parts in there that sound good and make sense, once you add it all up, you get to this point where it reaches over $70 billion.

There are parts I can definitely support and that are good, but once you add it all up, it gets to a point where, when we look at the whole package, it is really hard to move forward with this legislation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my friend about the rapid test issue, which in an important issue raised in the bill. From my perspective, the government has had a very late stage conversion on the issue of rapid tests.

Conservatives have been talking about the importance of investing in rapid tests and their value, and we were saying that before vaccines were even available. When vaccines were not available as a tool, it was clear rapid tests were certainly the most effective way of managing this. We know there are breakthrough infections for those who are vaccinated and rapid tests continue to be critically important.

I recognize this discovery of the value of rapid tests in the last few weeks from the government. Does the member have any thoughts on why the government was so slow to recognize effective systems of testing and tracing that could have been in place right in the beginning, prevented lockdowns and kept many of our businesses open.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot in that question.

I wish to applaud the minister responsible for this file, the member of Parliament for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, for procuring 140 million rapid tests, which are arriving in Canada in the months of January and February and will be distributed to the provinces. Rapid tests are one tool in the fight against COVID.

Let us be straight on this file. Let us make sure we understand the facts. The first line of defence for getting through this pandemic is getting Canadians vaccinated. I wish to thank the over 90% of Canadians and 90% of residents of York region who have received their second dose. That number is getting higher and higher, and people are also getting their booster shots. That is the way we will get through this pandemic.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was happy to hear the member's comments today.

I was also delighted to see section 4 of this bill about getting ventilation into schools. I think that is very, very important. I have a constituent who reached out to me just today to make sure that this was raised and prioritized. Members will recall in August 2020 I brought forward a unanimous consent motion asking for $2 billion to make schools safer for teachers and students.

We are now two years into the pandemic. We know there is no downside to improving ventilation in the schools to make them safer for teachers and students. Why has it taken the government two years to finally decide that this was something it could do?

Following on that, will the government also work with manufacturers to develop rapid tests that are more effective for detecting the omicron variant?

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

Madam Speaker, I know that our government has been there working with the provinces from day one and providing them the resources they need so that schools can remain open. I know for a fact that I announced an allotment of $33 million. In my riding, the schools were able to improve their HVAC systems to make sure they are safe for children who go to school. My children are in elementary school today. I am really happy to report that.

We have been there since day one working with the provinces and delivering to them the resources they need. They can implement them and do the right things for their schools to stay open and make sure that kids are getting a great education from coast to coast to coast.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague talk about working with the provinces, because the Quebec National Assembly and the provinces share a demand.

I am, of course, talking about health transfers. They are demanding that the money be sent without conditions and that the provinces be able to choose how to use the money, since they are the ones paying these taxes. They want the people of each province to have a say in how the money is used.

Ottawa should be required to send the cheques but should not be allowed to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. Why did the government not finally respond to this demand in the economic update?

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

Madam Speaker, our government has been there since day one of the pandemic, working with the provinces. Much as the Canadian Armed Forces were sent to my riding to help in the long-term care facilities, I know that the same thing was done in the province of Quebec when it asked for assistance.

Whether it is health care transfers, working with the provinces or getting the Canadian Armed Forces to assist when necessary during the pandemic, we have been there with all the provinces working together. We will continue to be there with them, and we will continue to have the backs of the provinces and all Canadians as we get through this pandemic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I was a little disappointed to hear the member referencing David Suzuki, who has incited violence towards pipeline projects. I would think that in the context we are living through now, members of the government would appreciate the importance of not being in any truck or trade with those who are communicating in that kind of way.

I did want to ask the member about the child care issue. I am hearing from parents in my riding a significant desire to see flexibility and choice in child care. Part of the government's policy is really to constrain the choices that parents would have. It is not offering more resources to parents to make their own child care choices.

Various day home operators and private child care operators have raised significant concerns about the lack of flexibility and about the government's one-size-fits-all approach to child care. It is not going to be there for the worker working the night shift, for the person in a rural area or for the person looking for flexibility to accord with their family situation.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, referring to Dr. Suzuki, I was merely referencing someone who was an expert on protecting wildlife and conservation, and who recognizes the tremendous, priceless value of Ojibway national urban park as the basis for why we need to do what we can to preserve it.

On the issue of child care, affordability is a priority for the government. That is why, in the previous budget and in Bill C-2, we provided over $100 billion for things such as housing affordability, child care, supporting businesses and supporting workers. These are all investments that, unfortunately, my colleague and the Conservative Party voted against.

Affordability is something we are committed to. It is a priority and we believe that $10-a-day child care will help so many families. It will lift so many families out of poverty, will help so many moms and dads return to the labour market, and will also provide children with the start they need in their lives.

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for raising a very important point that we will definitely take into consideration. I will most definitely take it into consideration.

Every Canadian has the right to protest. It is part of who we are. It is what makes us unique. We are quite frankly very grateful for the ability and right to protest peacefully, and to bring our concerns to Parliament Hill, or any elected office for that matter.

The operative words here are “peacefully” and “respectfully”. The protest should be one that does not put an onerous burden on residents, does not interrupt business and lives, and certainly one that does not demonstrate deplorable scenes, as we saw, of racism, hatred, banners and flags that all Canadians should reject outright.

I thank my colleague for the excellent question. It is something that we will absolutely consider.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for his speech.

I am baffled by the Liberal Party's obsession with interfering in other governments' jurisdictions. I am, of course, referring to education here.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said earlier that education is the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and the provinces. My colleague repeatedly mentioned that the Liberal Party would like to develop a nutrition program. This was, obviously, an election promise.

I am trying to understand how the federal government would be better than the provinces or Quebec at managing nutrition in schools.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, I truly believe in a team Canada approach. I believe we are stronger when we work together, and I believe that making sure that children, teachers and schools are protected should be the obligation and responsibility of all levels of government working together to protect children, teachers and families.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, picking up on the last few comments by the member of the Bloc, toward the end of his speech he talked about the tax being proposed in this bill on real estate as it relates to non-residents' and non-Canadians' vacant land or underused residential buildings. I am really having a difficult time understanding how both the Bloc and the Conservatives are conflating that particular tax, which is a measure to control foreign speculation, with the issue of property tax.

Can the member please explain if he thinks this is a good tool to help control some of that speculation?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not believe I conflated any such thing. That is not what I said. I invite my colleague to ask me about something I actually said if he wants me to explain any part of my speech.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member from the Bloc for referencing a few anti-capitalist responses to the economic crisis, because there has been a lot of talk about inflation and no discussion on the corporate cartels we have allowed to capture our economy.

I think back to 2017, when the Canada Bread Company and Weston Foods conspired in an alleged price-fixing scheme with major grocers like Loblaws, which made $400 million in profit and yet claims it cannot afford to continue to pay its UFCW workers an extra $2 an hour. Working people and their families are paying more for their rent, their groceries and their gas. Instead of supporting them, the government is cutting their aid.

Does the hon. member find it acceptable that Liberals have not tackled the outstanding investigations on price-fixing by big corporate grocery chains or provided any measures to help low-income families deal with the rising food prices?

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

Madam Speaker, I will try to respond. The interpretation was rather quick. I want to make sure I understood the question.

To my understanding, our colleague would have liked the government to tackle the price of food. Did I understand correctly? Would it be possible to ask my colleague to repeat his question a little slower? I want to be sure I answer correctly.

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

I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton Centre to repeat his question a little more slowly so the interpreters can follow.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an important question. Does the member find it acceptable that the Liberals have not tackled the outstanding investigation on price-fixing by big corporate grocery chains or provided any measures to help low-income families deal with the rising food prices?

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

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

He is asking whether I think there should have been an investigation into that issue. Inflation and rising prices are hot topics right now. There is certainly work to be done there.

The topic of grocery store prices keeps coming up more and more. We as a society should never accept that someone might get to the register and not be able to pay for staples like milk, bread and eggs. That is unacceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the proposals for housing, the 1% tax on foreign buyers, is like bringing a balloon to a barn fire. Conservatives had proposed to ban that for two years. We do not think that is going to be enough.

However, when it comes to housing, the biggest issue we have, especially in Bay of Quinte, is a lack of labour. Right now there are 200,000 skilled workers left in the queue, and it has stalled, as the immigration minister has said. They need to fix the problem and they are going to spend more money.

Does the hon. member agree that we need to get skilled workers into this country now to build homes? Is that something he thinks would be a good priority for the government?

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

Madam Speaker, there are a lot of questions to answer. This small measure is nowhere near enough, but it is a step in the right direction.

We are not fans of the interference, however. Even though the federal government took over the housing file in 1935, it is meant to be a provincial jurisdiction according to the Canadian Constitution.

Do we need to bring in skilled workers? Yes, absolutely. The Bloc is raising this issue, as are all parties. The solution to the labour shortage is an ongoing debate in the House. We absolutely need to address the shortage in this sector and in many others.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. There was much in her speech that I found compelling.

I want to mention one thing that we did not see in the fall economic statement: help for public transit across Canada. On January 26, the mayors of Canada's biggest cities called on the federal government for support for transit operating shortfalls. That support is not in the economic statement. It still has not been forthcoming from the government.

I wonder if my colleague would support that call so we can ensure we do not have a downward spiral and degradation of transit services in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, when I was talking about having a long-term vision and planning for future generations, I was also thinking about public transit. We need to think about the most vulnerable people. People who take public transit are those who made the choice not to have a car or who cannot afford a car. To help these people, we need to set money aside each year to improve public transit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly applaud the passion if not the substance of that speech.

On a serious note, constituents in my riding are having a difficult time getting by. Everything is getting more expensive under the Liberal government. Housing prices have increased by 50% to 60% in my riding, and it is getting more and more difficult. I hear over and over from government members that it is not their fault.

I am wondering if the member would like to take responsibility now for the inflation, or simply explain quantitative easing and why in Canada, unlike everywhere else in the world, it will not impact inflation like it has everywhere else in the world whenever it has been tried.

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

Madam Speaker, one big one related to the cost of living that I talked about in my speech, which is so important, is our investment in child care. This is having a direct effect on families. Also, there are the increases to and investment in the CCB, which is extremely important, and in housing we continue to help. I just made two announcements in my riding last week. One was for 12 units for women's shelters and another was for eight units for African Nova Scotians. Those are the types of investments that are happening on the ground right across the country, including in my colleague's riding.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, that was quite a remarkable speech. I am impressed. The member managed to give an infomercial for the Government of Canada. My colleague claims that everything is fine, everything is going well and there are no problems in Canada.

However, there are 90,000 people waiting for an EI cheque, people who have not been able to pay rent in three months. They are waiting because the government cannot hire public servants. Seniors under the age of 75 have also received no support during the pandemic, even though they face the same housing problems as all other seniors.

Let us talk about housing. Canada has a shortage of 1.8 million housing units. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported that this is the number of housing units that will have to be built in the next five years. Canada ranks last in the G7 when it comes to the average number of housing units per capita. This is a huge job.

How does the Liberal government plan to address the massive housing crisis we are experiencing in Canada right now?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which took me somewhat by surprise. I was expecting a question about jurisdictions. However, that is not the question being asked because we worked with governments and municipalities across Canada.

With respect to seniors, I would like to say to my colleague that we gave an initial tax-free amount of $500. Then we added $300 for those 65 and over and $200 for seniors receiving the guaranteed income supplement. Those are direct investments.

As for his question about housing, I spoke about it earlier. We make announcements about major investments every day. It was the Liberal government that created Canada's first national housing strategy.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work my colleague is doing. I would argue, however, that many of our policies involved not only Liberal members working together, trying to help, but also opposition members. All 338 MPs were giving us suggestions and comments. We were trying to improve on those, and that showed how the minority government can work and how the minority government will continue to work.

I understand her question on new businesses. We actually put in place a strategy to help new businesses, but it did not capture them all. As a matter of fact, there is one in my riding that came to me last week that we were not able to help yet. I am working on it. Once I find a solution the member will be the first one to know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I have a specific question for the hon. member around her comments on ventilation in schools. Does the member have an estimate of how long a retrofit to improve ventilation would take in a particular case? I guess that speaks to the question of how long the member expects this pandemic to be going on for. Does the government have estimates for the timelines involved? We saw in the fall economic update, for instance, that funding has put aside for the enforcement of mandate rules for a three-year period.

Is the government hoping to bring this pandemic to an end, or is the government undertaking long-term spending projects with the expectation this will continue for years to come?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really hope we have sunshine tomorrow, but I do not have control over that either. There are certain things that are beyond the government's control.

I will say that, as long as the COVID pandemic continues, and even as it goes into its endemic phase, we will be there to support Canadians. I do not think any Canadian parent is going to argue, pandemic or no pandemic, that we should not have better ventilation in our schools, so I think supporting our provinces to be able to have healthy spaces for our kids is a good thing.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say hello to the member for Toronto—Danforth. I had the great pleasure of serving with her on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in the previous Parliament when she was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

We worked together constructively. The committee undertook studies, including one on the impacts of the pandemic on the cultural sector, and made recommendations. Just yesterday, we spoke with stakeholders in that sector, who told us that the funds announced in last year's federal budget are still not accessible. My colleague will undoubtedly remember that the key word in this study was “predictability”, which cultural industries need in order to plan. Clearly, an event cannot be organized with two days' notice. These funds are still not available.

I would also like to take a few seconds to talk about the Canada performing arts workers resilience fund, which was announced this week. For over two months now, self-employed workers in the cultural industry have been going without the financial assistance to which they are entitled, because the benefits expired in late October. The government just announced the launch of this $60‑million fund, but we do not know when those affected will be able to access this financial assistance. I would like to know whether we can hope to see some predictability in that regard too, and I look forward to hearing my colleague's comments on that.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has some good questions. How can we give our artists predictable and ongoing assistance?

I was not at yesterday's meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to hear the testimony, but if there is something that my colleague would like me to read, I will do so.

For me, the important thing is to figure out how to provide ongoing support and economic assistance to our gig workers. I think it is very important to continue working on the modernization of the employment insurance system, as we were talking about, because it would provide ongoing, predictable support not just during COVID-19, but all the time.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

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

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

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite raises some very important questions about affordability. I want to remind all members in the House that, for this tax season, the personal amount for which people are exempt from paying taxes is going up by $600. That means that people making under $150,000 will be paying tax on $600 less of their income. It is actually a savings, so I—

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

Resuming debate, we will go to the hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member will have two minutes after question period to finish her remarks and for questions from the other members.

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington has two minutes remaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize that I was not able to make it for all of the member's speech, because of question period.

She mentioned at the end that Canadians are exhausted and tired. I would agree. So too are the people of Ottawa, with the protests we are seeing outside right now. Although the member was not in the House in 2020, the Conservative Party was quick to call on the government for police intervention on some of the blockades that we have seen across the country. I have not yet heard that same language from the Conservative Party, nor from this member.

Would this member agree with me that it is time for the protesters to go home and for the police to use their discretion to take down the blockade of downtown Ottawa?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a tricky situation here in Ottawa, but Canadians want to be heard. Canadians want to be heard, and by all means we oppose any of the rhetoric about the small numbers of the population that are being talked about and that the Liberals are repeating today.

Canadians want to have some freedoms. Canadians want to have their choices. Canadians want to go ahead and live their lives with dignity. Canadians want to use all the tools we have in our tool boxes. We need to have the rapid tests, we need to wear our masks and we need to have social distancing, if that is what we choose. I am not encouraging or acknowledging this, but we need to move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

I would like to hear her thoughts on inflation, which must certainly be affecting families, fathers and mothers, in her riding who are forced to make difficult decisions to feed their families. Should the government have intervened? How long should the government let inflation keep rising before it does something?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I think I will answer in English today and in French tomorrow.

There is no doubt that inflation is hitting Canadians day in and day out. It does not matter whether they are at the gas station or going for groceries; it is in all walks of life.

The emails from seniors are really sad. I have seniors who are sending me emails saying they do not know whether they are able to pay for their medication. There are children who are talking to their parents at home, learning about how money is being spent, and there is not enough at the end of the day. Bills are all over the table and piling up, and families are needing to choose which ones they are going to pay. The interest rates that are being charged are just outlandish.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives oppose this bill. Do they oppose better ventilation for schools? Do they oppose more COVID tests? Do they approve improving the number of weeks of EI that workers are capable of getting? Do they approve of more relief for the businesses that took advantage of the Canada emergency business account?

These are all seemingly pretty important things, particularly as we hopefully near the end of worst part of the pandemic. Do the Conservatives really oppose those measures?

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

Mr. Speaker, do the Liberals really approve of the inflation rates that Canadians are facing today?

With regard to some of the elements of the bill. I can acknowledge that as with anything, there is room for agreement and respectful disagreement across the aisle. There are parts of the bill that I would suggest are good, and I have no difficulty saying that. I think there needs to be room where we can have dialogue and agreement across the floor, but I will leave it at that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I support the spending that needs to happen to increase our health care now, and I supported rapid testing a year and a half ago when we asked for it and did not get it.

We had residents lined up for rapid testing because there were no rapid tests. Now that they are saying they are going to fix it, we do not need it. We need health care fixed. Let us put money towards health care, and fix our problems in health care.

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

Madam Speaker, I was touched by your statement this week and I want to offer my condolences.

I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government on the other side of the House. I would like to know who ultimately makes health care expenditures. Do the provinces spend the money or is it the federal government?

Is it not an indication of some kind of structural problem when the federal government holds on to money from Quebeckers and Canadians and sets conditions on that money, interfering in provincial jurisdictions?

Would it not make sense to solve this problem once and for all by transferring the money to the provinces without conditions?

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

Madam Speaker, we all agree that the provinces want just as much as the federal government, and it sometimes thinks it just grows on trees.

I know the federal government has to be responsible for what it is putting its money towards. I understand the provinces will decide where it wants that money. If we put money towards federal transfers for health care capacity, and we as the federal government could always track that capacity, then we would be fixing the problem once and for all with not just beds, but staffed beds. We need staff and we need beds. We need to work with the provinces to make that happen.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, picking up on my hon. colleague's comments, he is absolutely right. Among OECD countries, Canada's ICU beds per capita is less than everyone but Mexico. We are 26 out of 27 in terms of number of doctors per thousand. Among developed countries, we rank tenth out of 10 in terms of wait times. Of course, the reason for this is that in 2014 the Harper Conservatives capped the federal health transfer at 3% when health care costs are rising at 5%. The current government said it would change that, but then it adopted the Harper cuts.

Will my hon. colleague finally acknowledge that part of the problem today is the Conservative and Liberal cuts to health care that kept federal transfers at 3%, and does he agree with the NDP that it is time to raise it so that we can start properly funding the health care system in this country?

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

Madam Speaker, a kid in kindergarten pushed me, and I do not hold a grudge against him as that happened 20 or 30 years ago. We have to focus on today. I am not sure about the Harper government. I was not here, but I love when Stephen Harper's name is brought up because he was a great prime minister.

We have to look at health care and health care means looking at ICU capacity. It means looking at staff. It means looking at nurse practitioners and doctors. I know my hon colleagues on the health committee are going to be studying that. I look forward to those results. Let us get those to the House and let us get those passed so that Canadians can benefit from better health care.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am thankful for this opportunity to make this case.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a question that no one has been talking about, and I would like to address a couple of the member's statements on the future of our kids and borrowing.

First of all, we have a lack of supply. In my riding, the average price of a condo is $1 million. Apart from the average price of the condo, we also incur costs when purchasing property, so addressing the financial burden on new homeowners is essential. Taxes, such as the carbon tax, the tax on energy and the tax on fuel, create the opportunity for individuals not to be approved by financial institutions. When we take into consideration their gross income and their qualification based on TDS and GDS, it is very important to understand that a person's income can buy less because of the inflation situation.

Can my hon. colleague please explain to me how we are going to help people get into the market when we do have inventory, given their income is dropping and they cannot afford it?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that around the world inflation is a challenge that countries are dealing with, but Canada has fared better than most countries, including the United States.

The reality is that many of the measures we need to put into place for future-proofing our economy are the types of measures that require government investment. They are investments we have made. They also requires us to think about the challenges that Canadians, like those in the member's riding, are facing. This is why the supports and incentives this government has put in place for folks to improve their quality of life, including for child care, for example, will help to increase the wealth of Canadians. These are important initiatives and we are going to continue to invest in them.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting.

My background is in education, where we use the sandwich method to talk about the successes and challenges we observe. We start with the bread, a positive comment, such as, the Liberals do an excellent job of highlighting their own qualities. Next up is the baloney, and there is a reason it is called baloney: there is something about it that is not quite right and could be a lot better. Last is another slice of bread.

In this case, there is not much to the sandwich if we are talking care. If I look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, right at the bottom is food and housing security, but we have been short 50,000 units a year for 30 years.

When will meaningful new investments be made in affordable social and community housing?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to answer in French.

As my colleague knows, our government has made incredible investments, with an additional $6 billion for affordable housing. We will continue to invest, and we will continue to work with the provinces and communities in every region of our country on this very important issue, in order to determine what solutions will work for them in their particular circumstances.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there are provisions that have already been put in place to address foreign buyers. We will continue to move forward on all the commitments that were made, including such provisions. I think all of the provisions we can put in place to increase affordability and make it easier for Canadians are not only important, but essential to making sure we can reach a place where every Canadian has a place to call home. That is why our government is going to continue to take those steps and make those investments, as the Minister of Housing has been doing and will continue to do over the coming weeks and months.

[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?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, as with many of us, our ridings are vibrant communities and in fact microcosms of Canada, so the small businesses that are dependent on government support to get through difficult times are beneficiaries of what is being provided here. I know there are folks who have connections to family farms. In fact, I met with some of them yesterday. Although they may live in my riding, they have connections to family farms outside of it. They will benefit from some of the provisions in this legislation. It is not just about the things that affect us directly in our ridings, but the fact that our constituents have family connections across the country.

We may often think about things in the context of what will affect us directly, but the reality is that Canadians think about the things that are affecting other Canadians, as well. That is the beauty of this legislation. It is not just about urban or rural Canadians, but about all Canadians and helping them move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate this conversation. I wonder if the member listened to my colleague for Bay of Quinte, when he spoke about the traditional vaccines that have been made in Canada. The government has not made them available to Canadians as a vaccine or an essential means of investing in our own economy. It is the same with the high-quality rapid tests that were developed in Canada. They were reasonably priced, yet they were not picked up.

The government has unlawfully mandated that those who are not vaccinated cannot travel on federally regulated flights and trains, even though Dr. Tam confirmed that vaccinations do not prevent the carrying and transmission of COVID.

Would the member agree that everyone, including the vaccinated, should have a rapid test to return the rights of mobility to all Canadians, or should we return to the PPE protections that were already in place and effective at our airports so Canadians can be engaged all across the country in improving our economy and getting back to normal?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Speaker, vaccines are the best way for us to move forward through this pandemic, and making sure that every single Canadian is vaccinated is the best way to move forward. We know that folks who are vaccinated do not suffer the same consequences when they get COVID as those who are not. This is an important thing for us to consider as we move forward. We know that the folks who are vaccinated tend to be 67 % less likely to end up in an ICU, so when we think about air travel and being able to connect with Canadians and to connect with our families, we are going to have to trust the science.

The science is clear that vaccines work. The science is clear that masking works. The science is clear that rapid tests are not always accurate. We need to think about what the best solution is, not just for ourselves. We have a social contract in this country to take care of one another. We have a social contract to look after every single one of us, even if that means making sacrifices for ourselves.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate, but let me first address another issue.

I am so very disgusted by the images and displays of Nazi symbols and the use of the Confederate flag and other such hate symbols by those participating in the convoy. This is absolutely despicable, especially in light of the fact that racial and systemic inequity has been exacerbated with the impacts of COVID on the Black community, the indigenous community and racialized and marginalized people. The problems of racism and structural inequity existed even before the pandemic, but COVID-19 has exposed for many the serious inequities in our country.

I do not think it has escaped many, especially those in indigenous communities, Black communities and racialized communities, that the police's treatment of the convoy is starkly different from the treatment of indigenous protesters who are fighting for their land rights and protecting mother earth. My colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, has put forward in this Parliament legislative solutions to amend the Criminal Code to broaden the provisions relating to hate propaganda to make it an offence to publicly display visual representations that promote or incite hatred or violence against an identifiable group. He is asking the government to take specific steps to immediately counteract all forms of hate and discrimination, hate crimes and incidents of hate. I hope the government will adopt this private member's bill as a government bill.

On the issue of inequities, we are now deeply in the fifth wave of the pandemic. The wealthiest continue to make record profits, and the government still refuses to bring in a pandemic profiteering tax. Canada's banks earned a combined profit of almost $58 billion in 2021. Meanwhile, the lowest-income seniors are getting their guaranteed income supplement cut. The New Democrats flagged concerns even before the election last summer and the government did nothing.

In Vancouver East, seniors are getting evicted and are being rendered homeless right now. The government says it cares deeply about seniors, but it thinks that doing nothing until at least May of this year is somehow good enough. It is as if the government and the Liberals are blind to the fact that seniors are getting kicked out of their homes this moment, not in May. This is happening in the middle of the fifth wave of the pandemic during the winter months. Action needs to be taken now. Seniors cannot wait until May to get the support they need.

The government brought in the Canada worker lockdown benefit, but let me tell members about the nightmare that my constituents are having in trying to access that support. Wait times over the phone are at least two to four hours, from what my constituents report. A lot of people cannot get through and they have tried multiple times a day. There is no information on navigating the phone menu—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is an issue with the hon. member's microphone. There is no interpretation.

We will try again with the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the phone lines are not clear in what prompts to follow and the number to press for the CWLB. Callers are put on hold for hours, and then when they finally get through, they are navigated to the wrong menu and have to start all over again. The phone system is not set up in the same way that it was for the CERB or the CRB where one—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are actually going to move to the next speaker and come back to the hon. member for Vancouver East once IT has had a chance to reach out to her. The hon. member will have seven minutes remaining once we can return to her. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

[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'.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the price on pollution. There was a time when the Conservative Party in opposition opposed a price on pollution. The Conservatives would call it a tax. Then they had a flip-flop and changed their position on it. I was glad to see that. I think most Canadians saw the value of having a price on pollution.

I wonder if this member is shying away from having a price on pollution once again. Can we anticipate another flip-flop on this issue?

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

Madam Speaker, if you want to talk about flip-flops, your minister said this was not an issue. It is costing our farmers tens of thousands of dollars. After my bill, suddenly it is an issue and now you are introducing a rebate just for political points. That is disgusting.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate speech. It is very important for Canadians to understand the effects of the Liberal carbon tax on our farmers and on our cost of food. One of the things that we have been arguing about for years is that the government will say it is a levy and, therefore, it is not a tax. However, if we look at the OECD guidelines, a forced charge is a tax. This is a tax and they charged the GST on the carbon levy.

The government will say it is okay, because it gives it all back in rebates. The public accounts, if anyone is interested in reading through them like I do, actually states that the government pocketed $136 million above what it actually returned to Canadians with its carbon tax. I would like my colleague to perhaps expand on what that is doing to farmers when we take that extra money out of their pockets.

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

Madam Speaker, I had an interaction with a member of the ministry of finance at the agriculture committee who tried to say, no, it is actually the amount that goes in that comes out. I had read the public accounts, like the great member over there, and I knew that was not the case. They actually denied it at first. The fact remains that millions of dollars from the carbon tax stays with government and that is money that could be with our farmers.

I believe that the best people to spend their money are the people themselves. The best people to plan their future are Canadians, not some bureaucrat in Ottawa.

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

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about agriculture, a subject that really matters to me, how can we help in the current context? We all agree that this government has not introduced very many measures. What concrete action can we take to help our farmers make ends meet? At the same time, how can we help them make the transition to a greener economy?

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

Madam Speaker, agriculture is very important to me, too, and to my constituency. I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which is a good one.

Farmers are incredibly important. I have spent my entire life working and surrounded by farmers and they are incredibly entrepreneurial, intelligent and thrifty individuals. If we leave that money in their pockets, they will do things, just like they already have with no-till technologies and otherwise. We need to make sure in our trade agreements that we are setting the economic table so they will be successful. Ultimately, the government just needs to get out of the way.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We will resume debate and I will come back to the hon. member for Vancouver East. We are certainly hoping that everything has been resolved.

The hon. member for Vancouver East has seven minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I was before the technical issues. I was outlining the problems my constituents were having in their application for the benefits they need because of the pandemic. One constituent advised my office of their experience when they attempted to apply online. They were prompted to enter their postal code, which showed that they were from British Columbia. Even though the website stated that all regions in B.C. were eligible if employment had been impacted by COVID, they received a message saying that the region was not valid. These are the kinds of problems people are having. They cannot get through on the phone, or they wait for hours and get sent to different menu choices. They are trying online and are also getting these kinds of frustrating messages.

People are desperate. This is a time when their resources are running dry. Rents are due and they cannot put food on the table, so this is just not acceptable. I sure hope the government will fix these problems.

Then there are those who do not qualify for this program, such as artists, musicians, performers and cultural workers. They are among those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic. In Vancouver East, which is home to the most arts and cultural workers, on a per capita basis, of any riding in the country, the local arts and music scene is going through difficult times. I am very concerned that our community's cultural workers and venues alike face a longer road to recovery, which puts the live performance industry particularly at risk. Even before the pandemic, arts and performance venues were facing enormous pressures and challenges.

The calls of the #ForTheLoveOfLIVE campaign went unanswered by the government. The federal government needs to do more to protect these small and medium-sized enterprises and their employees and to preserve the cultural industry within our communities.

When we are talking about small businesses, I have to raise the issue of start-ups. They have been left out in the cold right from the start of the pandemic, and they continue to suffer. They continue to close down. The truth of the matter is that small businesses are the economic engine of our communities. If we do not support them to survive, our communities will not survive. That is our reality.

In Vancouver's Chinatown in my riding, we still cannot get support from the federal government or a special grant such as the one for Granville Island. Granville Island received a special grant from the federal government at the beginning of the pandemic, to the tune of $17 million. It later received subsequent grants, as well.

Vancouver's Chinatown could not get any support from the government. This is wrong. Chinatown is the jewel of our crown. It is recognized by the federal government as a national historic site, and we need to put the supports in place for small businesses and the community to survive.

I opened my comments today with the issue of racism and discrimination. Chinatown also continues to face ongoing attacks on this front. The Chinese Cultural Centre and the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen gardens, among other iconic locations in our community, are being defaced with graffiti and racist comments. This also needs to be addressed, and we need the federal government to work with local communities, the provinces and the City to tackle this issue. We need to save Chinatown and preserve our history.

I want to take a moment and turn to the issue of housing. Today is actually the first 100 days of the Liberal government, and it declared that it would do many things in the first 100 days. The Liberal government still has not appointed anybody to the position of federal housing advocate.

The announcement of this new position was made in 2017. It has now been over a year since the government closed the job posting. In fact, it has been 13 months to be exact, yet there is still no progress. There is still no federal housing advocate. It should not take over 13 months for the government to hire someone after the job posting has closed. If the Liberals cannot even do that, how can they be expected to address the housing crisis that is precluding families and people from finding homes they can afford in the communities where they live and work?

Right now, we know that housing costs have increased exponentially—in fact, by some 38%. People who wish to own a home cannot get into the market. People who rent are losing their homes and are faced with renovictions. Those who are on the streets, who are homeless, continue to be unhoused.

The Liberals keep talking about their housing plan, but they continue to prevent scrutiny on it, which is not a surprise, I suppose, given how much the housing prices have gone up in the six years under this government. People cannot wait for the government keeps talking about it; we need action and we need it now. We need to address it.

I would be remiss if I did not touch upon indigenous housing. The government promised a “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing strategy. Budget after budget, there is still no funding allocation to it. It was not in this economic update, and it is shameful.

The Aboriginal Housing Management Association in British Columbia just made an announcement and launched a plan to show how to do it and to showcase how this can be done. It needs to be done and it needs the federal government at the table to fund it so that we can ensure indigenous peoples have the proper housing that they deserve.

There has been enough talk. It is time for action. Let us get on with it.

[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?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the measure the government introduced is minuscule, given the crisis we are faced with. A 1% tax is barely going to do it. What we are faced with is a huge financialization of housing, in which housing is being treated as though it is the stock market. Yes, we need a foreign buyers tax; actually, we need to ban foreign buyers at this point in time. We need to stop the financialization. We need to stop renovictions. We need to make sure that the government invests in housing, starting with a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy with real funding. We need to build 500,000 units of affordable and co-op housing in our communities. We need to fund non-profits so they can get into the market and buy up housing coming onto the market so it does not get swept up by others.

This is what we need from the federal government.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, before my hon. colleague from Vancouver East was interrupted by technical difficulties, she spoke at length about the issue of seniors and the fact that they are the most vulnerable.

Back in August, the Bloc Québécois wrote to the Minister of Finance to denounce the cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors who had received CERB. On top of that, there is nothing in the economic update about providing assistance to seniors.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of increasing old age security starting at age 65 and supporting seniors before May.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats were raising this issue even before the election, saying that seniors will be suffering because the GIS will be cut. The government did not take any action. It said it was going to do something about it in May. Well, seniors are being evicted right now, so that is not good enough.

Aside from that, seniors actually need a boost in their incomes, not a differential treatment whereby seniors who turn 70 and those who have not yet done so have different payment increases. That is wrong. If someone retires at 65, they deserve to live in dignity. Seniors need to be supported throughout this pandemic and beyond.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for highlighting the Liberal-Conservative coalition to protect the financialization of the housing industry. We keep hearing about affordability and the Liberal and Conservative definitions of what is affordable.

Maybe the member could speak about how there is nothing in this bill to fix the broken language they have used in their definition of what is truly affordable.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government and the Conservatives over the years have actually co-opted the word “affordable”. In fact, some people actually think that this is a four-letter word, because there is no longer anything affordable, and saying that rentals being made available way above market are somehow affordable is an insult. That is what has to stop. We need to provide rent that meets core needs. That is what we need to do.

By the way, I want to thank the member for the great bill he introduced today to address the opioid crisis and to call on the government to take action on decriminalization. It is time to save lives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health; the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, Aviation Industry; the hon. member for York—Simcoe, Transport.

[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, in the speeches I have heard today from Conservatives, the right wing of the Conservative element, that Reform element is flying high.

They have a number of ideas, I must say. On the one hand they are saying they do not want any more tax dollars being spent, and then on the other hand they are saying they still want some of the services. For the tax dollars, we often need to borrow money. For example, when we talk about the supports for businesses, the CERB and the increase to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, these all cost money.

Where would the member suggest that we start cutting back dollars? He is giving us ideas on how to spend money. Could he be specific on where he believes we should be cutting dollars?

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

Madam Speaker, I suggest that the government start with the almost $6 million to renovate the main cottage at the Prime Minister's residence. I am sure in a multi-billion dollar budget there are lots of places that you can trim the fat, because you guys are quite good at adding it on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. member that he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, inflation does not happen overnight.

It is a slow process that generally occurs over 12 to 18 months when there is a crisis like the one we are in. It can also take 12 to 18 months for deflation to return things to normal, and there are ways to get there.

I would like my colleague to talk about his suggestions for how to bring about deflation, which would let Canadians and Quebeckers better live within their budgets.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the first step in all of this is to get the outrageous spending under control. I completely agree with my colleague that it will take time. There is no real quick answer to this. However, it starts with stopping the borrowing, getting the spending under control, spending smarter and investing in the areas where it makes most sense. We need more housing supply, for example. We need to stop funding programs that give people money to try to get into a market that they cannot get into. They are not working. It will take time, but it starts with stopping the spending.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague referenced affordable housing and the lack thereof in his home riding. Certainly it is an issue in Chatham-Kent—Leamington as well. We are not a large metropolitan area. It is a mix of rural and small cities and towns.

He just touched on this in his answer to my Bloc colleague. Do the basic laws of supply and demand continue to hold true in the housing market? We have huge demand. Would it not be better, rather than adding another small tax that is not going to make a difference, to look at the barriers to supply? Could he comment?

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

Madam Speaker, the simple answer to my colleague's question is yes. As the former mayor of a small town, I can tell members right now that despite taxes on property, there is not enough room to fund all the responsibilities that municipalities already have. They take care of two-thirds of the transportation infrastructure in this country, and they do not have the tax revenue to actually fund the maintenance of it. However, we are hearing musings about the government looking at ways to tax things over a million dollars, which is barely an entry home in Toronto, because its members think they can dig a little more and find more tax revenue to spend. It is just not there.

Frankly, the simple answer to the question is that we need more supply and we need to stop the incredible pressures of foreign investors buying up properties so that we can actually make things more accessible for everyday Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my associate for Winnipeg North. He is not my friend, as he is more of an associate.

We in the Conservative Party have been asking for these rapid tests for close to two years, yet now the government is finally saying, “Oh, we'll get around to it, but you better give us the money.” It is not an issue of just spend, spend, spend or we are going to take the rapid tests away. We want the rapid tests.

What I would suggest to this gentleman is that perhaps, instead of using the $20 billion to $30 billion in corporate welfare to pay off Air Canada, Lululemon, Bell, Telus, Rogers and their wealthy insiders with taxpayers' money, they should have spent that money on rapid tests two years ago.

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

Madam Speaker, I own an electric vehicle and I find these issues to be rather interesting. Clearly, I am not interested in funding Elon Musk. I am interested in owning an electric vehicle. The United States has developed a strategy to ensure that Americans can buy vehicles designed in the United States. That has repercussions for us.

How can we ensure that every Canadian and every Quebecker can have access to an electric vehicle? Should we not increase tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles? Could this be good for Canada's economy? I wonder about that. I think that would be part of the solution and that it should have been included in the economic update.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have a philosophical difference. I do not believe that we should use taxpayers' money to subsidize wealthy people. As members of Parliament, I think we are in the top 4% or 5% of income level in Canada, and we should not be subsidizing members of Parliament to buy electric cars, period.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. On the topic of cars, I have given him a ride in my car. I do not know if he will ever come again after that, and it was definitely not electric.

I want to go a little more into this whole idea of subsidizing a car, which drives up inflation. I remember back when I was a kid, the government had a program for well drilling and immediately the price of wells doubled. I wonder if the hon. member can comment on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question and for the rides from the airport. Yes, the more we subsidize it, the more it is just driving up the price. Demand will always expand to take up every free thing offered by the government.

Further to the gentleman from the Bloc's question, study after study shows that the actual return on investment and the reduction of GHG with electric cars is one of the very worst. If the government is going to subsidize something, let us subsidize upgrades to housing, windows, insulation and those items, but not subsidize the wealthy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will just take this moment to remind members that they do need to have the proper headset in order to participate. It is not that we do not want them to participate. I do not think that there is a reason for MPs not to have them. I have asked IT to reach out to the previous member as well. I would ask members to reach out to IT if they do not have headsets for wherever they are. I know that they can be purchased through the budgets as well.

That is just a reminder so that we can keep the flow going into the House of Commons, and everybody is able to have the interpretation that they rightly deserve.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I know we are having some technical issues, so I will go to the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[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.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member described the problem with excellence, but his allocation of fault may be a little faulty. I was wondering how the hon. member thinks that the Government of Canada has much to do with the supply of microchips to make cars go. I have made the same observation that he has. Car lots are empty.

Members should know that the hon. member is quite an outstanding mechanic, and had won several awards for his work prior to being an MP. However, I am not sure that his speech is actually such an outstanding description of the issues.

Could the member tell me what the Government of Canada has to do, for instance, with the issue of supplies, or input costs, or grain or other necessities? These are just issues that are worldwide, and we are the unhappy recipients of that reality.

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

Madam Speaker, the basic issue that we are dealing with is that the government has pumped a huge amount of cash into the system, and that has inflated the prices that people are receiving for their goods. All that has happened, though, is that everybody has taken advantage of the increased prices that they are getting for their products. Then the folks on the bottom end are saying their costs are going up as well, so they have to increase their prices.

Basically, if my grain is sold for X dollars, and my fertilizer company sees that the farmer who was getting $10 a bushel last year is now getting $20 a bushel, it will probably increase the price of its product and still get paid for it, because it thinks that farmers are now flush with cash. That has a domino effect down the economy.

A host of government policies are driving the costs up in both directions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock.

He raised the issue of the supply chain and cars, and I would like to come back to something the member who spoke before him said. That member said that it is important to invest in better windows but that the government should not necessarily be investing in electric cars by providing credits to further encourage the electrification of transportation, for example.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this issue because I think that, if we want to get away from oil and move toward a much greener economy, electric vehicles are the way to go.

What does he think about providing credits for electric cars and making an investment in that industry?

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

Madam Speaker, I guess I am not a big fan of picking winners and losers. I am a big fan of things that work well and things that do what they are intended to. For that reason, I am excited about the electrification of, for example, the new Ram 1500, which is like a mild hybrid. It gives a 13% increase in fuel economy without sacrificing any of the other capabilities of that pickup truck. I am amazed and impressed by it.

I would just push back a little bit to say that the environmental impact of electrification is not zero. There is an environmental impact of electrification. If someone is getting their power from a hydro dam somewhere, the CO2 emissions might be reduced, but if they are getting their power from a coal-fired power plant, electrification does not help us at all. That does not say anything about mining for the cobalt and the things that go into these batteries, and the copper for all the wiring that we need for these kinds of things.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of inflation, I do not think we will see more inflation or a better example than that of prescription drugs, which have gone up every year for years and years. In fact, it is the single fastest growing product in insurance services. We know that with pharmacare, with bulk buying, with streamlined administration and with cost-related non-adherence, we can save over $4 billion a year and produce drugs for every Canadian at a reduced cost.

I am just wondering if my hon. colleague can explain why the Conservative Party is opposed to universal pharmacare, when it will help reduce the cost of drugs.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer this question and I thank the member for asking it.

There is no other industry that is more tied to government spending than the pharmaceutical industry. It is 100% driven by the government pouring money into it. The fact is that they put huge, bold letters on the bottles of pharmaceuticals to show how much these items cost so that the consumer knows what the cost is. That is how they drive down the costs of these things.

Government spending on specific things traditionally raises the price of them and drives inflation, and there is no better example than in the pharmaceutical industry.

[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.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a problem with the interpretation and it is creating a lot of confusion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are going to check a few things.

We are going to try again.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about investments in housing. Although there have been some investments, I would have to say that more needs to be done. Under consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments, we have had decades of underfunding in affordable housing with rents geared to income. In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, we have a housing crisis that is literally costing lives.

I wonder if my colleague agrees with me that more needs to be done to deal first of all with this problem. Does she agree that her government continues not to do enough?

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

Madam Speaker, I will agree with you that all of us need to do more for housing and housing affordability for everybody. However, our government, through the national housing strategy, which is a 10-year program, will be investing $72 billion. I feel that is something that Canadians can rely on and will understand that our government is there to support them, whether they are first-time homebuyers looking to go through the new housing accelerator fund, working with the municipalities, hoping to see some fairness in a real estate action plan that is going to forbid blind bidding or looking at home inspections and making sure there is transparency in the history of recent house sale prices.

I believe that the Prime Minister's recent announcement of investing in 10,000 new homes for Canadians is on the right track.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she is to address all questions and comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, over the past few months, we have noticed that the housing construction programs have created certain problems, to say the least. For example, subsidies were given to private companies that ended up charging $2,200 a month for housing, which is not affordable. That is worse than a mortgage plus taxes, electricity and heating.

What concrete action will be taken to ensure that these problems, which seem to benefit some companies and some segments of society more than others, never crop up again?

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

Madam Speaker, as part of our national housing strategy, we have a rental construction financing initiative. We are providing low-cost loans to encourage the construction of sustainable rental apartment projects across Canada. We will also be providing some low-cost funding to all eligible borrowers in the most risky phases of project development of rental apartments.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak about the CEBA loans. Can the hon. member explain why CEBA loans were important for the small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, especially in Scarborough, which is home to many small businesses? How have those CEBA loans made a difference for our small businesses in terms of keeping their lights on during the darkest days?

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

Madam Speaker, the CEBA loans have been so instrumental in saving many small businesses in Scarborough from completely closing down. They have really helped very small businesses, such as restaurants, carry on to be able to pay their rent and other expenses, like COVID expenses.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to the economic update. I have a lot to say, but I will have to narrow it down.

Let me start with health transfers. This is important to me as a member for the Bloc Québécois, and it is important to Quebec as a whole, to my riding, Manicouagan, and to Canada as a whole.

Obviously, these transfers are not included here, and we are disappointed about that. We have known for a long time that the transfers are crucial, but the government may not have realized that yet.

Earlier, I heard several colleagues from different political parties say that this is the second year of COVID-19 and there may be a third, though I hope not, but that there is hardly anything about COVID-19 in the economic update.

My colleague from La Prairie brought it up again this afternoon. Some 85% of Canadians and 86% of Quebeckers are calling for these health transfers. For many years now, the government has limited, or, I should say, gutted, health transfers. It still refuses to index these transfers, which means that the 22% of expenses that the government currently covers is not enough. We want the government to provide 35% and index the transfers at 6%, but there is absolutely nothing in the economic update to that effect.

Everyone knows that COVID‑19 kills. That is one of the things that it does. It kills because the health care system cannot provide the services required and this is because the health care systems in Quebec and the other Canadian provinces have been damaged. When the money is not there, even though it is our money and we have responsibilities, it is hard, virtually impossible, to meet everyone's needs.

The federal government loves to boast and act the saviour when it claims that 80%, or $8 of every $10, as they like to say, of COVID‑19 spending came from the federal government. It is far from being a saviour, though, since we will never forget that this is taxpayer money and taxpayers want health transfers. I am using the word “taxpayer”, but I want to remind members that all provincial premiers and Quebec's premier, Mr. Legault, are calling for this as well.

I want to point this out because the government has presented an economic update that does not reflect reality and does not take these demands into account. The government likes to boast, though. It is happy, it struts around, acting proud of what it has achieved. I could also talk about two other measures that have not seen much progress. Not only is the economic update weak, but it might also be counterproductive in some cases.

To conclude, I would like to speak about jurisdictions. I am again asking the government to do its job. It needs to look after its own affairs and provide the provinces and Quebec with the money to look after theirs.

I spoke about responsibilities earlier. There is a huge fiscal imbalance, and Ottawa has so much money that it does not know what to spend it on. It should spend it on health, by sending the transfers and letting the provinces and Quebec manage that money for their own people, because they want to get out of this pandemic. It is not by crippling health care systems that the government will help Quebec and the provinces get through the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the Prime Minister stated, there are vaccines, yes, but there is all the rest too, including the health care system. The system needs substantial support. There was and still is a shortfall, and it only continues to grow because transfers are frozen.

I would also like to talk about the SMEs in my riding of Manicouagan, which is a vast, remote area covering 350,000 square kilometres of forests, fisheries and mines. There are obviously many natural resources and people all over the riding. SMEs make up a significant segment of our economy. In Quebec, approximately one-third of businesses are SMEs, but I note that the government has not really listened to them.

Of course there is the Canada emergency business account, but the government needs to listen to what small and medium-sized businesses want. The situation is evolving as we enter the third year of the pandemic. For example, SMEs had a hard time accessing the wage subsidy. They needed accountants and tax experts, but many of them could not afford those professionals, so they could not ask for help. All the business support programs in the world are useless if entrepreneurs cannot access them because of red tape and impossible criteria. The wage subsidy is great for people who already have enough money to access it, but that does not include small businesses. Members of the chamber of commerce in my riding, Manicouagan, would like to apply a third time. They would not necessarily need $60,000, but even $20,000 would help them stay afloat and survive. It would not be too hard to set up that mechanism.

It would have been easy to listen to these businesses and implement the measures they were asking for. The Bloc Québécois has proposed many other ideas for supporting small businesses, particularly with regard to loan forgiveness. The Bloc proposed that the percentage be increased in order to support these businesses based on their revenues at a time of great uncertainty. I am thinking of outfitters in my riding and their revenues. No one was visiting the outfitters during the first year of the pandemic, and the second year was extremely difficult for them because certain health measures prevented people from coming to the region.

I am pleased that the repayment deadline is postponed until 2023, because these businesses would not have been able to repay their loans quickly. The year 2023 may not be the right year either. I am therefore warning the government right now that it may have to extend that deadline as well, in order to give these businesses time to rebuild their financial health and get enough revenue coming in to be able to repay the loan and receive forgiveness. The Bloc is in favour of loans. However, we really want the percentage to increase.

We are also thinking about e-commerce. Of course this is very important where I come from. People in certain parts of my riding do a lot of their grocery shopping using the postal service. As I have often said in the House, this is very important to me. People have the right to live in remote areas and to occupy the land, and they need to be supported. We already have a great deal of inequity in our postal services compared to the rest of Canada. Northern regions, very remote regions, islands and places with no roads at all really need this service. We want to be able to increase this kind of trade. It would be good for small businesses to be able to import and export. It would also stimulate our economy. The Bloc proposed this, and it is feasible.

I would like to talk about several other measures, but I will end with some criticism. As I said earlier, we sometimes need to think about the negative effects of certain measures.

Let us talk about the travel tax credit. As I mentioned, I represent a large riding, and I have to travel a few thousand kilometres to get to the House. For someone taking a flight out of the North Shore, the tax credit would cover about one trip a year, and perhaps only one way. The $1,200 will not make it into anyone's pocket right away. For individuals struggling to pay for airfare, waiting until the end of the year to receive the tax credit will not help them. The tax credit will go to people who already have money, people who can afford to put that amount on their credit cards and pay the interest afterwards, which is terrible. This measure will be ineffective.

Then there is the issue of commuter workers. People come work in my riding and then leave again. They do not necessarily want to live there because it is hard. They do not spend any money and do not contribute to the economy of the North Shore, but they are the ones who will likely benefit from this tax credit. I am glad they can work. I want everyone to be able to earn a living. At the same time, we have to think about not adopting measures that will ultimately harm the regions. This is incredibly important to me. We have to look at all the policies and these measures in relation to remote regions such as the North Shore.

[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?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I will support it a bit because I cannot support it more than that, if that makes sense. In other words, there is room for improvement. Of course, we supported Bill C‑2. We want help to be provided, but that help has to be flexible and based on needs. We have had to pass some bills hastily, even urgently, because businesses were closing. Many filed for protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. That was a very difficult time.

In the meantime, this is still going. We have been studying it for two years. What we are saying now is that this could have been part of it. One does not preclude the other. We could have thought of another smaller emergency account for businesses, something the Bloc proposed last spring. This already existed and we could always enhance it. Of course, there is help, but we also have to listen to the little guy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague from Manicouagan that I support her vision for land occupancy. The House should more clearly define its position on this issue and act accordingly. Having people settle all over Quebec and Canada is fundamental.

She also mentioned that she had many ideas about how to help SMEs. I would love for her to present them.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier we spoke about the Canada emergency business account. With regard to help for businesses, I did mention the issue of accountants and tax experts, which could be a solution and would keep them working as well. Maybe we should help businesses with that.

There is also the whole issue of paperwork, which can always be reduced. We are in an emergency, and we need to focus on the time factor, so that people can get money quickly.

I am almost tempted to talk about employment insurance and what is happening with fraud. People need EI benefits right now. There will be time to look into the fraud cases later. I would say that the same thing applies here: Let us give people the money and have them fill out the paperwork afterwards, to give them more time. When it is a matter of saving the ship from going down, it is impossible to do everything at once.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to speak about employment insurance, so I must give her the opportunity to go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will talk about employment insurance, after all, it is mentioned in the economic update. In fact I hope to see a reform. I thank my colleague because I love talking about this issue.

Back home, employment insurance is not just assistance, it is practically a development tool. That is a serious thing to say, but it is what it is. Some people in my riding have not had access to EI since November.

I am thinking about one fishing industry in the Lower North Shore, about some tiny villages of just 100 or 150 people, about the Newfoundlanders who came to fish. What happened? Every single employee of the plant was denied EI because of alleged fraud. It is funny. In my region, 30 or 40 people is an entire town. The entire plant apparently committed fraud and the workers got nothing.

We are asking that these people get their money now, because they need to eat and put a roof over their heads. The government can then conduct its investigation, and if some individuals committed fraud then they can pay the money back. The way things are done now is causing people to leave the regions, as is happening in my colleague's region, and that is not what we want in terms of land use, as we have mentioned.

This would be easy to do. The government did it with CERB, so it can do it with EI.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the pandemic persists, more individuals are experiencing precarious housing situations, and first-time homelessness is rapidly on the rise.

Housing is a human right that has been neglected by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, and although the current government has made investments in housing, including with the rapid housing initiative, it is a drop in the bucket. Years of underfunding have resulted in a massive shortage of housing with rents geared to income, and the normalization of violating people's right to housing. This is resulting sometimes in individuals dying on the street. This is becoming a new normal. It is a callous turning of a blind eye to human suffering, sometimes resulting in death.

Poverty is a violent human rights violation, and failing to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head is, in fact, a political choice. I share this because the current government has made it a practice to bail out and fund its corporate buddies. It gave $50 million to Mastercard, while millions were struggling to pay their credit card bills at the end of the month; $12 million to Loblaws to install new fridges, a company that eliminated the $2 per hour pandemic pay bonus for its workers, despite earning windfall profits; $14 billion in tax giveaways in its 2018 economic update alone, including writeoffs for private debts and limousines; and $18 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, while we are living through a global climate crisis.

CEOs and their C-suite executives rewarded themselves with millions in dividends when their companies received hundreds of millions from the Canada emergency wage subsidy that was meant to protect jobs, and Air Canada received hundreds of millions from the CEWS, and a bailout of $5.9 billion, but paid out millions of dollars in executive bonuses while cutting thousands of jobs.

However, I have to beg for crumbs for my riding. It is the third-poorest riding in the country, where lives are continuously and consistently lost to poverty. People are freezing to death in the cold because they have no place to sleep. Bus shacks are filled with people seeking refuge from the cold. There are fires in rooming houses and apartments because of overcrowded conditions, and families are cramped in small living quarters because the cost of renting a place to live is out of reach. In fact, the rate of unsuitable housing, meaning not enough bedrooms according to family size, is 7% in Winnipeg. This is approximately 21,500 households, and this crisis continues to grow.

In the last four years, only 11 rent-geared-to-income housing units have been filled in Manitoba, and while new funding has been announced to build some new units with rents geared to income, it still fails to meet the housing needs in Winnipeg Centre as a result of decades of underfunding. In fact, the End Homelessness Winnipeg 2021 Interim Street Census Community Report counted 1,127 people experiencing homelessness in a 24-hour period. It was -45°C in Winnipeg last week.

This is unacceptable. This is a political choice, and the choice not to invest adequately is costing precious lives. At the same time, tenants in my riding are feeling the squeeze as a result of this underinvestment and neglect.

In fact, approximately 50% of Winnipeg renters are in housing that falls short of at least one standard of affordability, adequacy and suitability. In addition, 40% of Winnipeg renters are living in unaffordable housing, meaning they are spending 30% or more of their income on shelter costs.

I have visited homes in my riding with holes in the walls into the main hallways, and it is not unusual for our constituency office to receive calls about heat not working, broken windows or pest infestations. In Winnipeg, the rate of inadequate housing, meaning housing that is in major need of repairs, is 7.6%, with 23,440 households being impacted. This is abhorrent, and this is completely unacceptable.

No one in a country as rich as Canada should have to live like this, and again I will share that this is a political choice. It does not have to be this way. It is a choice. We could make, for example, the political choice to stop investing in corporate bailouts and handouts and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. That would be a choice.

Housing is a human right, and this right is violated daily in this country. In Winnipeg, 35,760 households are in core housing need, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Winnipeg has the highest number of indigenous households in core housing need. The government has left indigenous people homeless on their own lands, which they have graciously shared with others. This is a tragic outcome of colonization that has resulted from the often violent dispossession of land, and the vacancy rates tell an important story.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported in its most recent rental market report that vacancy rates in Winnipeg are highest for the most expensive rental housing units and lowest for the most affordable ones. While the vacancy rate is 13.8% for units with a monthly rent of $2,000 or more, it plummets to 4% for units with rents of $1,000 to $1,400 and to just 2.9% for units with monthly rents of $625 or less. What that tells us is that there is a critical shortage of genuinely affordable housing with rents geared to income.

Most of the new housing being built is out of reach for the majority of people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre. Speaking of things that are out of reach, skyrocketing housing prices are putting the dream of home ownership even further out of reach for many of my constituents. In fact, under the current government, the benchmark price for a home in Canada has jumped $300,000, while in Winnipeg prices for single homes in the city increased by 14.7% at the end of 2021 and 16.1% for condos.

This is a crisis, and we need to address this.

I know that I have painted a very bleak picture here, because the reality is, right now for so many across the country, things are becoming bleaker and bleaker, especially in regard to upholding the right to housing. However, as I indicated, we have a choice, and I am urging the government to make a different choice and ensure that all individuals' right to housing is respected and upheld.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I share something in common that is not a good thing, and she made reference to it in her speech, and that is the bus shelters. Whether it is on Portage Avenue in her riding or on Selkirk Avenue in my riding, we see bus shelters being used as homes. One cannot help but be fearful and sympathetic when they see those visuals, especially when the weather is this cold.

I can appreciate the member is in opposition and is critiquing the government, but would she not agree that the best way to deal with that kind of homelessness is to have different levels of government all at the table, and even factor in some of those wonderful non-profit organizations that are doing a lot of the ground work? It is time that we really all came together to deal with this very serious problem.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with working with all levels of government, and as a practice, I even work across party lines to fight for my riding of Winnipeg Centre and to fight for human rights. However, here is the thing. This behaviour of incremental justice by the Liberal government has resulted in people literally freezing to death on the streets of Winnipeg Centre in bus shelters. They do not have three years to wait for the government to cough up the funds they need.

As I said, it is a political choice. I am asking the government to divest in its corporate bailouts, invest in saving lives and ensure that Winnipeg Centre gets the resources it needs to build the housing it needs.

[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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so nice to be on the status of women committee with my hon. colleague from Shefford. It has been a pleasure to get to know her.

I certainly agree that the provinces play a part. However, the federal government has a responsibility to provide the financial resources to places in need, whether it be in Quebec or Manitoba. That has not happened. In Winnipeg Centre, we had an investment in housing, and although it is greatly appreciated, it is not even a drop in the bucket.

We need more resources. We need greater investments in affordable, accessible housing, with rent geared to income. We cannot wait; lives are on the line.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre and I share a lot in common, particularly with my district in Edmonton Griesbach, one of the hardest hit communities of poverty. My colleagues and I know the importance of ending poverty, and the Liberal legislation does not go nearly far enough in fixing the poverty issues.

Would the member agree that ensuring a guaranteed livable basic income is truly the appropriate response to ending poverty in Canada?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, absolutely. I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-223, to implement a framework for a guaranteed livable basic income. There has been a lot of research on it in Canada, Manitoba being the place for research in the MINCOME study. We know that when we invest in people, it is good for the economy, it is good for people and it saves lives.

There has been cross-partisan support for it. It is a practice that has been implemented in other places in the world, with guaranteed livable basic income programs. This would be a game-changer. This would save lives. It is time to implement a guaranteed livable basic income.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the speeches from the Conservative Party, there is no doubt its members are taking a hard right. It is almost as if we are going back to the days of Stephen Harper and possibly even the Reform Party. They are applauding from across the way, so I guess their intent is to go right.

The member talks about inflation. Yes, we all have concerns with regard to inflation, but it has to be put into perspective with what is happening around the world, and Canada is doing well. When I responded to the budget, I made reference to the third quarter report on the GDP, which said Canada was at 5.4% growth. That is better than the U.S., Japan, the U.K. and Australia. It is not as bad as the Conservatives are saying. The sky is not falling. Canadians are coming together, and we will get through this.

I am wondering if the member can indicate to us why it appears today that the Conservatives seem to be going quite far to the right.

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

Mr. Speaker, the national debt has reached $1.2 trillion. That is an amount, a word I never thought I would have to use here in the House.

To come back to what my colleague from Winnipeg North just said, the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly said that the additional spending that was justified by the economic recovery is no longer reasonable. The Parliamentary Budget Officer himself is saying that to the government. What is more, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are saying that our economy is doing well, and yet they continue to spend. Continuing to spend money on things that are not related to COVID-19 puts pressure on inflation, which keeps going up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his empathetic speech.

I remember all too well what it feels like to put back a can of juice, telling myself that we will drink water. I know what it feels like to skip buying bread, telling myself that we have a bit of flour and we will make crepes with water for lunch this week. I know that feeling, and it happened to me not so long ago. I thank him for his empathy. I know what it means to count every penny in order to be able to pay the rent.

Now there are people, not only families, but seniors who worked their whole life, who lived through other inflation crises, including those of the 1970s and 1980s. They are living on pensions that have increased by barely $13 a month during a period of more than 10 years. Last year, they got an increase of 61 cents, after a cut of several dollars.

How can we really help these people deal with the current crisis, in terms of both the pandemic and inflation?

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

Mr. Speaker, inflation is indeed affecting the most vulnerable in our society. This is because they are the ones whose wages are the slowest to increase.

Pensions do not increase in line with inflation, far from it. On this point, I agree completely with my colleague. That is the problem. Every month that inflation continues to rise, seniors, vulnerable individuals and people living on low incomes lose purchasing power and are faced with agonizing choices.

What we are asking for is not complicated. When will the government put an end to the spiralling inflation that is impoverishing Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member represents a very beautiful part of the country, but I know that people in Mégantic—L'Érable are struggling just like people in New Westminster—Burnaby are.

Seniors, students and families are really struggling to make ends meet. At the same time, as we know very well, the Liberals have done nothing to combat the tax avoidance that allows $25 billion a year to go to tax havens.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks this is a sound approach, that is, the Liberals refusing to close the loopholes that lead to the loss of $25 billion a year from taxpayers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I invite the member for Mégantic—L'Érable to give a very brief answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to give a very brief answer to a question like that, but I will try.

Today, we were accused of taking a hard right. However, if being right-wing means taking care of the most vulnerable people, the people who need help, who have no money and who have to make tough choices when grocery shopping, then I am proud to be right-wing.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a federal government that has invested in public transit, which is somewhat new. The question I have for the member is on whether he could provide some clarity.

Also, within the legislation we are saying that there is going to be a 1% annual tax for non-residents and non-Canadians for unoccupied dwellings. That is in its simplest form. Does the member support that, and is there any other initiative that he would like to encourage on that specific front?

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

Mr. Speaker, there were two pieces to that question.

The first one was around transit funding. There was funding for transit operations as part of the safe restart agreement. I know that was welcomed by municipalities, but it ran out a long time ago. What they are asking for is continued support on the operating side until we get through the pandemic and transit ridership rebounds. It is absolutely vital that we get that in place.

Yes, the 1% tax is a very small step. We need much more on housing, including a dedicated plan on indigenous housing. I will leave it at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the problems with postal service, and it brought back memories of when I lived on the North Shore.

Canada Post has a service called Solutions for Small Business, and I was wondering if there is any way to improve it. Furthermore, how are medications, food and other goods shipped to my colleague's riding?

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

Mr. Speaker, the situation facing small businesses in shipping goods is a huge issue, especially when shipping through the postal system. I think it is wrong that big companies like Amazon get preferential rates when they use our national postal system, compared to small businesses that want to do mail orders. They want to ship a smaller volume of packages and they have to pay exorbitant rates to do so. I think that is fundamentally wrong.

The issue residents face is a little bit different. I would happy to talk to my colleague about it afterward.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last election I have to say that the most common global concern I heard was on the climate crisis, and my hon. colleague touched on public transit.

I am wondering if he can expand a bit on how a massive expansion of public transit in Canada may help us address the climate crisis, and particularly how that might reveal itself in terms of smaller communities like the ones he represents, and what that would look like between cities.

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

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the climate crisis and driving down Canada's greenhouse gases, public transit is absolutely such an important solution, not just for big cities but for rural places as well.

When we look at the transport sector as a whole, we see one of Canada's fastest-growing sources of emissions. We know that when we get people on public transit, we have less congestion, we have better-developed communities and we have people who are more socially connected as well. There are so many reasons to get people riding public transit. We cannot do that unless the government helps municipalities with the kind of funding that they have asked for.

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague for Kitchener Centre to the House of Commons.

I am going to gut-check him here. I know it is his first time being elected to the House of Commons, and he will find out that when he presents misinformation to the House, and some of us here actually know that information to be false, we will correct him.

I will ask him about the $18 billion in subsidies that he has stated the government gives to the oil and gas sector, which is completely false. We would like to hear him tell us where that $18 billion is allocated, or if it is actually part of the $500-billion credit the sector has paid over the last 20 years into federal government coffers. It is about $25 billion per year, averaged out.

I will give him this opportunity to answer that question and make that correction.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to reiterate for my hon. colleague for Calgary Centre that these are not numbers that are coming from me. They are from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. It has already done the research on the funds that Export Development Canada currently allocates, which is around $13 billion a year. We purchased a pipeline for another $4 billion. In fact, we intend to spend many billions of dollars more on expanding that pipeline.

I would be glad to have a conversation with the member across not only about the dollar amounts, but more meaningfully about how we can use those funds to reinvest where we need it most, which is in workers across the country who are on the front lines. We either allow them to go through an unjust disruption, or we support them today to ensure they have the supports they need to transition to the economy of the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

For starters, he said a lot about the underused housing tax. The Bloc Québécois completely agrees with this concept, but there is just one small problem. This is yet another federal incursion into an area of jurisdiction that has not been used so far: property tax.

We think that, instead of interfering, it would make much more sense for the federal government to work with municipalities to provide them with information about the people who own buildings but do not live in them. Depending on their own situations, municipalities might even want to impose taxes on a broader base than that outlined in the bill and use the money for their own assets and infrastructure.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her question. I have been really impressed over the past two months with the Bloc Québécois's reminders about federal versus provincial areas of jurisdiction.

I would be happy to have a follow-up conversation. We need all levels of government working together, which includes the leadership we are seeing from the cities of Vancouver and Toronto with respect to a vacancy tax. It also includes provinces stepping up.

I think that is part of the conversation we then need to have to ensure that, with respect to jurisdiction, we can move past and ensure that the funds are there so all levels of government can invest in the affordable housing that we so desperately need.

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is so important that across every piece of legislation while we are in the midst of a climate emergency, we take the opportunity to ensure that the funds are spoken about. When we talk about being a climate leader, we need to actually follow through.

One of the ways we can do that is by looking at buildings across the country. We need to retrofit buildings right across the country, from workplaces to homes. To do so will take a significant investment and it will also create millions of jobs, while reducing energy poverty for those who need it most.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

That is true.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

That is true, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean just said. It has nothing for health up to 2027, and that is a disaster.

I would like to look into the origins of the Canadian federation's biggest problem, health care funding. For that, we have to go back to a key concept, which is the fiscal imbalance.

I know that federalists do not want to talk about the fiscal imbalance, but we have to look at it again. This concept has been extensively studied, and not by sovereignists.

For example, we have Quebec's Séguin report. I am not talking about the Mr. Séguin from the fairy tale about a goat, but about the former Liberal minister who was anything but a sovereignist. In his report, Mr. Séguin clearly states that there is a fiscal imbalance between the two levels of government.

According to the literature on the tax system of the Canadian federation, there are two types of imbalances. There is the horizontal imbalance, which is addressed through equalization, or what my Conservative friends call oil subsidies, and there is also the vertical imbalance, which means that the federal government's tax base is far greater than that of the provinces.

Year after year, the government has far greater capacity, but, unfortunately, fewer expenditures. That is where the fiscal imbalance comes in, with the provinces struggling with crushing health care costs and meagre financial resources.

To convince members of the House, I will refer to Jean Chrétien, a man I really like. Jean Chrétien had two—or maybe more—moments of lucidity in his life that I truly appreciate. The first was when he said that if he had invested as much in Quebec as he invested in the oil sector, Quebec would have been a Liberal province until the end of the 2000s. I love that Jean Chrétien said that. The other enlightened moment was when he said to G7 members that the miracle solution for balancing budgets was to cut transfer payments to the provinces without paying the political cost.

Jean Chrétien told the G7 countries that there is always this option of cutting transfer payments to the provinces to balance the budget. The beauty of it is that there is no political price to pay.

All the premiers stumbled over this. In 1996-97 and 1997-98, the federal government made successive $2.5‑billion cuts to health transfers, which led Lucien Bouchard to make the shift to ambulatory care, for which the Government of Quebec paid the political price. The federal government's responsibility is clear. Even though I am not a fan of Philippe Couillard or of austerity, he has also paid the price for the federal government's underfunding of health care.

I am not making any of this up. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports since 2013 have all observed that if the government does not invest more in health care, the provinces will rack up deficits year after year, while the federal government posts surpluses.

In case that is not enough to convince members, I will inform them of a Leger survey released this week. A couple of days ago during question period I asked the Prime Minister whether he would step up and address health care, the big issue for 2022. The Prime Minister said yes and then repeated his hallmark phrase, “we will be there for Canadians”.

However, Canadians clearly do not feel the Prime Minister has been there for them, since 85% of Canadians surveyed by Leger said that the Prime Minister does not provide an adequate amount of funding for health care. Furthermore, when Canadians were reminded that in the late 1950s and early 1960s the federal government paid 50% of health care costs, 90% of respondents then said that the federal government is not doing enough.

I have a solution to share. Our leader came up with a brilliant idea to hold a public summit on health where this issue could be debated, using the provinces' demands as a starting point.

Earlier, I mentioned how, year after year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports have shown that the situation is untenable. The Conference Board also issued a report indicating that the best way to put an end to this situation would be to increase transfers from 22% to 35%. If the federal government would agree to do that, it would be a good start. It would represent $28 billion more for health care.

Another critical component involves covering the costs of the system by increasing the federal share from 3% to 6%. The Conference Board's report also mentions that. We definitely want this done with no strings attached.

One thing surprises me. At the start of the 44th Parliament, we learned that the federal government was going to create a department of mental health, but I believe health care falls under provincial jurisdiction. What would the federal government have done if Quebec decided to create its own department of national defence? The federal government would have thought Quebec was crazy, and rightly so. However, the federal level decided to create a department of mental health, which is a waste of public funds. Since health falls under provincial jurisdiction, the solution is to increase health transfers to 35% of expenses. Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing about that in the economic update.

The situation is so untenable that 43% to 47% of Quebec's total budget is going to health care. That means there is not much left for all other areas, such as education, family services, child care and economic development. The federal government's paltry contribution to health care is leading to underdevelopment in the provinces and creating an untenable situation.

I will end my speech there. I would be pleased to respond to any questions or comments, particularly those of my colleague from Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, who am I to disappoint the member opposite? At the end of the day, there is one thing I know that is fairly consistent with the Bloc party, and it is that they seem to be of the opinion that the federal government's only role in health care is to give money to the provinces. I beg to differ.

When we are talking about the Canada Health Act or what our constituents want in all regions of the country, including the province of Quebec, it is that they want the federal government to have a role in health care that goes beyond just giving cash. For example, during the pandemic, we know that Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been concerned about long-term care and the idea of national standards for long-term care facilities.

Could my friend and colleague at the very least acknowledge that constituents in all ridings are concerned with the federal government ultimately having to play some role that goes beyond just giving cash?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was the one who was supposed to speak for 10 minutes. I am surprised.

I would say to my colleague that the federal government does have a role to play, and that is to transfer money to repair a health care system that has been underfunded for the past 20 years.

What I would have liked to hear from my colleague from Winnipeg North is his explanation as to why. Instead, he explained the famous Jean Chrétien quote, saying that we can balance public finances by cutting transfer payments without paying the political price.

We could already be out of the crisis. The government has spent staggering amounts of money on CERB and supports for businesses. I realize that it had to be done.

My concern, though, is that the government will do the same damn thing and balance its budget on the backs of the provinces by cutting transfer payments. I can guarantee that that is what is going to happen.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

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

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

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

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest with my colleague, I did not talk about inflation because I do not know a lot about it.

I always find it funny when people rise in the House to talk about things they know nothing about. I know quite a bit about health transfers. I have done my research.

The Conservatives are fixated on inflation, and I get it. It is a major concern when it comes to health transfers. Inflation will make the cost of operating our health care system even higher, hence the importance of certain transfers.

I did not talk about inflation because I do not talk about things I do not know. What I do not know, I do not talk about.

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

Mr. Speaker, one thing that really concerns me is that so many seniors still have to work during the pandemic. Even though they are supposed to be able to live on their pensions, they cannot. The government did not claw back the hundreds of millions of dollars it gave to big oil, which was spent on whatever, but it went after senior citizens.

We have senior citizens who are losing their homes because of the government's clawback. The Liberals promised that sometime in the spring, sometime down the road, they are going to help seniors. Does the Bloc agree that we need to get that money to seniors now, that we need to tell the government that if it is going to claw back, it can claw back from the CEOs and it can claw back the money it gave to big oil, but it must leave our senior citizens alone?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. That is what we call an assist.

If we want to do something constructive, maybe we should stop sending financial support to the fossil fuel sector year after year and start thinking about those with the greatest needs who will suffer the most from inflation, in other words seniors and the most vulnerable.

I agree with my colleague 100%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that MPs have the right to say whatever they want, including misinformation about our medical community and vaccines, but that is not germane to this issue. We have to debate the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I accept the intervention. I will ask the member for Yorkton—Melville to continue and take into consideration what we heard.

The member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will, and I think we need to take all aspects into consideration when we are talking about Canadians and their tax dollars. Fortunately, I was at the last sentence before moving into why this impacts our truckers and others so extensively.

Truckers gave me more hope for the future of our economy than we have received from the government in almost two years, so why should truckers and all Canadians be fearful of our economic outlook? Look no further than the likes of this bill. The economic and fiscal update increases new government spending by $71.2 billion. Since the start of the pandemic, the Liberals have doled out $176 billion in new spending that is unrelated to our COVID response. That is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who says, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as ‘stimulus’ no longer exists.”

The PBO, Canadians as a whole and, I would even wager, the finance minister’s own staff know that never-ending and extreme deficits contribute greatly to inflation. We started off the year on the wrong foot, to be sure. Inflation has hit a 30-year high of 4.8%.

What does this actually mean for Canadians in everyday terms? Let us look at housing. When the Prime Minister took power, the typical home cost $435,000. The cost has almost doubled since, to $810,000. Young Canadians looking to buy their first home are facing a perfect storm of runaway inflation and a lack of supply. As a means to combat the housing crisis, this bill proposes to add an annual tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. I argue that this is completely insufficient. In our 2021 platform, we proposed a ban on foreign investors not living in or moving to Canada from buying homes for a two-year period, after which it would be reviewed. The Conservatives would have also encouraged foreign investment in purpose-built rental housing that is affordable for Canadians.

Even if they are not able to buy a home in today’s market, every Canadian is also feeling the pinch at their local grocery store. Chicken is up 6.2%, beef is up 11.9%, bacon is up 19.1%, bread is up 5%, cooking oil is up 41.4% and white sugar is up 21.6%. This is just over the course of one year. Sixty per cent of Canadians are finding it difficult to feed their families. That figure has increased 36% from when the same question was asked in 2019.

These prices affect every normal Canadian, but maybe not the Prime Minister, so I want to put the concerns of some average Canadians on the record. Lindsay tells me her grocery bill for her family of four was once $200 a week and is now $400. She thought she was overbuying, but confirmed that it was the same items and the same quantities. Robin, a tattoo artist, says the nitrile gloves he buys were nine dollars per box two years ago and are now $27. Carol reports the price of groceries, clothes, medicine, gas and everything one needs has shot up. Susan believes absolutely everything has increased in price. The gas tax on her power and energy bills is $100 dollars before she even begins to pay for the usage. Dennis has found that the price of groceries, especially eggs and produce, has gone up, but also sees increases across the board, including, of course, for lumber and fuel. Noel sees everything has gone up and notes utilities are through the roof.

Inflation creates a dangerous spiral. Increased costs borne by the service industry, utility providers and large corporations are passed along to the consumer. Just as the carbon tax is a tax on everything, the inflation tax punishes hard-working Canadians the most. It is important to remember that added pressures like the carbon tax and inflation occur directly because of the poor choices of the Liberal government. The government chose to introduce a carbon tax at $20 per tonne and said we were misleading Canadians when we predicted it would be raised to $50. Now we know the government plans to raise it to $170 per tonne. That is a choice the government has made, and Canadians are literally paying the price.

The “Justinflation” tax is hitting families hard at the grocery store, the garage, on the farm and when they sit down at night to pay their bills each month. Rather than address the highest inflation in over 30 years, this bill would be adding another $70 billion of spending as fuel for the fire. As a result of these choices, two in five Canadians believe they are worse off than they were last year. Adding to their fears, the Liberals have not provided a plan for our way out of this pandemic and to get public spending under control.

In yesterday’s Calgary Herald, Chris Nelson warned that endless deficits and a weakening dollar will drive up the cost of imports, making inflation even worse. He says “a rock and a hard place” does not come close to describing the spot Canada is in.

He suggests a surefire way to prevent this would be to invest in our innovative, productive and export-driven oil and gas sector. It provides a bump of $68 billion in our exports each year, and despite that, the environment minister is determined to eliminate it outright in 18 months. This is a perfect example of why the Liberals are doing far more harm than good when it comes to our economy, job growth and the impact on the environment around the world. Canada should be playing a leading role and we are not.

Rather than passing the bill and aimlessly spending more, what are the common-sense solutions to get our economy moving again? My mind is immediately drawn back to the truckers and how we can keep them all moving safely. The government should respond quicker than it has to the need for rapid tests as a means of better controlling the spread of COVID at the federal level, the Liberal's responsibility. Instead, they want to further restrict mobility rights.

The Liberals have limited Canadians' ability to fly or take a train without proof of vaccination. They argue that these measures are motivated by scientific recommendations to control the spread of the virus, but they are contradicting what medical officials of health have stated: that those who are fully vaccinated are also carriers and spreaders of the virus. I believe that the more appropriate measure would be to require all passengers to provide a negative rapid test prior to travel, respecting the mobility rights of all Canadians.

Let us safely but permanently restore Canada's spirit of hard work, free will and unbridled innovation. Let us defeat the bill, which only serves as a discouraging reminder of unending economic malaise and heavy-handed control. Let us provide all Canadians with the ability to work and contribute to our postpandemic recovery no matter their medical status.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, our problem here is what the government chooses to do with the vast majority of the money that it is printing and spending carelessly. That is the focus, just as our focus has been on those who speak up across this nation, as they have the right to be heard on issues that impact them as taxpayers, and those who are going to be footing the bill.

I wish I had the opportunity to give my time to the member to answer why he supports a Prime Minister who calls everyday Canadians racists and misogynists, and refuses to meet with those who he basically calls untouchables. I posted on my Facebook page an article this morning from an individual who lives in downtown Ottawa called “A night with the untouchables”. I encourage every member of Parliament in the House to take a look at what that article says and ask these questions. Why are they not downtown? Why is their leader, the leader of this country, not speaking to everyday Canadians—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling microaggressions. I am having fingers pointed at me. I would ask the members opposite to be a little more civil.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

On a point of order, we have the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the same point of order.

Let us be serious here. The member for Timmins—James Bay heckled the member for Yorkton—Melville throughout her speech and heckled members on this side throughout the speech. Now he rises on a point of order to claim that he is a victim of some kind of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am hearing a lot of debate here, and I am not seeing a point of order.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have to protect my reputation here. I see that the member fell apart on his point of order. It is hard to heckle someone when they are on TV. We can talk to a TV screen, but heckling is something that is done in the House.

I have such respect for you, Mr. Speaker, but I will not continue putting up with these kinds of shenanigans from the Conservatives.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We are getting into a lot of debate here, and I would really like to get back to questions and comments.

I will entertain another one from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that member was very close to the line of referring to someone's presence or absence in the House. I know that in this hybrid format, members, whether they are attending virtually or in person, are entitled to the same rights and privileges that each and every member of this House is given.

I would ask that that line be respected within this place.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think we are all ready to move on. We were on questions and comments for the member for Yorkton—Melville.

The member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

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

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

Could the member for Yorkton—Melville comment on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a very good example of very poor mismanagement by the government. I know members of the government complain that we are in the same scenario as the rest of the world, but this country faced the same challenges back in 2008 and 2009 with a collapse of the world economy. Our country, under the leadership of the wonderful deceased Mr. Flaherty and the then prime minister Stephen Harper, led the world, and we were highly recognized for the way we handled the economy during that time.

The government is really impacting Canadians with all kinds of stress and duress with the way it is managing its finances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I myself recognize and feel a lot of frustration with the ongoing public health orders, not because I think they should be lifted but because it has been tough on people. In the face of a crisis, sometimes we are called on to do hard things.

I support people's right to protest peacefully, but I have to note that the organizers of this event have an MOU, which they have been asking people to sign, that is about deposing a government in an undemocratic way. They are calling on a committee of their own selection to rule the country with the Senate and the Governor General, as if that is something that makes sense under our Constitution and considering good principles of democracy and government.

I have been a part of many protests. I have not seen the kinds of hate that we have seen, which is not to say that everyone who supports the cause supports those symbols, but there is a lot of it. There are a lot of people who have been accosted and harassed in the streets. Those are things that I absolutely do not support. I do not see the leaders of this protest denouncing in any way.

I have been part of protests where the leaders have told people to go home because of the activities that they are engaging in that are detracting—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. We will move on.

To answer the question quickly, the member for Yorkton—Melville.

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally hear what the member is saying, and I appreciate him a great deal. What challenges that whole line of thought could be answered very easily if some time is taken to read the article “A night with the untouchables” and hear what is not being reported versus what is being reported in our news and from various sources. It gives a totally different perspective on this.

I agree with the member that this needs to be dealt with, but I want every member of Parliament in this House to have a true sense of who these people are. I would encourage them to do two things: read the article, “A night with the untouchables” by someone who lives downtown, and please go talk to some truckers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have now seen the occupation of Ottawa by right-wing radicals and racists, an occupation that has been supported by some of the member's colleagues and denounced by others. We have seen Confederate flags, swastikas, anti-indigenous racism, not to mention the total shutdown of small businesses in Ottawa.

My hon. friend has said he does not support any new spending because that is not necessary. Given what he has seen in Ottawa this week, would he not agree that spending to support small businesses, women-owned businesses, indigenous innovation and Black-owned businesses is actually good policy and good for this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is actually not what I said. What I said is that we need less spending broadly. I supported measures for rapid tests, particularly if it had come much sooner. Targeted spending at preventative measures would have lessened the need for gross spending in response. I cited two areas, rapid tests and investments in health care. That would have prevented much of the spending in response and the resulting inflation that Canadians are now experiencing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about support for seniors. He talked about not having government spending, but one of the things the NDP has been calling for, even before the election, is for the government to support seniors and not claw back their GIS. This is because seniors are getting evicted and rendered homeless at this point in time.

Does the member think the Liberal government should immediately restore the GIS to seniors?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have a question. The government has promised that a payment is coming to seniors. When? My constituents have not seen it.

Second, seniors and all people on fixed incomes are experiencing inflation. That is the tax that is eroding what they are already receiving. We need to blunt the force of inflation, and the resulting higher interest rates, to help our seniors and all of us in this economy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The member will have two minutes or so of questions and comments remaining when we come back to this.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We did have a few moments for questions and comments for the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington, but I see we are moving on from that.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I followed my colleague's speech with interest. I have some questions for him. I heard him repeatedly say that we should spend less and do more. I also heard him say we should spend more, and in other cases do less. It was a meandering speech, one that did not really settle on any solutions except to urge the government to do more. The policies we have put forth over the last couple of years have saved innumerable lives and innumerable businesses. They have ensured that people can go back to work.

What are the savings the member is looking for? Where are we supposed to cut costs? Which program would he have cut in order to find austerity and a solution that, frankly, does not exist right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that a meandering speech would deserve a meandering question.

I would suggest to the hon. member across the way that it is the waste. I talked about $177 billion being spent by the government. The government said it was for pandemic spending, yet there is no accountability. The PBO said it does not know if that $177 billion was spent on anything to do with the pandemic—

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Which business would the member have me take the money away from in his riding?

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

If the member asks the question, I will be happy to answer it.

At the end of the day, there is a lot of waste that the government has placed on the Canadian taxpayer over the last six years. There is significant waste. That is where we would start. Number one, get rid of the waste.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleagues spend a fair amount of time describing the impact inflation is having on the budgets of families and the middle class. However, it is important to note that inflation will also impact the provincial governments, particularly health care systems, which have to hire people and buy equipment and supplies.

Can my colleague tell me why he thinks that the Liberal government is refusing to increase health transfers unconditionally, as requested by Quebec and all of the provinces?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer, and I will never try to figure out why the government does what it does.

Moving forward, we are approaching a $1.4-trillion debt. The cost to service that debt, should interest rates climb even a quarter of a percent, would have a significant impact across all aspects of the government's ability to do all sorts of things, such as pay health transfers.

This pandemic has shown us one thing: that more attention needs to be paid by the government to health care and to health transfers. We, as a party, would certainly be willing to have a look at what that might be like moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner's colleague, the member for Yellowhead, I also called on businesses in Medicine Hat as part of my sales territory when I worked in the public sector.

The member spoke today on health care. Yesterday, I took a study request to HUMA about the care economy. I am hopeful that the Conservatives will support recommendations that come out of that study in the future. I anticipate that there will be an ask for new investments highlighted that we require for health care.

The NDP accept that taxation is not fair, and that large corporations and the ultrawealthy do not pay their fair share. Closing tax loopholes, ending tax havens, and fair taxation on the ultrawealthy are ways for us to invest more in health care transfers and to let us better support Canadians who are seeing rising costs of living.

Would the Conservatives agree that the ultrawealthy need to start paying their fair share of taxes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that when the member travelled around the country and Medicine Hat was part of her sales territory, she spent extra time there because it is an amazing city to be in. She probably did not want to go back to wherever her base was.

I was intrigued by her earlier comment about a care culture. It is important to see what we, as Conservatives, have been saying along. I think we agree with the NDP on a couple of things, and that mental health is a health issue. When we are talking about a care culture in this country, we could certainly start there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the supply chain, and I have some questions about that and the Conservative support for the blockades and convoys that we are seeing across the country.

The member will know that I am from Alberta. Today the Alberta Beef Producers, the Alberta Cattle Feeders' Association and The Canadian Cattlemen's Association have called for a stop to the blockades in Coutts in southern Alberta. Also, time after time we are seeing racist symbols like Confederate flags and yellow stars being used by the protesters in Ottawa.

How can anyone stand with protesters and say the supply chain is at risk when the protesters are stopping the transport of goods in my province and are showing such disregard for our electoral positions and our democracy in Ottawa?

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

Mr. Speaker, I lived in Alberta for nine years. In fact, my wife is from southern Alberta, so we certainly share that in common. I gave a couple of examples of farmers and farm groups in my riding that have been impacted by this, so I empathize with them.

In terms of some of the acts we have seen from the protests, I personally condemn those. I did that on Facebook over the weekend. My grandfather fought the Nazis as part of the Dutch resistance in the Netherlands, and certainly we abhor and condemn these actions and the acts that took place at the National War Memorial. A member of the military from Hamilton, my hometown, was there, Corporal Nathan Cirillo. He gave his life to the country during the shooting in 2014.

The point we are making is that the government needs to have a dialogue with the truckers, those who are legitimately there protesting peacefully. We should have that dialogue so we can end the protest, end the lockdowns and clear the backlog.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour for the intervention today. The member for Flamborough—Glanbrook is indeed in the riding just next to mine, and I have never addressed him in the House of Commons before. I welcome him to the House and welcome him as a neighbour. Perhaps we can find a good coffee shop on the border between our two ridings and meet, as I have done many times with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills in the past.

He spoke about progress, and I agree. We share other things, such as our Dutch heritage, our desire for a strong economy and the recognition that Canada has offered our families a great future and certainly a great last 70 years or so, if that is how long his family has been here, like mine has.

My question is very simple. Earlier last week, I made an announcement in his riding for an increase in broadband availability for some of his constituents. This is the fourth such announcement I have made for his riding in the last couple of years. I acknowledge he is new to the House.

I would like to know if he wants to work together on ensuring that more residents in Flamborough—Glanbrook get high-speed Internet delivered to their homes.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to address my neighbour, and absolutely we will find a coffee shop. I am not sure there is one along Milburough Town Line, because there are really just fields there, but that is fine. I will make the trek to Milton. It is a great community.

I am always interested in working productively and collaboratively with all members of the House. In fact, one of the first meetings I had as a member of Parliament was with my neighbour and colleague, the hon. Filomena Tassi, who is the Minister of Procurement and is in the riding next to mine.

[An hon. member]

Uh-oh. Rookie.

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

Sorry, I should rephrase. She is the hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Milton.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pardon me. My point of order is simple and in jest. We do not address members by their names in the House. Since my friend and colleague is new, I thought I would offer that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook did correct himself, so I accept that he realized his mistake when he was speaking.

The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook can give a quick answer, because I do have one more question I want to get in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I work collaboratively with all other MPs in the Hamilton area. We do so on a regular basis when we work together.

I thank the member for the announcement of rural broadband in Flamborough—Glanbrook. There is a lot more work to do. I made that point yesterday in the House. While 47 is great, there are 8,000 rural homes, my own being one of them, where internet is insufficient. Let us work together and keep that going.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have lived in Alberta and Quebec, and I understand that Canada is a complex country. We need to respect our provinces and our federal government. I take that to heart.

To her question about housing, I raised in my comments that housing is something we need desperately in my part of the world. We are short 110,000 homes in the Hamilton area simply to catch up, so I certainly encourage all of the investment in housing that can happen and await the government's housing strategy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the member opposite a direct answer. First of all, in British Columbia we do not have access to rapid tests. The province has not decided to use those, and out of respect for provincial jurisdiction, I would like to hear the answer as to why it has not included them. However, we do not have access to those for businesses, schools and whatnot in the capacity seen in other provinces.

The member politicized, I hope inadvertently in his comments, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is a non-partisan officer of Parliament, here to serve everyone, including those who are not of a party status. It is not just me. If the member wants to call me some Conservative, right-wing, Attila the Hun or whatever, he can go ahead and do that, but for gosh sakes, let us bring some decorum and treat the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the respect that is deserved of that office and this place.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question and for the work she does on the environment committee with me and other members. I certainly always appreciate her interventions.

Let me start by saying that anyone who evades their taxes, anyone who tries to work outside the system, should be brought in to pay their fair share. On the flip side, I do believe the Government of Canada, and we have seen this in continual Transparency International reports, which specifically cite the government's inaction on things like money laundering.

The province of British Columbia set up the Cohen Commission and has received a final report. One thing that did happen is that they took action dealing with things like casinos, but those activities moved to other provinces. Whether it is tax evasion or money laundering, the government has been lax, and it is at the expense of so many. Money laundering is a scourge and needs to be stopped.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that the member raises is inflation and that ties into the cost of housing. Along with inflation, there are many factors impacting the huge rise in the cost of housing. Part of that is the financialization of housing where people are treating housing as though it is a stock market. REITs are part of the problem, and the government has not taken any action with respect to that.

Would the member and the Conservatives support bringing in measures to address the financialization of housing and particularly putting a moratorium on REITs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my fellow member from British Columbia and say that she has done more than her fair share to bring up the lack of action on housing, particularly in her riding, and the lack of federal monies, which the government continues to say are coming.

When it comes to financialization, I do have some concerns about how our economy under the government is going. The finance committee has recently been holding hearings on housing. We should be looking to it for what the recommendations are.

However, if an entrepreneur right now has $100,000 and wonders if they should put that in their business, in a new factory, new equipment, hiring new people or purchasing a home, people will say that productive capital should go to a home. That does not hire people. That does not put more people to work. That does not make our economy more innovative.

Unfortunately, until the government actually starts addressing these problems, we are going to see real estate dominating our economy. It may not be good to have all our eggs in one basket.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member will help me out and provide some advice in terms of what she would do.

A constituent of mine who was collecting GIS gave me a call indicating that her GIS was going to be cut back. When she explained the situation she said, “When I was collecting GIS, I was actually making some money on the side. I was collecting quite a bit in terms of babysitting.” As a result of collecting the babysitting money, it caused some issues in terms of her having not claimed it.

In situations such as this, are there any circumstances at all from the NDP's perspective where someone who maybe should not have been collecting the CERB should be obligated, in any fashion, to pay it back?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the member is blaming at-risk seniors for the situation his government has put them in.

Let me put a question back to him. Perhaps the member could tell me if he thinks there are any examples where a corporation that used money for the wrong things should be asked to pay it back. The government appears to think corporations never have to pay it back, even they are using it to pay scab labour in my riding so they can lock out their workers.

Instead of attacking vulnerable seniors, let us look at making it more equitable for them, please.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona on her speech, which touched on many points. One item I was hoping she would talk about is the housing crisis. Right now, we basically have a housing economy. The economy is run by the real estate industry, which is very dangerous for seniors, health care transfers and education. Everything has been affected by this crisis.

Does she agree that the government is just sitting on the sidelines and watching what is happening in what I call the biggest economic massacre in Canada?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my neighbour from Edmonton Manning and I share a beautiful city. I met with the mayor of Edmonton recently to talk about the housing crisis in Edmonton and the failure of the federal government to do what needs to be done, things like an indigenous housing strategy developed with the input of indigenous people.

Obviously, the housing crisis is desperate across the country, but one of the problems I see is the fact that we do not have a strong housing strategy for indigenous people in our country. That is something that has been promised and the government has absolutely sat on the sidelines and has not done anything to make that happen. We are well past the deadline.

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

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

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

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

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I am sorry, but I am going to answer in English.

I am learning. My French is a work-in-progress.

There needs to be intervention from all levels of government. It is important we have that. In the province of Alberta, it is particularly important that we are able to work with municipalities because our provincial government seems very unwilling to support some of these initiatives and has been a barrier to our being able to achieve the things we want to achieve at the federal, municipal and provincial levels. Absolutely, there is an opportunity for the federal government to work with municipal governments. If one has a government that is more open to that then maybe even provincial governments, but that is not the case in Alberta.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the wonderful citizens of Calgary Midnapore.

What a week this has been. First, I would like to thank the member for Durham for his leadership over the last 18 months. I am truly grateful for the leadership he provided our party and for all of the incredible opportunities he gave me. I wish him, his wife Rebecca and his beautiful children Molly and Jack, Jack who is of course the same age as my son Edward, nothing but the very best as they go forward into the future.

I would also like to welcome our incredible new leader, the fantastic individual from the riding of Portage—Lisgar. I have such incredible respect for her as a parliamentarian who has really trenched a path forward here in the House of Commons in so many roles, as a minister in the Harper administration, of course as our House leader, as our deputy leader and now as our leader. I cannot wait for her leadership to unify us as Conservatives over the coming days.

Finally, before I get to the meat of my speech, I also want to make a special recognition to a special individual in my riding. Tyler Turner, raised in the community of Sundance, who won gold for Canada, the first gold in the World Para Snow Sports Championships. I am so very proud of this individual who was born and raised in my riding of Calgary Midnapore. I also thank my constituent and supporter Dale Bradley. It is really a special moment for Calgary Midnapore.

I am now going to get into the reason I am here today, which is to respond to the fall economic statement. The story that comes to mind is a very embarrassing story for me. I was in kindergarten at Sam Livingston School in my riding, about three blocks away from where my parents, who are now my constituents, still live. I was painting, I had on my paint smock, and I was so proud of the painting I had created. When it came time for me to remove my paint smock, unfortunately, I was wearing a dress that day that had an elastic around the shoulders. Upon removing my paint smock, my very good friend Kimberlee Crocker, who lived two blocks away from me, pointed to me and said, “Stephanie, you're in your underwear.”

I had never been more embarrassed in the first five years of my life than when, in that moment, I realized I had taken off my paint smock as well as my dress. I was standing there in my underwear. If I had something to say at that moment, and this phrase had not arrived yet in the world, I would have said, “There is nothing to see here.”

We could say that same thing about the fall economic statement. There is nothing to see here. We are coming up on 24 months of the pandemic. Unfortunately, Canadians had to retreat to their homes. In many cases, they were provided funding by the government, funding we supported, in fact funding we came back to the House time and time again to support as a result of the errors of the government. Nonetheless, we were good team players. We wanted to go along with what Canadians needed at that time, so we supported the measures that were taken.

Essentially what happened was that individuals had excess funds as a result of not being able to go out. Factory workers were not in the factories producing at the time because they were following government orders. As a result, we had too few goods and too many dollars resting among citizens. The result of that was too many dollars chasing too few goods. That got us into the situation we are in with this problem of inflation.

However, there were other problems, in addition to this fundamental problem. The government did not make it any easier for us to overcome this problem. First, there was the incredible overspending that we saw from the government, the overspending that continues to this very day. Certainly, as I stated, we were good team players. We went along with what Canadians required at the time. However, the government keeps bringing up, again and again, our refusal to go along with them on Bill C-2, another $7 billion, and quite frankly, that is because we were very concerned about the amount the government had spent at that time, as well as its continued spending.

In addition, the government did not start to take immediate economic action to account for the lack of supply. I have said often that if I had been the Prime Minister, I would have begun an immediate national inventory of agriculture, minerals, energy—everything from coast to coast to coast to start to reconsider what we have and what we need.

I actually thought that the pandemic would bring us into incredible new trading patterns around the world, with less reliance on China, but nothing of that sort was done at the time. In fact, we did not even start to begin domestic production of many things, including vaccines, in a timely manner. I am sure members will remember that we shipped our personal protective equipment overseas to China. In fact, when I was in a meeting just last week, the member for Abbotsford indicated that the mask he was wearing, which had been distributed by the House of Commons, was made in China. My point is that the government did not take action to immediately address that. Again, nothing to see here.

What do we need to do now? Well, I will tell us all, and I would like to thank Mr. David Dodge and the fall economic outlook from Bennett Jones for this information.

First of all, we need to stop spending. We need to stop spending at our current rate and seriously reconsider where our dollars go and whether every dollar that is spent is necessary to spend.

In addition, only incredible productivity in our nation will save us from this rising inflation. It is one of the only things that will save us. We need to continue to incentivize production within our nation and we need to start thinking about how we are going to do that. In fact, if the government spends money at this time, it absolutely must be for some type of productivity increase in the future, not the willy-nilly spending that we have seen up to this point, and again I say that up to this point, there is nothing to see here.

I will take a moment to talk about the labour impacts. I know this aspect was brought up in question period today by my colleague from Regina—Lewvan.

There have been 200,000 jobs lost, which is nothing to sneeze at. Throughout the recent months, the government has done nothing but try to take credit for the one million jobs it says it has created. The government did not create these jobs. This has just been a natural recovery from the pandemic; it has nothing to do with the government's positive actions, not at all.

In addition to that, the government talked about 106% employment. This is also a fallacy. This number is also inflated. The workforce has been shrinking as individuals, be it through retirement or moving somewhere else, have removed themselves from the workforce. With fewer workers but the same population, there will be higher employment, so the 106% figure is also a fallacy. There is nothing to see here.

What is most shocking is that the real impacts of the Liberals' inaction are completely lost on them. We saw in the fall session that they cannot state how much a package of bacon costs. Even the non-vegetarians cannot state what they pay for a whole chicken. A year ago I paid $10 for a whole chicken; I just paid $18 at Safeway for a whole chicken.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

They are heckling me. That was coming from a Prime Minister who had two nannies and a Deputy Prime Minister who only knows that the GDP is increasing at 4.6%.

I have used the phrase “nothing to see here” in a double sense. The government is trying to hide what it has not done; as well, I am indicating that no action has been taken. My point is that both are bad and neither is good, but it does not change the fact that there is nothing to see here.

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I will remind the member, though he did correct himself in the end, to direct questions through the Chair and not to address someone directly as “you”.

The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising at all that a Liberal member of the House would take a story that is so personal to me, where I felt so much pain and embarrassment in my life, and try to make fun of it. He did not even try to relate to it and say he had something similar in his life. He is even laughing at me now.

This is not surprising. I certainly would not expect these members to understand economics, much less be able to have the simple human relation of an embarrassing moment, which I am sure everyone in the House has faced.

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

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

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

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do have some concrete proposals, believe it or not.

First of all, the government can stop directing its benefits to those who money launder and those who buy arms with these funds. That would be a great start. If it could get some accountability within the benefits that it distributes, that would be a fantastic start.

Second, I think the best way to have a good housing economy is to have a good economy. When people have good jobs and are not overwhelmed by the price of groceries and gas, they can actually start to save money for homes. I think that is a fantastic thing. I will also add that we had a fantastic housing initiative put together by my colleague in our platform this last election. I really think the Liberal government should go back to our platform and review that housing strategy in an effort to move forward, because what they are doing is not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Calgary Midnapore on her excellent speech. I am pleased to hear that she enjoys painting, which I do as well. As we know, Quebec has produced some great painters, including Riopelle.

All kidding aside, we in the Bloc Québécois agree with my colleague on one thing, and that is the lack of concrete proposals for solving the problems with the scarcity and shortage of labour in Quebec.

In Quebec, there are currently one million job vacancies, which is double the number from before COVID-19. Of all the places in Canada, Quebec is the one where it is hardest for business owners to fill positions right now. More than 60% of businesses are struggling to find workers.

The Bloc Québécois has been making concrete proposals, such as boosting productivity through tax credits and stimulating research and development.

I would like my colleague from Calgary Midnapore to tell us what she thinks of the government's failure to come up with proposals to deal with the scarcity and shortage of labour.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

First, I believe that we can eliminate the EMC. Second, we have to look to automation. Finally, we must find incentives for Canadians to work.

I would like to mention that I now wear clothing when I paint.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to make a speech in this session of Parliament, and I want to thank the constituents of Provencher for once again giving me the privilege to be their voice in Parliament.

I also want to take this time to thank the member for Durham for his service to our country and the Conservative Party, and to welcome the member for Portage—Lisgar as the new interim leader of the opposition and leader of the Conservative Party.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this bill. On this side of the House, we recognize that inflation is a crisis. We understand how hard it is for folks to put food on the table, and we recognize what the government does not: that it is the government's policies that are driving this inflation. It is the government's lack of fiscal responsibility that has led to more dollars chasing fewer goods. It is the Liberal vaccine mandate that has led to the fractures of our supply chains, our transportation industry and the divisions being created in this country, and it is the Liberals' arrogance that has led to tens of thousands of hard-working, freedom-loving Canadians to occupy the space in front of this House begging the government to hear their voices.

With that in mind, I would like to use my time today to address part 5 of this bill, which is the $300 million to support proof of vaccination initiatives. Both Saskatchewan and Alberta have indicated they will be dropping restrictions, mandates and vaccine passports. Ontario is considering the same, and many premiers have been talking about transitioning to the endemic stage. This is no time to be tossing another $300 million at proof of vaccination initiatives.

I have been clear from the beginning that I do not support vaccine mandates. I believe they are not charter compliant. I believe they are discriminatory and cause division. What we need right now in this country is not more name-calling or othering. What we need is unity. No one should lose their job, their business or the opportunities they would otherwise be entitled to for what ought to be a personal, private, medical choice, so today I want to take the rest of my time to read a letter from one of my constituents. His name is Terry. Terry is on the verge of losing of his business because of the Liberal government's policies, and I want the Liberal government to hear what he has to say.

This is a letter I received in the last few weeks unsolicited, and I have his permission to share it with the House, and indeed all Canadians, today. This is what Terry stated:

“ I've been running a small trucking business for the past nine years. I used to be just self-employed and running one truck. With the onset of COVID in 2020, I thought that this would disrupt my operations. Thankfully, that wasn't the case. Transportation was deemed an essential service that didn't warrant disruption. As a result, a year ago I was finally able to procure more customers and expand my operations to include additional owner-operators and company truck drivers.

“In the last couple of months I could see things shifting and potentially disrupting business operations and now it's upon me: a vaccination mandate at the Canada-U.S. border that prevents non-vaccinated individuals from crossing for business-related purposes. I am not vaccinated. I have no interest in being vaccinated. Why? Simply because none of what the government agency, federal or provincial, says is consistent or logical. The goalposts are constantly changing. What was compliant or acceptable yesterday is no longer the same today. This contradicts that rule and so on and so forth.

“These are my issues. We were once told that the vaccine will prevent you from getting COVID. That has proven to be false. Nobody knew that, but that didn't prevent the powers that be to spout “get vaccinated”. There is absolutely no shortage of stories all over the world in every sector, politicians, sporting athletes, media, news personalities and just plain old folks everywhere that are vaccinated, double vaccinated and boosted. So many injections to prevent, prevent, prevent and it has shown to prevent nothing that we were promised it would prevent. But, hey, guess what, get vaccinated anyway, it's your best protection. Protection to what?

“I'm no longer able to attend any sporting events. I've been a hockey player for 36 years on many different levels and that has been taken away from me and I think of all others it's been taken away from. Our local rink in Grunthal, Manitoba didn't even open for activities this winter. Think about what that does to all sorts of kids and adults who use a facility like that for exercise and community interaction. I'm no longer allowed indoors to eat, but I can walk in and order for takeout. I am in the building. Shouldn't that constitute a threat to those who are in the dining area? Mask or no mask, if I had COVID, I'm sure people wouldn't want me nearby, but, for the sake of commerce, allow me in. My money is wanted, but not my presence.

“Here is the big one. It's now been proven that both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated can catch COVID and that both vaccinated and unvaccinated can spread COVID. We are all able to spread it, but vaccinated people are able to gather wherever, family gatherings, restaurants, movie theatres, sporting venues, etc. There was a time in the not so distant past that these would have been labelled super spreader events and frowned upon viciously, but now it's okay to let the people who can spread COVID to gather at will.

“They can spread it so easily but are without restriction, and somehow I'm labelled and tagged as the bad guy because I'm not vaccinated. I'm stuck in my house or inside my truck not interacting with the general public like the vaccinated are, but somehow this is my fault that COVID is spreading.

“All of that to say that I'm not sure what's going to happen to my business. I need vaccinated drivers now. It's getting tough to find them. People don't respond to being told what to do, and that's what this mandate is doing. There's resistance because there's a strong sense that governments are lying at every turn, while trying to force something on people that they constitutionally don't have the right to do. I made a choice to not get it based on the illogical and inconsistent messaging.

“I have absolutely no doubt that COVID has taken lives and that COVID has made the vulnerable very sick. I know people who have gotten sick and have passed away, and I am by no means denying that COVID has done these things. But I am saying that people have gotten it, dealt with and moved on from it, whether naturally or with treatment, and those people have an immunity that studies have shown to be 27 times better than anything that can be manufactured in the lab in the form of a vaccine. But that natural immunity is denied and not recognized. Why? Has anyone thought about where we'd be—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

We are listening to falsehoods, medical misinformation and medical lies. We need to do better in the House than to allow the House of Commons to be used for anti-vax falsehoods and disinformation. Is he going to start reading from QAnon next?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the intervention, but it is bordering on debate.

I will ask the member for Provencher to continue and listen to some of the comments then.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Provencher for his speech, but I do not agree with much of what he said.

Members of my community have been stuck across the border because of the illegal blockades north of Coutts. The member spoke a lot about trucking and his concerns for the trucking industry, but what about the truckers who are trying to deliver goods and services? After working hard for days and weeks, they are trying to get home to their families.

Does the member support illegal blockades that prevent goods and services from entering our communities and prevent members of the trucking community from getting home to their loved ones?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Skyview for his appreciation and concern for members in the trucking community.

We need to take a look at the whole picture here and see how our trucking industry is being so negatively affected by these mandates. Our statistics show that well over one-third of Canadians support these truckers, who are saying they need an end to these discriminatory mandates. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister was calling our truckers the heroes of the pandemic.

Everybody else had the luxury of working from home and did not have to drive to the office. They had the luxury of locking themselves up and staying in their own little social bubbles. However, our truckers were the ones who went out there. They went wherever they were told to go to pick up goods to bring them back and make sure that our grocery store shelves—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that medical workers in Toronto are being told not to wear their medical clothes outside this weekend because of the threats they are facing. I hear the Conservatives calling this a “vaccine vendetta”. We have descended so far down that our medical teams, which are keeping people safe, have to listen to what the member is saying, the misinformation and the vaccine lies that have been spouted. He keeps quoting this mystical trucker who cannot go into a restaurant because of provincial legislation and who cannot cross the border because the Americans will not let him, yet the Conservatives stood by as people came here and desecrated the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. They stood as upside down Canadian flags were waved with swastikas and they called them freedom fighters. This is the face of vaccine disinformation, and this is the face of the Conservative Party. Shame on them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. member Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member must smarten up today. He is being unreasonable and that is not acceptable

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really distressing to see the Conservatives waving their fists at us—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think we are getting into debate. I would prefer it if the member for Provencher could answer the question before him.

The hon. member for Provencher.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not really know what the question was from the member for Timmins—James Bay. I think he was trying to stand on his political soapbox again and make some kind of statement. However, I will say that as Conservatives, we have deep respect and admiration for all of our health—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

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

We have time for a quick comment from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was afraid I would not get my turn. I sense a bit of a lack of discipline on my right. I think having a leader would be good for them. Right now, it looks as though the Conservative Party has no clear position on the vaccine.

I sensed some unease in the House during my hon. colleague's speech. This unease did not come from the other parties, but rather from some members of the Conservative Party who were wondering what the hon. member was saying, when it is imperative to encourage people to get vaccinated.

I am not usually in the House on Fridays, but last night my wife called to tell me my 16-year-old daughter had contracted COVID-19. I found out last night. For that reason, I am staying here this weekend. I want to wish a speedy recovery to my daughter Jeanne, who is watching us right now because she is isolating at home.

My wife, Mylène, is taking care of Jeanne and Simone. They are required to isolate. My 18-year-old son, Émile, is at CEGEP out of town. He will not be able to see his sisters and mother this weekend because there are still people who are encouraging others not to get vaccinated. What is more, those people are in the House of Commons chamber. I think that is unacceptable.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we have here with Bill C-8 is a bill that is going to, again, inject unnecessary money into the economy. It is going to further exacerbate the situation that we have with inflation, and make it very difficult for everyday Canadians to keep up with the cost of living.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to enter into debate in this place. There are many topics, including very important issues surrounding Bill C-8 and its implications on our economy and the pocketbooks of Canadians. It is the failed fiscal policy, I would suggest, of a Liberal government that is so out of touch with Canadians that it cannot even acknowledge its failures. When the jobs report came out today, the Liberals had to amend their tired old talking points. During question period today, they amended their talking points. We are down 7% on the jobs that they claim have been recovered over the course of the pandemic, when Canadians are truly hurting.

I would like to first spend a moment to talk about the circumstances that we are facing here in Ottawa with the protests, and some other protests, convoys and whatnot across the country. Unity should be the first priority of any leader of any country, but specifically for the Prime Minister of Canada, a country that is vast and diverse, with people from all around the world and indigenous peoples who have been here far longer than our European founders.

The objective of any leader should be to unite their country. We have a Prime Minister who has been more focused on his narrow, personal political gain than on anything else. I would suggest that we see a country that is more divided than ever before. With west versus east, there is a level of western alienation. I can tell story after story of folks who are giving up on the idea of Canada. These are not separatists. These are folks who feel left behind by a Liberal Prime Minister who has divided Canadians for his own political gain.

There is urban versus rural. We see a greater level of that alienation. We do not hear that talked about as much, as about 90% of Canadians live in what we would consider major urban areas, yet the level of alienation that exists within rural Canada is very real. Policies such as the carbon tax may be great for somebody who can take public transit, yet the attitude of the government opposite is to simply suggest to my constituents, who live in a large rural area, as well as to indigenous folks who live in remote areas across the country and to other Canadians who are far away from urban centres, that they do not matter as much as their urban counterparts. It is absolutely shameful.

We see the demonization of rich versus poor. We see the Prime Minister take advantage of any opportunity he has to pit one group of Canadians against another and score cheap political points. We saw that at no time more than in the last election.

Only months before, the Liberal Prime Minister promised first that he would not mandate vaccines. The members opposite forget that. It seems they have very selective memories. He promised he would not mandate vaccines, and said it time and again in this place and in interviews. Over the course of a couple of months, that position changed. In fact, the Prime Minister actually thanked the Leader of the Opposition for encouraging Canadians to get vaccinated, and then went on to say he would never mandate vaccines.

Then, what did the Prime Minister do? He used divisive rhetoric, took Canadians down a path that he promised he would not, and he is now somehow surprised and blaming those Canadians for being frustrated with the fact that he changed his position, that he misled Canadians and that he put his political interests before those of our country. That is absolutely shameful, and I am hearing about it from constituents each and every day.

When it comes to the protesters outside, the Liberals opposite and other left-leaning partners in the Prime Minister's coalition are quick to dismiss their concerns, yet according to a poll there has been a massive shift in the last number of weeks of Canadians who want to see a path charted forward. They want a path out of COVID and the rinse, recycle, repeat of the lockdowns, job losses and economic devastation associated with the message that we had to flatten the curve. After two years of the pandemic, it is time for leadership to figure out a path forward for Canadians.

It is unbelievable for the Prime Minister to suggest what some polls say is a third of Canadians are the fringe minority with despicable views. There are those who would suggest that the many who are gathered out in the streets of Ottawa and across the country are somehow less Canadian than anyone else. The Conservatives have been quick to condemn the despicable actions of a few, but acknowledge that many Canadians simply want their voices to be heard.

We have seen folks on highways and overpasses waiting for hours on end in -30°C to simply cheer them on. I have a family member who drove across my constituency on Tuesday and called me to say she had never seen more Canadian flags flying than on that trip across my constituency. Canadians want to be listened to, and it is a failure of the government that it would rather divide, dismiss and use inflammatory rhetoric to somehow drive a political wedge instead of uniting the country and showing an ounce of humility and contrition, which could bring resolution to the fact that those folks outside and across the country simply do not feel heard. They want to be heard, and it is the responsibility of any democratically elected government to do that, to hear the concerns of its citizens.

I think the problem here is that the Prime Minister does not like the fact that he is actually accountable for his decisions. He does not like the fact that he is accountable to Canadians and would rather try to score cheap political points to try to divide and conquer, which is unacceptable.

Turning to the subject and content of Bill C-8, we see once again that the Liberals are, in some cases, simply recycling the same promises they made over the course of a number of years, so I want to talk about the housing situation in this country specifically.

There has been a lot of rhetoric and talking points thrown out by the members opposite with supposed solutions to the housing crisis. This bill includes some of that. Let us look at their record. They are in their seventh year in power. They created a mess and now they want to double down on some of those mistakes to somehow solve that problem.

I will sum it up quite simply. The Liberals brag about how much they spend and are quick to accuse the Conservatives of suggesting that we somehow like to make cuts. Here is the reality. On virtually every metric, the government and the Prime Minister, because of the unbelievable mismanagement they have presided over for the last close to seven years, are spending more but getting less. That is not good public policy.

When I first ran for nomination in 2019, and over the course of the last two elections, I talked about the need for good governance. We can virtually see that is the opposite of what the Liberal members do on a public policy basis and on an accountability basis. We can see how their failed policies are hurting the livelihoods of Canadians.

I know my time is coming to an end. I have much more to say and look forward to doing so in questions and comments, but simply let me say this. Once again, it is an honour to represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot to fight for them in this place to make sure their voices are heard within the halls of Canada's democratic institutions. I am excited to continue to do that in this sitting of Parliament.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the speech by the member opposite, I reflected on his comment about ordinary Canadians. The ordinary Canadians I know do not go to protests where there are swastikas and Confederate flags. They do not go to events where people are calling for the hanging of elected officials.

I will leave aside all of that rhetoric and all of that anger for a moment, and leave aside the fact that those supporters called me a terrorist this morning, to ask the member opposite, who seems to be upset with vaccine mandates, how he reconciles the fact that in provinces across this country, children are required to have a vaccine to attend school, but he opposes vaccines that keep Canadians safe and keep them out of hospitals.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, at least from my perspective, I am not sure the member is properly attired in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

No, I see the tie. I thank the member for his intervention.

For an answer to the question, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I would simply point out that Alberta does not require mandates for children to go to school. It may be the case in the member's province, and that is fair, but the fact that he is suggesting an Ottawa-knows-best mentality is exactly the basis of many of the problems that exist within this country: governments in Ottawa telling Canadians how they should or should not think.

Now, I am deeply sorry that the member experienced what he experienced, but let me be perfectly clear: The vast majority of those protesting, including some constituents, are vaccinated. However, the Liberals do not like to talk about that. Many of the folks who are protesting are in fact vaccinated. In fact, the majority of those against mandates are vaccinated.

The Liberals refuse to condemn their Prime Minister's racist actions, so I think they should be very careful about throwing accusations at members of the opposition when all we have suggested is that there are many Canadians, not the few on the fringe with extremist views, but rather—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Questions and comments, the member for Saint-Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is going on, but the Conservative Party seems to be all over the place these past few days.

This morning the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles called for the streets to be cleared so that residents could get their city back. It is one thing to express an opinion and to protest, but it is a whole other thing to blockade a public roadway, which is illegal.

I have a simple question and I would like it to be recorded in the Hansard. What does my colleague think about this? Is he condoning an illegal act?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member, I have been very clear that blockades, including the blockades that members opposite have supported, are not the right path. I have been clear about that. I am curious as to why she has not been.

Let me make this very clear. The reason the protest is happening outside is that we have a Liberal Prime Minister who refuses to respect the fact that many Canadians are frustrated, disappointed and losing their livelihoods because of a Prime Minister who has put his own narrow political interests ahead of the good of our country. That is an inconvenient truth that the left-leaning coalition in this country needs to figure out, because a third of Canadians, including many of their voters, agree. In fact some of the folks outside told me they voted for left-leaning parties in the past, but they are not going to again because they have been failed by the left-leaning—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak as a mother right now. There have been some disturbing comments in the House today blaming senior babysitters who have had to come to the rescue of frontline workers to get them to work. There were some comments earlier about people who are restricted in their freedom, and I just want to remind people in the House that in my riding, indigenous girls who go to school are not allowed a bus pass. They get daily chits to get on the bus. Giving them a bus pass to use public transit is dangerous for them because of the sex trafficking that is going on in this country. Also, when we talk about restrictions on people, persons with disabilities who are in institutions and live in institutions are told how many times a week they can have a bowel movement. That is what is happening in our country right now.

To come back to Bill C-8 and the focus on getting help to Canadians, I want to ask the member about strengthening measures to get housing out of the investment portfolios in this country and outside of it and into the hands of Canadians. Could the member share with us something that he would like to add to Bill C-8 to ensure that housing becomes about homes and stops being about investments?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member touches on some very important points regarding human trafficking and the need to have an all-party perspective to ensure we address those important issues. She touched on a number of other important issues, such as seniors and housing, and we do need to have those conversations.

I suspect we would disagree on some of the solutions to things like housing, but let us have an honest conversation. The Liberals were quick to dismiss the Conservative plan in the last election regarding housing, yet it was a Canadian economist who suggested our plan would have helped alleviate some of those pressures.

I appreciate the opportunity to continue this dialogue on these important issues.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Like some of my other colleagues, I want to again take this opportunity to thank the member for Durham for everything he has done, not only for the Conservative Party of Canada during his time as leader in the House, but also for all Canadians during his time in uniform. I consider him a long-time friend. I have likely known him longer than anybody in the House, going back 30 years to our time in Royal Military College. There are very few Canadians who care more about Canada than the hon. member for Durham.

I regularly conduct surveys and solicit open feedback from my constituents. I believe one of the best tools we can use as members of Parliament is to really listen to what the concerns of our constituents are. That feedback obviously differs across this great nation. One of the reasons I became involved in federal politics was because of the ever-increasing rural-urban divide.

I am not trying to be an alarmist. I am just saying I am tired of seeing policies come out of Ottawa with an Ottawa-knows-best approach. Those maybe work great for the people who live in major urban centres, but they do not work for my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. They do not work for Canadians right across this great country.

Because of my military career, I spent time in the Maritimes, here in Ontario and travelled right across this great country. There is a divide, and that is one of the key things we need to recognize as parliamentarians and for the Liberal government to recognize. Liberals have to do a better job of listening to the concerns of Canadians, not just of those in the ridings that elected them.

There are three key things I received feedback on, among others, in the last number of months. Labour shortage is by far the biggest concern I have heard about in my riding across all sectors of our economy. Businesses just cannot find workers. There are multiple ways we can address that. When I look to Bill C-8, I do not see much in it that is going to address our labour shortage problems.

The second item is affordable housing. There is something in the bill about it, but I do not think it is going to accomplish what we need to do to address the problem. I will get into a bit of those details later. The other big concern I have heard a lot about is the national debt.

Let me put it in perspective. Even with our very low interest rates, with a national debt of over $1.2 trillion, it is my understanding, and I might be off by a billion or two but hopefully not, we spent $24 billion in interest on our national debt this past year. That is $24 billion. I just spent 25-plus years in the military. Our military budget is less than that. It is ridiculous that we are spending that much money.

With the amount of interest we are paying, which will continue to increase as this national debt ever-increases, we are now approaching an amount comparable to the public health care transfers to the provinces and territories. To me, that is unacceptable.

I grew up on a modest family farm. I have four younger brothers. We did not have a lot, but we really did not want for anything. Dad had good jobs at different times. He ran his own business for years. We grew up with a dad who did lots of work as a contractor and was paid using the barter system. He would take half a cow. I raised 700 ducks, a couple hundred chickens, a couple of hundred turkeys and 50 geese every year. Dad's idea of how to make ends meet was to get mom a Jersey cow for her birthday. Mom would get to milk that cow twice a day for the next decade. We never wanted for anything.

That is where I come from. It is where I get my true fiscal Conservative roots. I grew up in a way that, if we did not have the money in the bank, we were not getting it.

What is even more disturbing and concerning to me is that this excess Liberal spending is going to put us in a position where, down the road, all these great social programs and these great things that make Canada the great nation that it is will be put at risk. I am concerned that my eight-year-old daughter, by the time she is having kids or is a taxpayer, will be paying exorbitant amounts on income tax, free public education and universal health care. All of these will be potentially compromised if we keep going down this path of spending money we do not have.

As the PBO report stated, with respect to the economic fall update, and there is nothing new in Bill C-8, this stimulus spending is not required and it is not necessary.

I hate always being the negative person. I am going to address a couple of things I think are possible. I am saying this with the caveat that, when the bill gets to committee, amendments can be made and maybe there are aspects that should stay and aspects that should be removed.

The first piece I would like to address is the introduction of the new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses for qualifying ventilation expenses needed to improve air quality. I think this is a potentially good credit, especially in light of COVID. However, what I have a question on is that this credit has been brought in and is attributable to air quality improvements in qualifying locations between September 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022.

The challenge I have with that is that many businesses, including some in my riding, have already made these necessary changes. One business made this change almost immediately because they were stood up as a potential field hospital to deal with COVID. That business would fail to qualify for this credit. These businesses, on their own, being proactive, recognized early the health and safety advantages that were needed to take care of not only their employees but the greater community. Despite the financial stresses they were facing, they wanted to get ahead of the curve.

My question to the government is this: What was the rationale for picking the start date of September 1, 2021? Why was that date chosen? I would be interested to know if somebody on the government side could answer that or at least if I could get an answer during the committee as it reviews the bill. Can there be some flexibility on these start dates so that businesses that have been helping Canadians during this pandemic are not penalized?

The next piece I would argue, and it is always great coming from a big farming community, is this idea of a refundable tax credit for our farmers on the fuel charges. My push-back on this is that it is a solution, but it is not the one I think the government should be imposing. Why not just get rid of the Liberal carbon tax for our farmers? We successfully passed a bill last Parliament through the House that would have taken care of part of it. I am looking forward to that bill being reintroduced in this Parliament. Hopefully this time it will get unanimous consent and not just from the Liberal MPs who happen to represent rural communities and who could actually recognize the benefit of doing this.

The next and maybe final point I will try to get to is about housing and affordable housing. This 1% tax, if I have my numbers right, may, over five years, bring $600 million back into the government coffers. That is not enough. We need to do more. There are multiple ways we can address the housing crisis, but ultimately it comes down to a simple question of supply and demand. We have to have a plan, and it is not necessarily just throwing out a 1% foreign ownership tax to solve it.

The bottom line is that Canadians are in a position where they no longer can afford to pay their grocery bills, put fuel in their gas tanks or heat their homes, and until this government starts making concrete solutions and putting forth proposals that will do this for all Canadians, I think we will fall short. We are well behind where we need to be.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there are more businesses today than there were prepandemic. We have replenished the jobs or seen the jobs return that were there prepandemic also, in terms of those that were lost because of the pandemic. In good part, it meant that we had to borrow substantial amounts, billions of dollars, in order to provide such things as the wage subsidy program and supports for Canadians. By doing that, Canada has outperformed the United States, for example, on those two points. We are now in a much better position. Over a million jobs since the last election have come back. Those jobs create taxes.

I am wondering if my friend could provide his thoughts on why it is important for government to provide supports so that we can be in a position to create jobs, as we have clearly demonstrated over the last number of months.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party supported some of those measures right at the start of the pandemic. They were needed to get through that first period of the unknown. However, as the PBO has clearly laid out, this additional $71.2 billion of stimulus spending is no longer required. What we are debating here today is Bill C-8 and this additional spending, not the money that was spent in the past.

On the job side, I believe the job numbers just came out today. We have lost 200,000 jobs in the last month or quarter. I am not 100% sure; I think it is in the last month. The United States that he used as a comparison actually gained 500,000 jobs.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that the member raised was centred around housing affordability. The Conservatives talk a lot about housing and the inflationary costs. However, it seems to me that the housing they are talking about, in terms of supply, is not necessarily housing that can be affordable to Canadians who are in need. I would argue that those who are in core need would not be able to access the type of housing the Conservatives are talking about.

Would the Conservatives support ensuring a full spectrum of housing that is affordable for Canadians, all the way from those who are unhoused through those who are renting to those who are living in co-op housing and those seeking to buy a home?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go out on a limb, which is always risky, because this is not Conservative policy; this is one MP giving his opinion.

I have talked during the recent election on this issue, because I think that this is a legitimate challenge. I talked to multiple developers, construction companies and real estate companies about this issue and about how we ensure we have the right supply of affordable housing, because this is a huge issue in my riding.

One idea that was floated was to make it, as long as it is level to all the developers out there, so that 25% of what they build has to meet that affordability need. If we do that, there is an idea out there, working with all the different levels of government that need to be implicated, to say we can make sure we are producing enough supply to meet everybody's needs and not just building these multi-million-dollar houses.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my respected colleague for his speech, but I think it was actually the member for Winnipeg North who has really encapsulated the difference between what Conservatives are trying to put out and what the Liberal position has been.

It was a typical Liberal answer. When my colleague was saying that groceries are unaffordable for Canadians right now, the member for Winnipeg North said they should just go to a different store. Oh, that is what I am doing wrong: Instead of going to Sobeys, I should be going to Superstore. However, the place many Canadians are going now is the food bank. That is the store they are picking, because that is the only one they can afford.

What is the situation in my colleague's riding, and how dire is the affordability question because of “Justinflation”?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough time to get into all the challenges my riding is facing, but my hon. colleague from Foothills rightly addresses that difference between rural and urban Canada. If we have to drive 35 kilometres just to get to the next grocery store, we do not have those options. We need good economic policies here that keep inflation and deficit spending under control.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan has about five minutes, and he will have to pick up five minutes when we convene again.

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand and talk about Bill C-8 this afternoon, as well as on Monday afternoon.

There has been a lot of divisiveness in the House over the last couple of days and a lot of torqued-up rhetoric. I would like to start off with a story about someone I believe we could all call a true Canadian hero.

In Pense, Saskatchewan, on Monday night, we had a terrible blizzard. My wife and kids went to hockey practice in Pense. We live in a small town called Grand Coulee. The storm came in. It was a terrible blizzard, and there was a whiteout. There were five, six or seven vehicles in a ditch. One of those people was Shannon St. Onge. She was stuck. She had no idea where she was going. She was coming back from Regina. She was in the vehicle for 14 hours.

Through the power of social media, she went on a chat line with local Pense people, and Andre Bouvier answered the call. It was -30°C that night. He went out to start his tractor. He is farmer out by Pense. The tractor would not start. This 80-year-old man got dressed, got a flashlight and walked, in zero visibility, a mile and found four or five vehicles in the ditch. He took these scared people, walked them back home to his farmyard and let them spend the night. They spent that night telling stories and laughing, instead of being scared in their vehicles.

I think we could all agree that Andre Bouvier represents the best of Canada. When asked why he would risk his life for someone he did not even know, he said, “When there is something to be done, you just have to go out and do it, if you can.” Andre Bouvier, that was very well done, and we applaud you.

I was so happy to see my wife and kids, because that night after hockey practice the weather was very bad. They jumped into a vehicle with my friend, and they hit a ditch. They spent eight and a half hours in a truck in the middle of a whiteout because they were also unable to get home. A good friend of mine, Dan, and his partner, Amy, drove 45 minutes, when the drive usually takes two minutes, to pull them out of the ditch and make sure they got home. I thank Dan and Amy very much for that.

One of the things about this job is that when we are away from our families, we sometimes feel pretty useless when we cannot help our families in certain situations. The appreciation I have for my friends and family back home when situations like this come up cannot be overstated. That is why we are able to do this job in those very difficult situations.

To bring this decorum back to the House, I think we all can see what it means to be Canadian. I am very happy that we still have people who are willing to go out of their way to help those in need. That is something we can all learn from. When I have time to put comments on the record about Bill C-8, I will be talking about the fuel tax surcharge and some of the carbon tax issues that the Saskatchewan economy will face when it comes to agriculture and mining. Also, there is the fact that the government just picked the number of a 30% reduction in fertilizer emissions out of a hat. I will talk about how much that is going to affect some of the agriculture industries in Saskatchewan.

Everyone, please go home, have a good weekend and hug your families. I look forward to seeing everyone back here on Monday.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order, and the same thing. I offer everybody a good weekend. Travel safe. For those not travelling, be careful. Hopefully, we will see everyone here on Monday when we get back to business.

It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not offer any new bold solutions to the challenges we are facing: the pandemic and the omicron variant, the affordability crisis and rising inflation, the climate emergency and the devastating heat waves, fires and floods that have come with it. It is certainly not up to the task of addressing the housing crisis that is being felt so severely by people in my riding of Victoria. In Victoria, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is now over $2,000 a month.

The cost of housing is skyrocketing. Families that want to own a home have given up hope of ever getting into the market. Under the Prime Minister, the average cost of a home is now 38% higher than it was just one year ago. Renters have very few options and are too often being forced into precarious housing. Too many people in my community are struggling to find housing. After the immense challenges of the past few years, too many families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

I want to share the story of Valma and her family. For the past month, Valma and her partner Darcy have been living with their six-year-old daughter in Hotel Zed by Accent Inns. They are searching for housing. They were paying for their nightly motel costs and they went through almost all of their savings. Faced with no other options, they made a plan to purchase a tent, thinking they would be sleeping outdoors when they ran out of money.

As Valma shared her story with me, she started to talk about that moment and she was in tears. She shared what it was like being on the brink of homelessness, how horrible it was not to have a home for her little girl and how she was fighting to stay housed. Luckily, after hearing their story, Hotel Zed offered Valma and her family a room for free for another few weeks, buying them some time. She also talked about how she was worried that if she could not find housing, she might lose her daughter, and about how parents experiencing financial hardship also have to worry about having their children taken. It is what she called a broken cycle.

I told Valma I would bring her story to Ottawa. I asked her what she would want me to say to the government. She said, and these are her words, “There has got to be something done. It is not just us. There are other families just like ours. It is so tough out there. There has got to be something done.”

Valma had the courage to share her story, and because she did, Accent Inns reached out to the United Way of southern Vancouver Island to see what more could be done. They teamed up and, just this past Friday, launched a hotels for families in need fund. This fund supports local families that are on the brink of homelessness. Community members have already started donating. The funds will be distributed to families for accommodations, food and other essentials as they navigate finding more stable housing.

It is incredible to see our community come together like this. However, these families should never have been put in the situation where they are competing in an impossible rental market. It is what the provincial minister responsible for housing has called “a Hunger Games-style struggle, competing to access the limited supply of rental housing”.

Housing is a human right, and while the provincial government has been taking bold steps, the federal government's lack of action is shameful. We need affordable rentals, we need housing that has rent geared to income, we need more co-op housing and we need home ownership to be within reach of our community members.

The Liberals have made a lot of big promises for what they would accomplish in the first 100 days of their re-elected government. One of those promises was the appointment of a federal housing advocate. However, that 100-day mark passed last week, with no sign of a federal housing advocate. While I am disappointed, I am sadly not surprised. Like so many Liberal promises, this one is unfulfilled. This was not even a new promise. The position was first announced in 2017. The job posting closed 13 months ago. There is still no housing advocate.

Over the past six years that the Liberals have been in power, they have made lots of promises. They have talked a big game. They claim they care about access to affordable housing, but they have not backed up those words with actions, and because of the government's inaction, the housing crisis has only gotten worse.

The government had an opportunity with this bill to take action, but there is no additional funding to increase an affordable supply of housing. There is nothing in this bill to address flipping or to discourage speculators from continuing to buy properties to renovate and resell quickly for a profit. They are outbidding families and driving up housing prices in communities across Canada.

There is nothing in the bill to tackle blind bidding. There is no change in the definition of what the government considers affordable. What the government calls affordable is still far above what many Canadians can afford. Once again, there is no funding allocated for a “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing strategy, which the Liberals have been promising but have repeatedly failed to deliver.

I want to take a moment to give a shout-out to the incredible team at the Aboriginal Coalition to End Homelessness Society in Victoria. It continues to do innovative work to provide culturally supportive housing, affordable housing and services to the indigenous street community. It needs core funding to continue to do this important work.

The Aboriginal Housing Management Association in British Columbia recently launched a plan to show how “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing can be done successfully. This approach to housing is badly needed. The federal government needs to step up and provide funding so that indigenous people have access to the housing they deserve.

The Liberals, I am sure, will get up in the House and say that this bill does do something on housing, pointing to the underused housing tax. However, after decades of inaction from Liberal and Conservative governments, and amid a growing housing crisis, this is not anywhere near enough. It is not going to help Valma.

Not only is this one small piece a half measure, but it is full of loopholes. The bill established a 1% annual tax on the value of vacant and underutilized residential property only when the direct and indirect owners are non-residents and non-Canadians. Permanent residents and Canadian citizens are completely exempt, even if the house is vacant. Foreign ownership is exempt if someone declares the home as a principal residence. What is particularly concerning is that the Liberals have indicated that they will introduce regulations to add another exemption for non-Canadians who own vacation homes if they are used at least four weeks per year, potentially reducing the amount generated by this tax to $130 million per year. This approach is too little and it is too late.

The New Democrats would make different choices. Instead of protecting the profits of wealthy speculators who drive up the cost of housing, we would introduce a tax on flipping, while making significant investments to build 500,000 truly affordable homes. We would invest in co-ops, social housing and non-profit housing.

Everyone should have the right to a safe and affordable place to call home. People should be able to afford to live in the communities where they work. Young people should be able to afford to stay in the neighbourhoods they grew up in. Seniors should never be forced out of the communities they have spent their lives in. As I was writing this speech, I got a message from a senior who had just been rent evicted and was looking at the rental market scared. All of the prices were above the income they got per month. The reality is that too many people in my community are facing this crisis. They cannot afford rent, they cannot afford to buy a home and they are having to move away, forced out of the communities they spent their lives in.

If we want to solve the housing crisis, it is time to leave half measures behind and take the bold action needed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have many issues with the member's statements. For one, we have to go back generations to find another national government that has committed more financial resources and other resources to Canada's housing than we have. We would have to go back decades. The Liberals have provided historical amounts of funding for housing.

The member makes reference to programs such as housing co-ops and so forth. Provincial governments do play a role. To try to give an impression that the provinces are playing a more significant role given the nature of the investments that the federal government is putting into national housing is less than being honest. I used to be a provincial housing critic and I understand the role that the provinces play in housing. The provinces need to work in co-operation with Ottawa to take the vast resources we have allocated for housing. We need different levels of government and non-profits working together, including municipalities, to deal with this very serious issue of a housing shortage.

Can the member provide her thoughts on the importance of coming together with other organizations?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree. The federal government has the biggest role to play in addressing the housing crisis. Unfortunately, more and more Canadians find themselves unable to afford a home and pay rent, and the pandemic has made things worse.

The PBO, the government's own watchdog, reported that the Liberals are failing on housing while patting themselves on the back for a job well done, and that the people with core housing need are worse off under the Liberals' national housing strategy. Last year, my colleague, the member for Vancouver East, obtained data showing that the bulk of the national housing co-investment fund, 74%, was going to Ontario and only a small fraction was going to my home province of British Columbia.

The Liberals need to do better. Housing is a human right and they need to start acting like it is.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very insightful speech. I agree with most of the points she brought up.

I am disappointed that the Liberals are blaming the provinces, because as she pointed out, it is a partnership and we have to make this money available to get it on the ground. It seems that they are failing over and over again. She also pointed out the challenge with offshore money flipping. I am getting emails with concerns that we need to tighten that up, and I am hearing a lot from seniors.

I wonder if she could expand on the issue of housing for seniors and the problems they are having with inflation, because it is not just housing, but food and everything else that is going up. Making ends meet seems to be impossible. Could she expand on the issue of inflation?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, so many seniors are struggling right now with the rising cost of living. I hear from them every day. It is the cost of food and medication, which is one of the many reasons we need a truly universal pharmacare program.

I also hear from a ton of seniors who have just recently experienced clawbacks in the GIS. Those seniors will now have to wait until May for the government to fix its policy mistakes, its policy incoherence. They are struggling. I spoke to a senior who was in a motel. He was about to lose the roof over his head because the government is delaying paying back the money from his GIS clawback. It is heartbreaking talking to these seniors. The government needs to do more.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. I think she understands that the housing crisis is one of the most serious crises in Canada right now, because she sees it in her riding, just as I see it in Longueuil and throughout Quebec. We are facing a health crisis and a climate crisis, but we also have a housing crisis.

A Scotiabank study released two weeks ago reported that there is a shortage of 1.8 million housing units in Canada right now, relative to the G7 average, and Scotiabank is not exactly an extreme left-wing group that campaigns for the right to housing or funds the NDP.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe that it is time for the government to recognize the magnitude of this crisis and allocate 1% of its total budget to the current housing crisis.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member.

I apologize for not being able to answer him in French.

I think it is a bold idea. We need more bold ideas from the government. Unfortunately, it has a track record of big promises but no follow-through.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to speak to Bill C-8, which would enact tax and spending measures outlined in the government's fiscal and economic update introduced in December.

The Liberal government has now been in office for more than six years. Six years in, we have an inflation crisis, an affordability crisis and a supply chain crisis. The government has presided over massive deficits and massive debt. They are historical levels of debt. In two short years, the government has managed to double the national debt to a staggering $1.4 trillion. Forty per cent of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque, $200 away from insolvency. These same hard-working everyday Canadians are being hit hard by the Liberal government. They are being hit hard in terms of their spending power being diminished as a result of 30-year-high inflation, and they are being hit hard with Liberal tax hikes, including carbon tax and CPP tax hikes. After six years, that is the sad state of affairs in this country under the failed policies and failed leadership of this failed Prime Minister.

What has Bill C-8 done to address these significant challenges? In short, it has done very little. Instead, it does what the government only knows how to do, and that is to spend and spend some more. Bill C-8 would provide a fire hose of $71 billion in new spending. That is on top of the nearly $600 billion of spending over the last two years, a third of which was completely unrelated to COVID as determined by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

How much is $71 billion? To put it in some context, it is about 40% more than the government provides to provinces in health care spending by way of the Canada health transfer. It is double what the government collects annually in GST. In short, $71 billion is a staggering amount of new spending and new debt, and for what purpose?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer does not think this fire hose of new spending is a good idea. Indeed, he recently stated:

It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as ‘stimulus’ no longer exists.

The rationale no longer exists. All this will do is pour gasoline on the fire that is inflation, making life even less affordable for everyday Canadians.

Among the measures of new spending provided for in Bill C-8 is $300 million over the next three years to fund the Liberal government's vaccine mandates. Less than a year ago, the Prime Minister ruled out the imposition of such mandates. He then flip-flopped on that commitment, and when he imposed the mandates, they were understood to be temporary. We have now learned that they are not temporary, and that the government intends to make them permanent.

This is alarming. These vaccine mandates have done nothing to keep Canadians safe. What they have done is destroy lives and livelihoods. Hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying Canadians have lost their jobs and lost benefits they paid into their entire working lives. These same Canadians have had their mobility rights infringed upon. They are unable to get on airplanes or trains, which inhibits their ability to travel freely within Canada, never mind leave the country.

This is in a free and democratic country. If one would have described what the government is doing to fellow Canadians in Canada two short years ago, no one would have believed them, but here we are today. These mandates infringe upon the medical privacy rights of Canadians, and they infringe upon the ability of Canadians to make individual health decisions free of state coercion. These mandates without more are punitive, discriminatory and un-Canadian, and they could not be more ill-timed because in much of the rest of the world, governments are moving in the opposite direction. The U.K. has lifted all restrictions. Most EU countries have lifted all or most restrictions. The majority of U.S. states have lifted all restrictions, many of which did so some time ago. Saskatchewan has announced it is lifting restrictions. Alberta is about to follow suit, but not this government under this Prime Minister.

Instead, he is doubling down with new permanent mandates, and he is expanding mandates to the transportation sector that will do nothing more, and are doing nothing more, than to exacerbate the serious supply chain issues that we face. For the Prime Minister, it is not about science. It is not about data. It is not about keeping Canadians safe. What it is about is dividing Canadians for short-term political gain and using COVID as a pretext to vastly expand the size, scope and control of government.

It does not have to be this way. In much of the rest of the world, it is not this way, and on this side of the House, we are going to do everything to ensure that it does not remain this way so that Canadians can once again take control of their lives against this massive state overreach.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, I find it fascinating that the member would talk about adding fuel to the fire, when his entire speech about mandates, and the Prime Minister supposedly putting in these mandates that lock down the freedoms of people, is absolutely ludicrous.

The only mandate that the member is concerned about that actually relates to the federal government is the fact that we have to provide a vaccination certificate when we cross the border into Canada, which, by the way, we have to provide if we cross the border into the United States to start with. In order to be travelling back into Canada, we have to have already gone into the United States and shown our vaccination status.

All other mandates related to wearing masks, closing businesses and so forth have been set by the provinces. The member knows that, yet he accuses this side of throwing fuel on the fire.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would respectfully say that the hon. member is misinformed. In fact, the mandate that he spoke of is one mandate, but it is not the only mandate. In my speech, I noted that if a person is not fully vaccinated they cannot get on a plane or train. Federally regulated employees have lost their jobs and they have lost benefits if they are not vaccinated. Those are punitive mandates that have had a real impact on hurting people, including constituents of mine, and I am going to fight for them in this place.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the economic update does not include any solutions to address the labour shortage or any ideas on how to increase productivity.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. We have a significant backlog now of immigrants who are skilled workers and who are unable to get here to join the workforce. He is absolutely right that this is a serious issue that the government, despite spending a lot of money, has failed to address.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know we have been talking for over a week now about what is going on outside. I am disappointed to hear what the member had to say. The mandates are in place to protect people: to protect health care workers and protect a system that is so overrun that it cannot keep up. It is to protect those who need the supports in other areas of our health care system, so they are able to access them.

I am absolutely in agreement that the government has not provided the health care transfers to the provinces that it needs to provide. This is something that started, however, with cuts by the Harper Conservative government.

Could the member speak about those needs in our health care system, and the need to better strengthen that system that so many Canadians rely upon and that so many health care workers are now in doubt about?

I am sorry. I am very frustrated, as many are, but we need to protect people and that is what mandates are supposed to do.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, these mandates have not worked, but I do appreciate the hon. member's question about health care. I will note for her that, under the Harper government, health care transfers increased 6% annually through to 2014, every single year.

With respect to the $71 billion of new spending, there is no money for health care. This is at a time when we have a serious issue in terms of capacity that resulted in some of the restrictions and lockdown measures that provincial governments put into place. The ICU capacity is one-third that of the United States. When it comes to the OECD, we rank at the bottom, other than Mexico, in terms of ICU capacity. All of the provinces have been calling on the government to step up to the plate. All of the opposition parties are united on this, and the government, despite spending $71 billion, could not allocate more money to address this crisis.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the bill, but I cannot say I am happy with the bill. However, I will start off with a few positive comments about the bill.

I am a teacher by profession. I know that one of the items here is a school supplies tax credit, which would increase the credit from 15% to 25% for teachers who spend on supplies out of their own pockets, including for electronic devices. I think it might be about $100 for the year that they would get back, so that is positive. School ventilation improvements in B.C. would come to about $11 million, so certainly the comfort and health of students is important. There is also the eligible air quality expenditures for businesses.

There are some carrots inside the bill, but that is to be expected because the Liberals, when the opposition might potentially vote against this, will ask us how we could vote against teachers and how we could do this and that when it is such a nice bill. These are just the carrots. It is the essence of the content of the bill that is very problematic.

One of the problems in the bill is that it would be adding $70 billion of inflationary fuel to the fire. Since the pandemic began there has been about $176 billion in increased expenditures beyond those that were COVID-related. That is very significant when our debt right now is about $1.2 trillion. The Liberals might yawn and say that for $1.2 trillion they can just print some more money and ask what the big difference is. There is a real impact being felt at the kitchen table, in homes, with seniors, with younger people and with people everywhere.

The policies from the current government, which has lost control of its expenditures, have an impact on the cost of living. Right now we are facing inflation of about 5%. The wage increase is about half of that, 2.4%, in the last year. As such, people are falling behind in paying their bills, and it is getting harder for them and for anybody who does shopping. I went shopping yesterday or the day before with my wife, and I was noticing that, at Costco and every store, everything is going up. The Liberals will say it is supply chain issues and a worldwide issue and deflect any criticism from themselves.

The fact of the matter is that their out-of-control spending has an impact. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear about that and said, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as ‘stimulus’ no longer exists”. Government deficits can and do contribute to inflation. The Liberals have more than doubled our debt load since they have been in. Think of all the prime ministers before this. Under the current Prime Minister it has more than doubled.

What is the problem with that? I think back to the eighties and nineties, when almost one-third of all the tax revenues from all sources, such as income tax and capital gains tax, went to pay for the interest charges on debt that had been accumulated. There are consequences to out-of-control spending, and it will only get worse because we are at historic lows as far as interest payments. However, as that increases, and the Bank of Canada governor has said that it will be going up, that will add to the debt and to the need for more revenues from people, because the government has to pay its interest charges.

More money spent on interest means less money spent on everything else, such as health care and infrastructure. All of these things have a real impact. The cost of living is going up $1,000 in just inflation alone, not including the hundreds of dollars more in CPP payments for individuals this year. It is difficult, but put the onus on this government.

When I was driving in the Vancouver area, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, gas was $1.78 a litre. Someone driving a pickup truck for work is looking at $200 in the Lower Mainland to fill up the tank, and if one has to fill up every day, it is very expensive. However, it is interesting that when demand goes down, prices go down, and when demand goes up, prices go up. There is an increased demand worldwide for oil and gas, but the approach of our Liberal government is that this is an industry of the past and we need to move on.

Canada has the third-highest proven reserves of oil and gas in the entire world, yet the Liberals want to phase it out. Ten per cent of our economy is based upon this, providing hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs, yet this is to be phased out because it is not appropriate. We provide some of the cleanest energy in the world, yet the Liberals would rather close down the sector with all the jobs and import from Saudi Arabia or other countries via oil tanker than to produce it right here in this country. I think that is a real shame.

Right now, outside on the streets we have protests happening all across Canada. People are very upset about the direction of this government and what it is doing. The Liberals call people who are not vaccinated “anti-vaxxers” and inside the report, the finance minister said that it is about 20% of the population who are not vaccinated. Well, 20% of the population is over seven million Canadians and the Prime Minister, when he was being interviewed in Quebec, was questioning if we should tolerate these people. That is irresponsible, inflammatory and wrong. It is inappropriate. I could not believe it. That is terrible, and that is why there is frustration.

I know the Liberals will point to some radicals and, yes, there will be some that are extremists, but it is being felt. People are upset. They are losing their jobs. If members across the aisle or other people lost their jobs, how would they feel? However, it is happening in the tens of thousands. Many of these truckers are losing their jobs because they cannot drive across the border. Not only does that impact our supply-chain issues, raising inflation and costs, but it impacts jobs and the economy. People are upset.

People may say that it is for health, but people need to be able to make their own health care decisions. We support that.

I am double vaccinated, but guess what. I was not here the past couple of weeks, because both my wife and I had COVID. A person who is vaccinated can carry it just as much as a person who is not. I would like to read this letter before I close. It is from a 35-year-old female lawyer. She writes that she is an ultra-marathon runner and spends eight, nine or possibly 10 hours a day running. Before that, she was a varsity athlete at a university in Ontario. Saying she has always been fit would be an understatement. She has no pre-existing conditions, but when she got the vaccine, she started having chest pains and operating at a max threshold, even on walks, doubling and tripling her heart rate. As it stands, she is a 30-year-old with chronic heart pain.

She feels this constantly, and even on a slow walk she is out of breath. She goes on to to say that she is not a conspiracy theorist. She actually make a lot of money defending the largest pharmaceutical companies, but with that comes the knowledge that sometimes mistakes are made and sometimes we don't—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up, but he will be able to add during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. government whip.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems very concerned about inflation. I just want to ask him this very simply. He ran on a platform that purported to spend far in excess of what the Liberal Party, in fact, committed to spend in the last campaign. Why?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, we cannot believe what the Liberals say. During the 2015 election they said there would be a $10-billion deficit. Then what happened? It was $30 billion, and that was pre-COVID. They were out of control prior and now they blame it all on COVID. They were not accurate with what they said then, and they will not be accurate about what they say in the future. That is my position on that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague use the words “inflammatory” and “irresponsible” to describe comments he heard from the government side.

Will the member today, in Parliament, condemn the actions of his own colleagues who have emboldened and encouraged the violent and hateful actions we have seen take place in our nation's capital and in communities across our country? They included racist, anti-Semitic and other actions by so-called protestors whose protests have been supported by Conservative members in Parliament, including one of his colleagues who stood in front of a flag with swastikas on it. What does my colleague have to say about condemning those actions, which are deeply disturbing for so many Canadians across our country?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives and I do not support extremism of any kind, no matter what the source. I certainly do not support that.

People have a right to protest and be listened to. They want to speak up. They are being ignored and are being labelled. It was reported in the media that there was an arrest made during a rally in Toronto because a smoke bomb was thrown in. It was done by someone who was a counterprotester. In Vancouver, where I am from, there were a number of arrests of more people who were against the convoy.

I believe that people need to be heard and listened to. I encourage the member to go talk to some of those people, to walk around and chat with them. That would be a good start.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the economic update held the Canadian health transfer escalator to 3%. That is well below the annual health care cost increase.

We know the federal government paid for 50% of health care spending in the 1970s. Since then, it has steadily reduced its share down to the 22% we are at now.

Right now, Quebec and the Canadian provinces are unanimously calling on the government to increase the transfer by $28 billion, which would cover 35% of health costs and be a 6% escalator. What does my colleague think of that?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is really a problem. The impact of inflation on health care also affects seniors on fixed incomes because what they get is not keeping pace with rising prices. Government support is dwindling because it has lost control of the economy and its spending.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak at length for the first in this 44th Parliament and, in so doing, speak to Bill C-8. I will review what this bill would do.

In alignment with the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Finance last December, Bill C-8 would implement certain provisions of the economic fiscal update. There are a number of provisions in the bill, including several changes to the Income Tax Act; the enacting of a new underused housing tax act; funding for various COVID measures, including the purchasing of tests; and finally, amendments to the Employment Insurance Act. The economic fiscal update presented last year proposed increases in government spending by roughly $70 billion, which adds to the national debt.

Since the pandemic started, the government has piled on spending and debt totalling in the hundreds of billion of dollars. Budget 2021 predicted a $354-billion deficit for the 2020-21 fiscal year and an additional $154-billion deficit for the 2021-22 fiscal year. It should be noted, however, that not all of the debt incurred over the last two years by the government was as a result of the pandemic. In fact, approximately $176 billion in new deficit spending is unrelated to the pandemic.

I remember when the Prime Minister made a bold, but modest, promise to run a few small $10-billion deficits to support infrastructure projects. Way back then, Canadians believed him. We all know where that promise ended up: at the bottom of the PMO shredder, ripped up into billions of tiny pieces.

The fact is that the Liberal government cannot be trusted to manage the country's finances in a responsible way. It is one thing for a government to borrow money during an emergency; it is quite a different story for that government to be running up the credit card for things that are unrelated to the pandemic. The government is using the pandemic to hide massive spending increases, and this latest additional spending increase is, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, unnecessary. He stated, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as ‘stimulus’ no longer exists.”

The reality is that we would not be here debating yet another $70 billion in deficit spending if the Liberal government had not mismanaged and exploited the pandemic over the last two years.

Where has this runaway deficit spending gotten us? Our national debt has now reached $1.2 trillion and has produced record-breaking inflation. At the finance committee, when asked if government deficits can contribute to inflation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly responded that, yes, they can, and here we are with inflation reaching a 30-year high. Gasoline is up 34%. Housing prices are up almost 27%. Sugar is up 20%. Beef and bacon are up 17%, and carrots are up 13%. Even coffee is up 10%.

It has been reported that nearly 60% of Canadians are struggling to afford food for their families and that only 34% of Canadians believe their families will be better off in five years. It should then come as no surprise that this has led to Canada having one of the lowest levels of economic optimism in the world, well below the global average. I believe that is why we are seeing the mass demonstrations across our country and right outside the doors of this place, together with the thousands of people who have lined the streets and highways in support of them.

Canadians are looking for hope and a future. In March of 2020, they were asked for two weeks to flatten the curve. They have now given two years. They have been waiting for, and continue to wait for, a plan to reopen our economy, get Canadians back to work and life back to normal. Still, there is no plan.

To be clear, Conservatives always understood that, if Canadians were being told to stay home and shutter their businesses, financial support would be needed. That is why we were supportive of measures that supported Canadians and Canadian businesses. It is why we have supported spending that made a real change for struggling Canadians heavily affected by the pandemic. It is why our Conservative members were there every step of the way, providing solutions to address the shortcomings to make those support programs better and more responsive to the needs of both workers and businesses.

However, we also understood that we needed to position both businesses and workers to be able to open up and get back to work when it was safe to do so. Last spring, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that a significant amount of the Liberal spending in the budget would not stimulate jobs or create economic growth. Unfortunately, unbridled spending on Liberal partisan priorities has been par for the course with the government. It has always run deficits, not once trying to control the national debt or rein in spending, and now that is catching up with us.

During debate on the Budget Implementation Act, I made the observation that budget 2021 did not set Canadians up for future prosperity. Rather, I said that it set up Canada for long-term postpandemic failure. It would appear that this is now the case. The Liberals have made numerous missteps in their spending during the pandemic, and Canadians are paying for it with the cost of living ballooning under the government.

As I stated earlier, Canadians are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet. Families will be paying nearly $1,000 more on groceries this year. They are struggling to provide for their children today, let alone save for their future tomorrow. Young people are being forced to live in their parents' basements because they cannot afford to buy a home of their own. There has been an 85% home inflation over the last six years, and 25% of that was in the last year alone. The Real Estate Association's chief economist has called it the biggest gain of all time.

Seniors on a fixed income cannot afford groceries with the price of food skyrocketing, and workers are finding it more and more costly to get to work with the price of gas soaring.

Under the Prime Minister, Canada has consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7 and record economic decline. In fact, the Liberal government has spent more and delivered less than any other G7 country. Now more than ever, Canadians need a government willing to prioritize thoughtful, focused and effective fiscal policies ahead of its own partisan purposes.

We need policies that support Canadians getting back to work. We need policies that support every sector in every province across our country. For example, the oil and gas industry, which employs thousands of hard-working Canadians, fosters economic growth and provides revenues that support social programs and infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals. We need policies that will put Canadians first.

Conservatives are opposed to Bill C-8, which would unnecessarily add an additional $70 billion of new inflationary spending to an already jaw-dropping deficit.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I notice my colleague's speech was bent pretty badly to one side and never talked about all the positives. She is saying there is nothing good in Bill C-8 and that we are wasting billions of dollars. If she looks closely, Bill C-8 includes major financial supports for schools, which are crucial, and the business community, which is crucial.

She also never spoke about the good news, like how all the jobs that were lost during the pandemic, which is over three million jobs, are back at 108%, In comparison, the U.S. is only back at 84%.

I would like her to comment about the good things in Bill C-8 that would help Canadians, schools, kids and community groups, etc. Please, find it in your heart to talk about the good things once in a while.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would like to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that, as I am sure he was not directing that to me at the end, he is to direct all questions and comments through me.

The hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would absolutely like me to speak positively about a measure that I can find very little to be positive about.

The bottom line here is that this bill would do nothing to secure long-term prosperity for Canadians, as I stated. It would do nothing to address the rapidly rising inflation that is impacting millions of Canadians, driving them closer and closer to the edge of financial insolvency. Instead, this bill is proposing more spending for a reimagined Canadian economy that dabbles in risky economic ideas and leaves our economy and Canadians behind.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, the more we hear from our Conservative friends, the more we see that they are still obsessed with inflation.

Of course inflation is important, but let us talk about the housing crisis specifically. As I said earlier, Canada is 1.8 million housing units short of the G7 average, according to Scotiabank. Moreover, 500,000 households in Quebec have urgent housing needs, and the federal government stepped away from social housing 30 years ago.

What we are seeing now is that the government is investing in the private sector to create affordable housing units in Montreal priced at $2,200. That makes absolutely no sense. To tackle this crisis, the government will have to invest money one way or another, even if that could make inflation go up.

Does my colleague think the housing crisis is serious and important enough for the government to invest money, even if that means a little bump in inflation? Would the Conservatives be okay with that?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, we know that the housing market for new entrants continues to worsen under the current Liberal government. A recent report by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicates a continuing trend of housing starts slowing down across the country, with December showing a 22% decrease from the previous month. This will exacerbate the problem.

As the member mentioned, Canada is facing a housing supply issue, which the Liberal government has consistently failed to address. The Liberals have no plan to address this housing crisis. Instead of figuring out how to implement a housing tax, the government should actually turn its attention to ensuring Canadian homes get built. We will continue to be the voice of Canadians who are left behind by the current Liberal government.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, 11 people die every day in this country from death by suicide. A third of those deaths are of people between the ages of 45 and 59. Suicide is the second-leading killer of people between the ages of 15 and 34. Men are three times more likely than women to die from suicide.

Our good colleague from Timmins—James Bay put forward a national suicide prevention action plan motion that was adopted in this House unanimously back in May 2019. The national collaborative on suicide prevention wants to see that enacted. Today I am hoping that we can actually talk about something and work on it together.

Does my colleague agree that the government needs to implement this right away? We see the grief and the trauma of people who have been impacted by losing a loved one to death by suicide.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that creating a national strategy to address mental health and the increase in suicides all across this country is very important. Having had a family member who committed suicide, I absolutely agree that more needs to be done.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the people Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, I thank the Hon. Erin O'Toole for his service to our party and the sacrifices he and his wife Rebecca made as they led the official opposition. This is a huge challenge at the best of times, let alone during a pandemic.

This is my first time speaking in the House since our interim leader, the Hon. Candice Bergen stepped into her new role—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is not to use individuals' names. They can be mentioned by their riding or position, but not by their name.

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, thank you for straightening me out.

I wish our interim leader well as she guides the party in a strong direction for this country.

I stand here providing an intervention on Bill C-8. Most Canadians are in awe of the government's spending over the last two years. When I talk with my constituents in Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, the chorus that gets echoed is that our children and our grandchildren will have to pay for this. This is absolutely the case, and the additional, immediate concern is that we are actually paying for this now with skyrocketing inflation. The economic and fiscal update of 2021 adds an additional $70 million to fuel this fire. Seniors and people on a fixed incomes just cannot keep up and have to make difficult choices between buying their medicine, heating their homes and putting food on the table.

I am quite familiar with this. Many of my constituents are living this nightmare. Food and fuel inflation is through the roof, especially in my province. Gasoline is $1.71 per litre today in Gander and Grand Falls-Windsor. The average family in Canada will pay $1,000 extra for groceries in 2022. That is an average for Canada. I suspect it will be much higher than that in remote areas like Fogo Island, the Connaigre peninsula and the Baie Verte Peninsula. Extra government spending is relentlessly driving prices higher for my constituents.

Let us not forget the inflationary effect of the carbon tax, especially in remote regions like Newfoundland and Labrador. Here we are with the most vulnerable in our population bearing the burden because those who profited from the government's overstimulation of the economy have more money to chase less goods.

Small businesses throughout Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame are reeling from labour inflation and the rising cost of the products that they sell. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, among our small business community, one in six will likely close their doors this year, putting a million Canadians out of work. The average small business has taken on $500,000 in extra debt, putting everything that they worked for in their entire life in jeopardy. The anxiety of small business owners is on bust, with no clear path forward on the reopening of our economy.

Great Britain and other European nations have latched on to the notion that we are now in an endemic, but they are reopening their economies so that small businesses can have a chance at survival and begin paying back the dept they have accumulated. In Great Britain, rapid tests have been available for purchase in convenience stores for months so that individuals could manage their COVID needs without having to place unneeded strain on their health care system.

Bill C-8 authorizes $1.72 million to provide for extra coronavirus testing. I think the government is a little late to the party when it comes to providing testing such as that available in Europe. As a result, we lag far behind our G7 partners in reopening our economy. Bill C-8 certainly highlights the government's failure to take advantage of rapid testing to keep our economy fluid and keep our workers employed.

As I gaze a little further along in this bill, I spot a clause that introduces a refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farmers. It is not a bad idea. However, I cannot understand how commercial fishers were left our here. This clause could have been extended to include fishing enterprises. Does the government not realize that the fishing industry in ridings like Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is crucial to providing food for our tables? A National Post article in 2018 stated that the effects of increasing carbon tax on the fishing industry could degrade its competitiveness.

We are seeing it now. Oil is currently almost $93 a barrel and is forecast to move well north of $100 this year, possibly to $200 a barrel in a couple of years. The effects of rapidly increasing oil prices and the carbon tax will put a heavy strain on fishing enterprises in Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and in fact in all of coastal Canada. This bill should acknowledge the harm to our fishers and provide to the fishing industry a tax credit similar to that offered to the farming industry. Omitting the fishing industry from fuel tax credits shows how disconnected the government is from the pressures put on fishers by increased taxation on fuels. Fuel is not a luxury item for the fishing industry. Fishers simply cannot pass on the carbon tax to consumers, because they are bound by a market commodity-driven pricing arrangement for their catch.

The government could take this opportunity to use a bill like Bill C-8 to provide a complete carbon tax exemption for commercial fishing enterprises.

I just wanted to highlight how this inflationary danger could have been addressed in Bill C-8.

Bills like this help a few in our country but neglect to help most, and in the end, we pay more for everything. As well, bills like this that incorporate so many unrelated items to be voted on as a group are unfair to those of us who have to vote on them. This bill covers so many unrelated issues that it makes no sense.

To that point, this buffet of tax-and-spend measures even deals with the Employment Insurance Act as it pertains to seasonal workers. My mind was boggled as I tried to understand part 7, which talks about changes to seasonal workers' EI benefits. Many ridings in rural Canada are like Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and rely on jobs in seasonal industries, and changes to the EI act are a big concern.

As this debate continues, I look forward to some clarity on part 7 of this bill. The government is responsible for letting Canadians know what its legislation means in layman's terms so that they can understand it. These are just a few things relating to my constituents that render Bill C-8 unacceptable.

From a broader Canadian perspective, the government has brought in $176 billion in new spending that is unrelated to COVID-19. The national debt has now reached a jaw-dropping $1.2 trillion. It is not looking good for the “budget balancing itself” act.

I am happy to be part of a team that is fighting to keep the cost of living down for our seniors, families and those on fixed incomes. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on their behalf.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, regarding the area that I heard our hon. colleague speaking about in Bill C-8, specifically on the subject of small businesses, would he not acknowledge the many different programs we offered, specifically the issue of the $60,000, and part of it being forgivable? Does he not agree that this was a huge help in getting our small businesses to the point where they are today?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the $60,000 loan, with the $20,000 forgivable portion, was a help to small businesses in Canada.

However, the other part of it is that the massive spending and the flooding of printed money into our economy caused labour inflation and caused inflation in the products and goods that businesses need to conduct themselves. The other aspect was the needlessly long period of CERB payments that demoralized small business workers, as they figured it was just as easy to stay home as to go in and work.

You created massive wage inflation that is crushing small businesses.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. He may want to refrain from using the word “you”.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about how businesses have been affected during the pandemic. However, his party, the Conservative Party, has consistently voted against any support for businesses and against support programs during the pandemic.

The Liberal government has currently cut support to businesses. The NDP is fighting to get those supports put back in place. Does my hon. colleague believe that we need to keep these pandemic support programs in place to save small businesses?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question, but I do not wish to thank her for her support of the federal government's policies.

What we need right is the reopening of our economy. That is what my constituents are telling me. They want the pandemic to be behind us. They are tired, broken and demoralized, and their mental health is suffering.

My hon. colleague should think about the people she is representing. What they are telling her is exactly the same as what I am hearing. They are who she should be standing up for.