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.

The House resumed from April 29 consideration 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, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:14 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-8.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The question is on Motion No. 1.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 10.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #64

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion defeated.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to please rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #65

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

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 third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is happening this evening is an interesting process. We just finished having a vote that is allowing us to have more debate time.

The Conservative Party of Canada voted against that. It is hard to believe that the Conservatives do not want to work late, but I am glad a good number of them will hopefully be engaged in this debate. I find it is a very important bill that we are debating. We are talking about the fall economic update.

As my colleague has pointed out, it is an important thing to raise. We are not talking about this fall. We are talking about the fall of 2021. Just the other day, we passed budget 2022-23. Today, we are finally in a position where we are within a day or two of actually seeing Bill C-8, the fall economic update legislation, pass through the House of Commons. A Conservative member across the way is asking whose fault it is.

There is absolutely no doubt that it is the fault of the Conservative Party of Canada. It has been truly amazing to witness what I have seen over the past number of months as the Conservatives have protested what is a good, sound piece of legislation. It is legislation that is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast, yet the Conservative Party of Canada is stalling it. Conservatives do not want to see it pass. In fact, they got upset that we did not bring in time allocation earlier. It is hard to believe, but that is the truth.

The truth of the matter is that the Conservative Party has gone out of its way to prevent Bill C-8 from passing. I mentioned that it has been 12 days of debate so far. The Conservatives have said we should have tried harder. We introduced the legislation, and they played Conservative games such as moving a motion for concurrence, not once or twice but even more on government legislation. One thing that I really liked was that they got so tired that they did not even want to be debating bills, even though they say they do, that they adjourn debate of the House of Commons, not debate, they will adjourn—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary for a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am just wondering if any other Liberal member has permission to speak in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the truth hurts. When Conservatives hear the truth, it is somewhat of a humbling experience, I hope.

The more—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. Members should actually listen to what is happening.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. It is super late. Some folks in this place like to give this particular member more vocal opposition, but I wonder if it might be a chance to listen to the member for Winnipeg North.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have just asked for temperatures to be lowered.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know this is hard stuff to believe, but it is actually true. During the fall economic statement from last year, we had the Conservative filibuster and the games they play. I am giving a couple of examples of the games they play. One day, the government said it wanted to bring in Bill C-8 once again for debate. The Conservatives' reaction was to bring in a concurrence motion to prevent that debate from occurring.

I remember one day we wanted to debate the bill. What did the Conservative Party do? It moved to adjourn debate and the actual day. The Conservatives did not want to work for the rest of the day. They came in, they had question period, they did a few things after question period and then they were done for the day. Is there any member who is really surprised with the reaction we get from the Conservative Party?

We have a Conservative official opposition that sees good legislation. I am going to go through a number of the points in terms of the silliness we see from the Conservative Party, the type of legislation this is and how Canadians can benefit from it. There are a number of initiatives that are here.

The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance first started talking about the legislation and the need for a fiscal update in October of last year. In December the legislation was brought in, then there was an attempt for the government to get it passed through in January and February because we could not build a consensus in December.

There is stuff within this legislation that really matters. We heard some of those examples, in particular, raised by New Democratic members of the House earlier today. They are things I would have thought the Conservative Party would have been sympathetic to. I will give the example of a new tax credit that is being established for farmers. It would ultimately see farmers receive a credit. Why would the Conservative Party deny farmers where I am from, the Prairies, the opportunity to realize that particular benefit?

What about the whole idea of the tax breaks that were being provided for education supplies, for teachers and others? It is a substantial difference in the tax break that is being provided. Again, we can factor in the pandemic and going back into classrooms. Because of the Conservative Party's stalling tactics, it still has not passed the House of Commons.

Those are the types of initiatives that really affected individuals, not to mention businesses. Businesses want to be able to improve the quality of air through their ventilation systems in terms of using those tax breaks for those entrepreneurs or those businesses. The Conservative Party will say it supports farmers and it supports teachers. I am not sure of that, but it often will claim that. It says it supports small businesses, but again, it continues to stall Bill C-8: our fall 2021 update incorporated in this legislation.

It provides the government with the opportunity to deal with one issue that we hear a lot about. Housing is a big concern. This is the first time we have seen a national government in Canada deal with the issue of housing over the years. Not that long ago under this administration, we brought in the national housing strategy. We put in historic amounts of real dollars to support things such as non-profit housing units, emergency shelters and so much more.

Within this legislation, there is a special annual tax on underutilized residential properties from foreign investors. Part of the purpose of bringing in that tax is to recognize the impact that these investments from foreigners are having on our housing industry. I am happy to say there are even further measures taken in the more recent budget that we just passed last week.

The Conservatives on the one hand will talk about the importance of housing, but in reality there is only one party, with the support of another, that is ultimately recognizing the need to see action, and Bill C-8 does that, too. It does not answer all of the problems around the issue of housing, but at least it shows that the national government is prepared to provide leadership on the issue. We recognize that, in dealing with the housing crisis in Canada today, all levels of government and other stakeholders need to come up. We are demonstrating that very clearly, going back to Bill C-8, the fall economic statement, and the last federal election, when we made a commitment to deal with the issue of housing. Bill C-8 is a part of that.

What about the $1.7 billion allocated for rapid tests? We can flash back to last December. We had provinces such as Quebec that, at the beginning of January, instituted a curfew. Other provinces were going into lockdowns again. It was because they needed and recognized the need for rapid tests for the next wave of the coronavirus that came around. We ensured that we would have the supplies that were necessary to distribute to our provinces and territories and others.

I recall, back in December, Ottawa still had a stockpile of rapid tests. It was not until December of last year that the demand for and usage of them increased dramatically. In Bill C-8, we had to ensure that the federal government had the access to spend the money that was going to be necessary in order to acquire those millions of tests. In that very short window, through the fine efforts of our departments, ministries and others, we were able to acquire literally a hundred million-plus new rapid tests as a direct result of the need here in Canada. It required $1.7 billion, and that was even before we started to get into mid-January. This is something that was incorporated in Bill C-8, yet the Conservative Party still did not believe that it was worthy to pass.

We had other things in regards to the proof of vaccination initiative. Many provinces looked to Ottawa to support those vaccination initiatives. Not all provinces have actually cancelled the use of those vaccination initiatives. In fact, provinces including my home province were asking Ottawa to assist in financial support for those programs, and that is exactly what Bill C-8 would do.

The pandemic, in the minds of many Conservatives, is ancient history and it virtually evaporated in December of last year. However, for the rest of Canadians and provincial jurisdictions, including some Progressive Conservative provincial jurisdictions, which are quite different from the Conservatives we see inside the chamber here, I will give members that much, still recognized the need for things like proof of vaccination cards.

They were utilized extensively. It took an effort to create them and they needed to be supported. For many of the initiatives to take on the pandemic, about 80% of new money spent came from Ottawa, as it was very important that Ottawa, working with Canadians and the many different stakeholders, took initiative to minimize the negative impacts of the coronavirus. That is why a number of programs were developed to support Canadians.

Bill C-8 is just one piece of legislation. There were other pieces of legislation that were introduced to ensure that we could minimize the negative impacts of COVID‑19 on Canadians and our economy. As the Conservative Party was focused on all sorts of things that were not necessarily related to COVID, the coronavirus or any other important public policy issue, we continued to be focused on legislative and budgetary measures that would improve Canada's positioning going out of the pandemic.

That is one of the reasons why, when we compare Canada's performance with that of other nations around the world, we have done exceptionally well. We can talk about the overall vaccination rates. Canada has virtually led the world, in good part, in getting people vaccinated. Look at our federal civil service, which is at 99%. We have seen strong leadership in many different ways on the vaccination front. I believe that is what has put Canada well ahead of so many other countries. It is because of the success of getting vaccinations and delivering them to the provinces and territories. We saw a high sense of co-operation with their distribution, and ultimately we got shots in the arms. That is one of the measures that was taken that put Canada in the great position that we have found ourselves in today.

We also have exceptionally low unemployment rates. We have seen well over 115% of the jobs come back that were lost during the pandemic, which is far greater than our neighbour from the south, the United States. Even in the area of inflation, Canada's inflation rate remains substantially less than that of the United States and many countries in the European Union, and is less than the average of the G20.

We have implemented programs of support for small businesses, whether through Bill C-8 or other initiatives, such as the rent subsidy, the wage subsidy and the wage loss subsidy. These types of programs have made a real and tangible difference for our small businesses in Canada. As a direct result, Canada was in a far greater position than many other countries to get and keep jobs.

Programs such as the CERB enabled us to ensure that people had money in their pockets. However, we recognized that, as much as CERB was a fantastic program that served nine million Canadians, the pandemic was not over. Bill C-8, the fall economic update, also introduced the need to make other modifications, such as to the Employment Insurance Act, given the importance of seasonal workers.

With all of the initiatives that I have just referenced, my question and challenge for the Conservative Party is to tell me what aspect of this legislation is so upsetting that it justifies the type of filibuster we have witnessed by the Conservative Party on this legislation. What aspect within this legislation justifies this behaviour on Bill C-8?

I am afraid to say that if it were not for the motion we have today before us, there would still be at least another couple of days of debate on this motion. The Conservative Party has made it very clear that it wants to frustrate the government's legislative agenda as much as possible to stop legislation, no matter what it is, from passing so that it can criticize us for not passing enough legislation. There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy, possibly. That is what comes to mind. It is almost like extending a hand to help someone up and then sticking out a leg to trip them after they are on their feet. That seems to be the type of game the Conservative Party is playing. Let us pass Bill C-8.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate the whimsical musings of my friend from Winnipeg Centre, and all of the really interesting aspects he has noted regarding what has gone on in the chamber today and throughout the last couple of months. For example, there are some of the stats he gave. He said Canada has the lowest unemployment. That is because three million people cannot go to work because of your mandates.

Because of the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is not my fault, sir.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry. Sometimes it is frustrating, because some of the stats that my friend across the aisle quotes are really just made up by him in his dreams. He really does not know what is going on with people around this country. It is actually a bit embarrassing for him, I would say, when he stands up and spouts off rhetoric about things that do not really affect people's everyday lives.

I would ask my hon. colleague what he has to say to the three million people who cannot go to work because of mandates. What does he say to them when they cannot actually pay their bills, cannot pay their mortgages and cannot support their families?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I would say to the member is that he needs to maybe shy away from the Conservative notes that are provided to the caucus. At the very least, if he wants to share the notes with me, I will make the modifications and corrections, because I do not know—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan has a point of order.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know the member did not try to mislead the Canadian public. Obviously, members can tell that I did not have any notes to ask that question. It came from constituents. I would ask him to apologize.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member is correct.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am saying that many of the Conservative members have the notes memorized. Those are the lines.

I realize the member does not have a pad and paper and is not reading from anything. I recognize that, but he is listening to the Conservative people in the back room, and those numbers they are giving are garbage. To say that there are three million—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I ask the hon. members to try to keep the debate at a level that honours what we are trying to do here.

The hon. member had a point. He did not read any notes and he was asking for that to be recognized.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

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

Madam Speaker, while listening to my colleagues, I thought that a song might help soothe their nerves. Do not worry, I am not going to start singing. Instead, I will ask my colleague from the governing party a question.

I am a little concerned. In the fiscal update we are studying and in the government's recent statements, we sense that it is once more trying to interfere in one of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions by meddling in Quebec's property taxes, even though the real cause of the crisis is the scarcity of affordable housing.

I would like some reassurance from my colleague in that regard. I am a little concerned by the fact that more attention is being paid to meddling with property taxes and the provinces' and Quebec's jurisdictions than to addressing the real problem, which is a lack of social housing.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the 1% annual tax the member is referencing in her question has been, generally speaking, very well received by Canadians in all regions of our country because they understand and appreciate the impact it is having on housing speculation. At the end of the day, if it were up to the Bloc, all Ottawa would be is an ATM machine, and I believe Canadians expect more of their federal government than being an ATM machine.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard many of the member's speeches in the House and am always impressed by his dedication to speak. I always encourage other people in the party to join that team.

One thing that really concerns me about this bill is the fact that it does not address key issues around climate change. We are in a climate crisis, and I think scientists are fairly firm on that. There needs more relevant action, but we are not seeing it from the government.

Specifically, one of the things we need to look at is how we are going to deal with emissions, especially from our homes. We know that right now a lot of people are struggling to make ends meet. One of the ways we could support low-income families is by encouraging them to do things that would make their heating bills go down and look at some of those key things. However, there is absolutely nothing that addresses this and makes sure that low-income families can access these kinds of opportunities.

I am wondering if the member could talk about when the government is going to take climate change seriously and actually take steps and actions that are going to help not only the environment, but those of us who are suffering the most economically.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 is meant as an implementation bill for the fall update. There are many things that I personally would have loved to see incorporated into the legislation, but I recognized, even back then, that a budget would be introduced, and it was. It has been very well received. We have had very few questions on it from the opposition and I see that as a positive thing. We have a very proactive and progressive Minister of Environment who will not accept anything but a budget that reflects a lot of green. The Prime Minister has very much indicated his desire for green budgets.

The only thing that comes to my mind in Bill C-8 is the incentives for air ventilation or better quality air. They might help, albeit indirectly, with some of the renovations that would take place as a direct result of the bill. However, there is probably a list of things, if I could wave a wand, that I would have liked to see in a bill such as this.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have a few things on my mind about Bill C-8. Businesses had to meet the 40% or 50% thresholds for October, November and December sales, and I would like to know why the government caved to the hoteliers when they lobbied. It did not listen to the CFIB or CRA, and businesses that are down between 10% and 40% do not qualify for anything. That is thousands and thousands of small businesses in Canada, and I know because they come to me. They are friends of mine.

Does the member opposite know why that program was set up the way it was, with such inequities in it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I am not hearing from the Conservatives or the New Democrats, although I can understand the Bloc, what they oppose in the legislation, and I see that as a good thing. The member referenced why there are no extended benefits. From the best I can tell, they go against what many of his Conservative colleagues are talking about. They are saying that we are investing too much in tax dollars in some of the program supports we are providing to small businesses. From day one, we have been supporting small businesses. Has it been absolutely perfect in all ways? I suspect not, and there has been a need to make modifications.

As to the question the member put forward, I do not necessarily know the details. If he wants me to get a more detailed answer, maybe he can come across the way and we can talk to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Small Business to see if we can get a more detailed answer for him.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the question earlier from the member for North Island—Powell River, I would offer that it is not just about being green. It is important to follow the science on the climate crisis.

However, I want to ask a question for the member for Winnipeg North on a subject we do agree on, which is addressing the cost of housing. He mentioned the vacancy tax that is in the bill, specifically that this is an opportunity to ensure homes are for people to live in and not commodities for investors to trade.

As the member knows, there are other jurisdictions where vacancy taxes have been proposed at a higher amount. In Kitchener, for example, there was a 35% increase in the cost of housing last year alone. This is a 1% tax. Could he offer his reflection on the possibility of increasing that, if not in this bill, than in future bills, so we could move the vacancy tax towards one that could influence the speculation in our housing markets?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question. I believe that the government needs to work with the different stakeholders, in particular, our municipalities and others. I very much want to deal with the housing crisis in Canada today, and I believe that there are certain areas in which Ottawa must and has to play a leadership role.

In order for us to overcome the housing situation, not only do we have to start thinking about things such as housing co-ops and other forms of non-profits, how we can directly and indirectly support people on the issue of affordability to first-time homebuyers and so forth, but it is also critical that city governments in particular start looking at how we can increase the housing supply and minimize the speculation that takes place.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I am seeking unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

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

It is agreed. The hon. member may proceed.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to chime in on this debate again. Bill C-8 is actually a piece of implementing legislation that arises out of the biggest spending budget in Canadian history, namely budget 2021, which was tabled well over a year ago. That budget set a record because the Liberal government had not tabled a budget for well over two years, which is something that has almost never happened in Canadian history. Budgets are intended to be tabled every single year to give Canadians a picture of what their finances look like and a picture of what the government wants to spend their hard earned tax dollars on and how much the government is going to borrow to try to deliver the services Canadians receive.

Bill C-8 is coming out of the biggest budget ever seen in Canada. It has over half a trillion dollars' worth of spending in one year, and members can think about that. It ended up doubling Canada's national debt. That is how big this budget was, so members can understand why it was critical that the official opposition, which is the Conservative Party, and other opposition parties in this House had an opportunity to exercise oversight over this huge budget.

Of course, a budget in itself is not legislation. It is simply the government's statement of what it intends to do the following year. The government brought forward this budget document, then over the subsequent months of 2021, it began to roll out enabling legislation. First it was the budget implementation act, then different pieces of legislation after that. Along the way the government also tabled in the House something called a fall economic statement, which gives Canadians a six-month update on where the finances of the nation are and what the government still plans to do arising out of the budget.

Out of that process has come this bill, Bill C-8. Again, it is a bill that spends well over $50 billion of taxpayers' money, much of it borrowed, by the way. Members can understand why we are reluctant to force this through the House of Commons. Members will understand why we are reluctant to ram this thing through without proper oversight and accountability, yet it is the Liberal government that, every step along the way, has tried to do exactly that. It has tried to push this along faster that it should be. In fact, the Liberals have accused us of delaying this bill, when all we have done is exercise proper oversight, which is something the Liberal government really hates.

I look back at the mandate letter the finance minister received from the Prime Minister just over a year ago, and that mandate letter actually had a specific provision in it that said that the government was seeking to be transparent and accountable in everything it did, including when it came to budgetary matters. In fact, that was the direction to the finance minister. It was for her to be as transparent as possible with the finances of this nation, yet we see here the Liberal government doing everything it can to push through legislation that requires proper oversight.

Let me place this in a larger context. I have already mentioned the fact that the government has embarked upon the largest spending spree in Canadian history. In fact, over the last year or so it has doubled the national debt, if members can imagine that, and since it was elected in 2015, the government has increased spending by some 53%.

Since 2019, which was before COVID, the government has increased spending by 25%. For most household budgets in the country, if they tried to increase their spending like that, they would have to go to their local insolvency specialist and say, “Hey, listen. We cannot meet our payments anymore. Please help.”

However, with this government, it is spend, spend, spend. It is a Liberal tax and spend problem that this country has gained since our former Conservative Party lost the election in 2015.

Do members know what makes this worse? A year ago, when that 2021 budget was tabled, there were already warning signs. The economy was starting to recover and our Parliamentary Budget Officer had warned the government that inflationary pressures were building and that this extra 100 billion dollars' worth of stimulus that the finance minister had set aside to stimulate the economy might not be necessary. In fact, it might might be overkill.

We know now that the government has spent somewhere in the order of $176 billion of spending that is not COVID-related. In other words, it was in the nature of stimulus, which it pumped into the economy, and then Canadians are surprised, and the Liberals are surprised, that we suddenly have rampant inflation.

Today we know that the inflation rate is 6.7% and continues to go up. In fact, economists are incredibly worried right now about the rate of inflation in this country. They are concerned because now the Bank of Canada, our central bank, has had to step up. It is starting to increase interest rates, which, of course, impacts mortgage holders across Canada and loan holders across Canada. Typically, those are businesses and small businesses, and typically those are households that are highly indebted and are very vulnerable to high rate increases. That is what we are seeing happening around us right now.

We have the twin scourges of inflation on one side and increasing interest rates on the other, which are going to severely pinch Canadians and are going to make life even more difficult at a time when we have an affordability crisis in the country.

It is in that context that the government is still proposing to spend, spend, spend. How do I know that? Bill C-8 actually comes out of the previous year's budget. One would have assumed that the government would have learned from its mistakes, and that its next budget, budget 2022, would taper off spending, would control and discipline spending.

In fact, what happened in the 2022 budget? It is just as bad. There is $56 billion of new spending, much of it permanent spending that will bind future generations to these programs the government is creating.

The bottom line is this: These Liberals have been pounding their desks saying, “Hey, we have to get this passed, quickly, quickly, quickly”, and we have resisted. We said that we were going to take our time to review this legislation because there are things in this legislation that we support, such as tax credits for teachers and for farmers. We support those things. From time to time, we have asked the government to pull those things out of this legislation so that we can vote on them separately. Of course, the government says no. They want us to vote against the whole of Bill C-8, so they can blame us for voting against things that we actually support.

We are not going to be bullied. We are not going to be pushed. We are going to take our time and do this job properly.

We have no choice but to vote no against Bill C-8 because it is perpetrating an incredible expense and massive debt on future generations of Canadians, and I just do not want to allow that to happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope we caught what just happened there toward the end of his speech. On the one side, the member is saying that we need proper oversight, and we need to properly go over this in the details. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken since report stage to this, compared to five Bloc members, two NDP, two Green and three Liberal, but what is even more remarkable is that he concluded his speech by saying they are going to vote against it.

Which is it? Are we going to debate this endlessly because we really want to have that proper oversight? Is that what they want, or do they already know they are going to vote against it, which the member just revealed at the end of his speech?

He is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say, “We want to have proper oversight”, but he has also given away the fact that he already plans to vote against it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I again remind the member for Kingston and the Islands, which is the home to one of my cousins actually, of what I said in my speech, which is that this is the largest budget in Canadian history that this bill is reflecting. The bill is legislation for implementing that budget.

In a budget of $500 billion, over half a trillion dollars, does the member not think we are going to find things that we would support? Of course we are. However, will the Liberal government actually allow us to vote separately on those items, those worthy programs that we believe are necessary to sustain a strong economy to allow families to flourish? What we will not countenance is bullying from the Liberal government trying to push through legislation without the proper oversight.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my hon. colleague.

One thing that was left out of the economic update, Bill C‑8, is obviously the health transfer increase that Quebec, the provinces and the territories have been calling for unanimously. Everyone wants health transfers to be increased to 35%.

I think that the Conservatives agree with us that the health transfers need to be increased. The only thing we have not yet heard a Conservative MP say is by how much the transfers should be increased.

Is the hon. member prepared to say right now in the House that if the Conservative Party formed the government, health transfers would be increased to 35%?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a trick question, as he would have concluded.

I can say that we as Conservatives believe in co-operative federalism, where we work with the provinces and territories to come up with solutions to problems, including the huge problems we have within the health care system in Canada. We know that the provinces need help not only with surgical wait-lists but we know they also need help with mental health care. However, the way these problems are solved is to sit down around a table and discuss what those specific needs are and talk about what each one costs and prioritize them.

That is how a Conservative government would act. It is not how the Liberal government acts, but it is how we would act. We are respectful of the provinces and territories and what they bring to the table. We would like to have the government respect us as well. That is how to craft a proper health care policy for Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

I was struck by the member for Abbotsford mentioning the banks stepping up by increasing interest rates. I want to ask him about the banks having increased their profits, nearly $58 billion in 2021. The Royal Bank alone made $16 billion. It just seems to me that they are not necessarily stepping up when they are continuing to see great increases in their profits.

I want to ask why the Conservatives are protecting the interests of the rich rather than trying to make sure we are doing better for the working people in Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Abbotsford, in 10 seconds.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that in 10 seconds, but I will say that we are not here in any way promoting the interests of the rich and the wealthy, as the member may have suggested. We are not even in government. We do believe that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

The government has come forward with what they call a recovery dividend on banks, a one-time charge of 15% and then an ongoing charge of 1.5% every year in terms of new taxes on the banks.

We believe what is really required is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is well over 10 seconds.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I have to warn members that this is not the first time I have participated in debating the bill. In fact, the bill was first introduced back in December. Now, much has changed in our world since that time, and much of it, sadly, has not been for the better.

Recently, I reviewed my previous comments on Bill C-8. Those comments were before the atrocities had begun in Ukraine. Indeed, our worst nightmares have now come true as we are witnessing the horrors of Putin's war on Ukraine as innocent civilians are murdered. These disturbing events are changing the face of our world. When I last spoke to Bill C-8, I raised a serious concern that I will repeat here today. I said that a significant portion of Canada's fiscal capacity has been spent. It is gone, and we must recognize that, because in the event we run into any type of future emergency situation, we will have less fiscal room to respond. Well, today, here we are.

I know that every member in this place stands with the Ukrainian people. We stand with the government in supporting Ukraine, while at the same time doing everything we can to try and stop Putin. On these points, I hope we are all united.

Recent world events, I would argue, have made this spending bill, Bill C-8, woefully out of date. Let us not forget that it is our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer who has scrutinized the fiscal numbers proposed in the bill. The PBO, as we have, has come out and said that stimulus spending is not needed. That was before the world crisis that we see today.

Let us talk about one of the very real problems coming before us. In this place we are all united that we need to prioritize welcoming Ukrainians who are fleeing the tyranny and aggression of Putin, but as they arrive, they will face the same challenge that everyday Canadians in every city and in many rural areas are currently facing: housing affordability. It simply does not exist anymore. Housing is completely out of control in many Canadian cities. Recently, the Toronto Star reported that the average selling price of a detached home in Toronto pushes the $2-million mark. Make no mistake, the situation of rental housing is no better.

In Bill C-8, there is the proposed underused housing tax act. We have criticized this act because, again, when the Liberals bring forward what they say are solutions, many people note, “Oh, we have unused housing that will stimulate things so that more people can have housing.” Well, let us just look at the City of Vancouver in my province of British Columbia, which has recently revised its own version of the underused housing act that this government is drawing on.

The city found two things. One is that 1% was not drawing enough. Our Green member of Parliament who was debating with us had raised the suggestion, but it does not seem to work. Housing affordability in Vancouver has not done well under this tax on underutilized properties imposed by the City of Vancouver, and so it raised it to 5% in 2023. My question to the government would be this: Does it plan on raising it to 5%? The good people of Vancouver would probably say that they have seen housing affordability go out the window. They have seen housing prices go up, and guess who is collecting more and more revenue. It is the City of Vancouver. Guess who is going to be multiplying that by five. That is a huge amount.

Again, this government started at 1%. We said that 1% was not going to have an effect. The only effect it would have is to put more money in the government's pocket. Let us not forget that situation in Ukraine that I talked about. That is creating windfall revenues for the government.

On inflation, the member for Abbotsford is a tough act to follow. I am trying to keep up with him. The government is gaining more and more money all the time. When it added an escalator, the link to the CPI on things like beer, wine and spirits, that was not just it. The former member for Malpeque, Wayne Easter, was very critical on this point in committee. He said that adding a CPI to user fees for the whole of the Government of Canada, national parks, sport fees, all of them, are subject to inflation. What we have is a government that keeps adding more to its revenue. It is receiving more money than it ever has, and yet it is spending faster and faster.

At the same time, I talk about not being able to provide appropriate housing for Ukrainians, if they can come to this country, because rentals are difficult to find. Homes are very difficult to come by. I want to take this moment to zoom into my own riding. Once again I have to raise the subject for the good people in Princeton and Merritt, B.C. These communities were devastated by flooding in November of last year. At the time, and I gave full credit to the Prime Minister, he said to those communities that he would have their back and that he would be there for them.

Six months later, the bills are past due and only now is funding once again promised to arrive. Will it this time? I have asked this question in this place many times. I have raised multiple questions and there is literally never any response from any minister on that side of the House. These people are still out of their homes. Why? It is not because of underutilized houses. It is because they have no home to return to.

Some of those homes are being looted. Imagine spending six months, half a year of their lives, in a motel room because they cannot go home. Their homes are being looted by thieves. This is not a developing country. This is happening here in Canada. How does rural Canada survive when the federal government cannot deliver promised supports in a reasonable period of time? We should ask ourselves that question. I say to members in this place, what if it was a community in their riding that was devastated by flooding? Do they think six months, half a year, is reasonable?

Here in Ottawa there was a three-week blockade and there was a $10-million fund on the table in no time flat. That money is already going out the door. Loblaws got $10 million, and got that $10 million much faster, just to buy new refrigerators. No one was homeless. It was for new refrigerators. The people in my riding are taxpayers. They need help, critical help. When the Prime Minister says he will be there for them, that he will have their backs, he is not there. I cannot think of a greater failure for a country, and that failure is on all of us.

I have talked a lot about this particular bill, Bill C-8. I have talked a little about the underutilized housing. One thing I just have to say is the government continues to rely on parts 4 and 5. We may argue about vaccination passport initiatives that are in part 5 or ventilation and all those things, but what I have to really object to is the manner in which the government is actually injecting, literally, things into its bills. Instead of going through the estimates process and putting them into the regular fiscal framework, it is putting it in legislation. That makes it tougher for members of Parliament and senators to be able to follow. That means the job of all of us members of Parliament is made more difficult.

I have to say about Bill C-8, that is not a good thing here. Perhaps I could make this a little better. Before I close, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-8.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

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 not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 with a view to remove the income tax provisions of the Bill.

I do appreciate the House's attention and look forward to questions and comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, 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, now we see that after 51 Conservatives have already spoken to this at report stage, the Conservatives have decided that it would now be in the best interests of the bill to be sent back to committee, believe it or not.

Here we have a member who has given his thoughts and comments on some concerns that he has in the bill. I am curious if he could inform the House as to the degree to which the Conservative members on the committee brought up these issues, how that was reflected upon, whether or not we have been going through the democratic process to get to where we are right now, and how he sees that process unfolding differently if this were going to return to committee?

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

Madam Speaker, I was placed on the finance committee and later elected as vice-chair very late in the process of Bill C-8, so unfortunately I only got to see the tail end of it. As I said, and this is something the member for Abbotsford was very strident on, the reason we were elected to this place is to make sure that we are producing legislation that fits the times. Unfortunately, this particular piece of legislation was written where it is not taking those things into account. I talked about the underused housing act as being woefully insufficient, and how many of the things the government is not even putting in the fiscal framework but is using legislation to pass. I just do not think the committee or this place is served to see that bill go forward without further review.

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

Madam Speaker, some of the income tax provisions, as I understand it, in Bill C-8 include creating a refundable tax credit for SMEs to improve air quality in their places of work, expanding the travel component of the northern residents deduction, enhancing the refundable tax credit for teachers, creating a refundable tax credit for agricultural businesses so that farmers are able to get more money back under climate action incentives, and creating a tax on underused housing that the member had featured prominently in his remarks.

Have I missed anything from the list? These are all things that he wants the committee to re-examine, if I understood his proposal correctly.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's interventions at committee and also here. Yes.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia talked a little about housing and the importance of the issue for his riding and all across the country. I would like him to provide us with a few more sentences to elaborate on that further, if he would like.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's efforts here in the House to make sure that these points are being raised. If we have refugees coming from other countries who are experiencing difficulties, I know the Anglican Church of Canada has publicly raised the fact that there is too much paperwork in the government's process. Even if they get through that paperwork, other charitable groups are asking where we house people because rental situations, in the government's mind, have to fit certain criteria.

A local radio host talked about simply putting out one of his family's properties for rent. He had all sorts of offers. People were saying they would pay double the damage deposit and they would help with chores. We are finding that it is so difficult for people to get housing that they are getting desperate.

People come from desperate situations, whether they are refugees from Ukraine or from other places in the world, or whether they are our own people in places like Merritt and Princeton where people do not have homes to go to and are stuck in motels with their emergency supports being capped.

This is the problem the government has. It is not stepping up to the plate. It is not working with provinces and it is not delivering the help that Liberals keep saying, hand on heart, to millennials: “We are going to make housing affordable.” I do not expect the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to scratch every itch, but I do suggest that they start keeping their promises, whether to refugees or to Canadians who need our help.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the valiant member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

Okay.

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

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

Madam Speaker, given what time it is, I will try to keep it interesting because I can see that many of my colleagues are nodding off. That is rather ironic, considering that one of the topics covered in Bill C-8 deals with giving people a place to lay their head.

It is no secret that I like to remind myself regularly who I work for. The answer will not surprise anyone. I work for the people in my riding, the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. I have the privilege of representing their hopes, interests and fears, and I try to be as thorough as possible in that endeavour. I work until late in the evening, as is the case once again tonight.

I will use much of my time to make a plea for our young people who are struggling to find housing. The housing situation for the people we represent is very serious. I was speaking with one of my constituents just before I began my speech, to confirm that this is what he is experiencing. He is in his 20s and recently moved in with his girlfriend. He told me that his rental is costing him more than the mortgage he had taken out on his house. Everything is backwards. What is worse, they are lucky because they do not live in the city. Most young couples rarely have this choice.

These days, the only certainty for anyone looking for a place to rent or buy is that it will be a complicated, tiring and stressful task. What is happening in the housing market is so serious that many people are working just to keep a roof over their heads. In Quebec alone, 450,000 renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. That is unsustainable. We would need 50,000 new units of social, community and affordable housing to address this crisis. Instead, we are being offered a tax. There is no vision other than creating 6,000 housing units a year for all of Canada.

According to estimates, Canada would need 1.8 million housing units just to catch up to other G7 countries. Let us not give up hope: We should get there in 300 years. The Liberals are presenting their national housing strategy as a revolutionary measure. The reality is that their objectives are just as unremarkable as their results.

As was the case for health transfers, the government does not accept responsibility for its withdrawal. Today in question period, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois stated that, just like Pontius Pilate, the Liberals washed its hands of the situation.

Everyone is saying that there is a housing shortage, and in particular social and community housing. There is a very simple reason for this and it is connected to what I was saying earlier. It is completely backwards for it to cost as much or more to rent than to buy. Vulnerable people do not have the financial leverage to buy and end up trapped between an unattainable real estate market and a shortage of rentals that are already too expensive. This is a prime example of supply and demand.

The Liberals are focusing on a series of programs and initiatives that hit all of the variables affecting the housing market: more supply, more housing. The 1% tax on vacant properties set out in Bill C‑8 is all well and good, but we do not need a 1% tax on the value of vacant buildings. What we need is more housing supply.

It will come as a surprise to nobody if I say that the Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to work with the Government of Quebec because housing is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc's only amendment called for the property tax measures to apply in a given province only if that province agreed to it. The Liberals dismissed that amendment, which is a real shame.

It will also come as no surprise to anyone if I say that it is of utmost importance to the Bloc that Bill C‑8 not intrude on Quebec's jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the tax envisioned by this bill constitutes a clear intrusion in the area of property tax. Even if the government is setting out solely to penalize non-resident, non-Canadian owners of second homes, it is intrusion.

If the government wants to introduce a tax to regulate a sector that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, which is what Bill C‑8 would do, it should, at the very least, ask them what they think. Without that, I do not see how I can vote in favour of this bill. I am actually a little disappointed in my colleagues who could not be bothered to listen to us.

Now I would like to comment on federal health transfers. Here again, the Liberal government is seizing an opportunity to disappoint Quebeckers.

Part 6 of Bill C‑8 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $1.‍72 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to COVID-19 tests, but that is not what we are asking for. That is not what we need.

If our demands are not clear enough, then it may be time for the government to get its head out of the clouds and go spend even an hour visiting a hospital. It is all well and good for the government to provide special funding during COVID to meet the need for supplies specifically intended to combat the virus, but the past two years have wreaked serious havoc on our hospitals. Now more than ever, Quebec and the provinces need a lifeline. A measly 3% transfer a year until 2027 is not going to earn the federal government forgiveness for decades of withdrawal from its responsibilities.

If the government wants to talk about billions of dollars in federal aid, then it should listen to us. I will repeat the request slowly. It is not hard to understand. I hope that everyone will take note, especially those on the other side of the House.

Quebec and the provinces are unanimously calling for an immediate payment of $28 billion with an annual 6% transfer.

That is not too much to ask, as it represents just 35% of our health care system costs. When the legislation first came into force, costs were shared 50-50. At least this way, the proportion would be increasing to 35%. Instead, the Minister of Finance opted for the easy route by copying and pasting numbers from previous years.

Canada is already behind Switzerland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia. As far as health care access and outcomes are concerned, these amounts are really nothing to celebrate.

What is more, the Prime Minister had the nerve to say that the problems with our health care systems are not just a matter of money. What are Quebeckers to make of that? As the classic tune by the Colocs goes, pass me the puck and I will score the goals. In this case, however, we do not even have enough money to buy a hockey stick, so we are far from being able to score goals.

I will close by talking about the part of Bill C‑8 that provides for a six-year limitation period for the recovery of amounts owing with respect to a loan provided under the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA. I want to note that it is important to listen to the opposition and not dismiss our suggestions out of hand.

In 2020, the program was designed to provide SMEs with interest-free loans that included the possibility of partial loan forgiveness. The purpose was to help businesses cover expenses that could be avoided or deferred while they dealt with the COVID‑19 shutdowns. At first, the terms stated that if the balance of the loan was paid off by December 31, 2023, a third of the loan would be forgiven.

Ever since the program was launched, the Bloc Québécois has been asking for it be improved to better respond to businesses' needs. For example, we asked for more flexible eligibility criteria for CEBA. That resulted in a better program overall. The issue of businesses' debt levels was not even raised.

We are on the same side when it comes to helping. Since I have some time left, I will offer my hon. colleagues some more suggestions for improving the situation for SMEs.

In e-commerce, it is a real David and Goliath story for small players that have to compete with major chains. High shipping costs and less effective digital marketing are stifling business maintenance and growth.

Canada Post's Solutions for Small Business program has some interesting measures. We propose harmonizing these measures and applying the international shipping discount to domestic shipping too. I think that is something that would not cost very much, but would go a long way.

We also suggested a single rate of $2 per book for book deliveries in order to encourage independent book stores. These are Bloc proposals. We are not here to oppose for the sake of opposing. We are here to propose things.

I introduced a bill on credit card transaction fees. The government should at least have the power to take action by sitting down with card issuers to negotiate lower fees for online transactions. That is another Bloc Québécois proposal that might help. We are here to help people.

In conclusion, I come back to my original plea. We as parliamentarians must address the problems facing our constituents and businesses with a strong sense of duty, setting partisanship aside.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, regarding the government's budgetary policy, one of the big challenges this country faces right now is inflation, which is driving up the cost of everything. I would love to hear the member's thoughts on that and on the government's role in that, and what he thinks can be done to help ease the cost of living for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not an economist, but I am pretty sure that we will not fix the inflation problem by extolling the virtues of cryptocurrency. There is one thing I do know, which is that seniors are always the first to suffer as a result of inflation.

Their purchasing power has not increased, although groceries, gas, prescription drugs and housing costs have all gone up. Everything has gone up. The only thing that has not increased is their old age pension, because the government is incapable of being there for seniors.

The government has created two classes of seniors: those aged 75 and over, who got something, and those aged 74 and under, who got nothing. Does inflation affect those under 74 any less? I do not think so.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his speech and his commitment to workers, small businesses and his constituents.

My question is simple. Does he support teachers and farmers and our plan to give them this tax refund? Does he support Bill C-8?

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on how much his French has improved. It is obvious that he is working on it, and it is coming along.

I support everyone in Lac-Saint-Jean. With what we have seen of Bill C-8, unfortunately, I cannot imagine how we could vote in favour of it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, just to follow up, my Conservative colleague talked about inflation that is impacting not just Canada, but countries globally.

One thing we do not talk enough about is the skyrocketing concentration of wealth and the rampant inequality that is growing in our country. We see that we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7. We have tax havens that are designed to protect the super wealthy.

Does my colleague agree that we have a big issue when it comes to the concentration of wealth at the top and that the super wealthy could afford to contribute more so that we could build affordable housing, so that we could make sure that people have pharmacare and so that we could tackle the toxic drug supply and the overdose crisis? I appreciate my colleague for always speaking and trying to find solutions.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Joliette has been working on this issue for years and making suggestions to the government about tax havens. It is appalling that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in a G7 country.

The wealth gap is getting wider and wider. The kind of situation we are in today is bound to happen when Bay Street has so much power and influence within the government. This is unfortunately where we find ourselves.

Instead of tackling tax havens, the government is giving more tax credits and subsidies to the banks and oil companies. At some point, a decision will have to be made, but that will take political will. This political will would free the government from Bay Street so that we can work on behalf of the people who voted for us, the people who are actually working to build a better life for themselves.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who gave an excellent speech on Bill C-8. I thank him for sharing his time with me. It was wonderful to listen to him, and I might have been very happy just to continue listening to him.

I do have a few things to say about Bill C-8. One of the first things we can talk about is how this bill was presented. When the government provides an economic update, it is often referred to as a mini-budget, and everyone has expectations and wants to see what is in it.

When we saw Bill C-8, the economic update implementation bill, there was not much to it. Let us say that we were not impressed, but that does not really matter.

We expect better from a government. We expect a government to do important things and make important announcements. We expect the government to do serious work, since it has public servants and staff. There are all kinds of people making requests, sharing ideas and wanting to change society. Bloc Québécois has all kinds of good ideas. The members across the way do not often take these good ideas, but they do from time to time.

Today we are debating Bill C‑8, which contains different elements divided into seven parts, and I am going to focus on one of them. The Bloc Québécois had some questions about the other parts and was prepared to send them to be studied in committee, which is what happened.

We had serious concerns about part two of the bill regarding the tax on underused or vacant housing belonging to non-residents or non-Canadians. The government wants to impose a 1% tax on vacant housing to help address the housing crisis. Will that make a difference? I am not sure. Could the idea of a 1% tax on vacant housing curb speculation to some extent or prevent these properties from being left vacant? It is possible.

However, the most important question here is whether it is the federal government's role to implement this tax. Normally, when we think about housing and property taxes, we do not think “federal government”. In fact, if we take a step back, it becomes increasingly clear that this tax is nothing more than a federal intrusion into an area that is not under its jurisdiction, specifically municipal affairs and the property value of buildings. This was also pointed out by witnesses in committee, particularly the constitutional expert Patrick Taillon.

Generally speaking, we expect that everything municipal will be handled by the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. If there were a tax to be imposed, perhaps Quebec should do it, but certainly not the federal government.

I think we can discuss whether this is a good measure. There may be interesting ideas that warrant discussion in the context of such a measure. When we see who is behind it and wonder how it would be implemented, however, it no longer works, and that is the problem.

This means that, unfortunately, we may have to vote against Bill C-8. There is not much in the bill to begin with, but it does contain something that is just unacceptable.

In general, federal intrusion in one of Quebec's jurisdictions is often done through the government's spending power. This, however, is a different case, because this is not how the federal government usually interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions.

For those who do not know it—which I do not believe is the case for the members on other side, who are very familiar with this strategy, as they often use it—the federal government's spending power lets it do indirectly what cannot be done directly under the Constitution.

Essentially, the government will send a cheque, which it is not supposed to do, but people are going to take it because they need the money. There will be many strings attached. In the end, even though it is our jurisdiction and we should be making the decisions, the feds will be the ones deciding, because with all the conditions attached we are going to lose any possibility of truly controlling our levers and jurisdictions.

Quebec's jurisdictions include our education and health care systems. Year after year we ask for more funding, but it seems that we hit a wall in Ottawa. We are told that we are being given more funding. The government will increase funding by 3% a year, but system costs are increasing by 6% a year. They are making fun of us. We continue to hear the same nonsense from them.

The last budget was even worse. They basically added another layer, stating that “Any conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories will focus on delivering better health care outcomes”. When they say “any conversation”, that is not about funding, it is about telling us how to manage our health care system. That is basically what they are saying. It is somewhat insulting to be told that. It is indicative of the direction that this government is taking, always encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction. The health care system is a good example, but there are many, many more.

We could take, for example, the infamous fight over pensions in the 1960s. I am too young, as my father was not even born in the early 1960s. When the war over pensions was being waged, some will remember that the Quebec government wanted to set up a system where people would contribute a portion of their money to a shared fund that would one day pay out a pension when they retired. It would be a big pool of money that would generate returns. That is what gave rise to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec.

The federal government did not like that. It wondered how Quebec managed to plan for such a big pot of money so it could have more control over its own destiny, which is why the federal level tried to bring in another regime that would compete or at least move faster. In the end, that did not work. The federal government ended up having to recognize the Quebec system because Quebec had been quicker. The federal level wanted to impose its own system to prevent Quebec from controlling the money. Perhaps the federal government wanted to provide better conditions for seniors, but we all know that, in the end, the aim of that battle was to determine who would manage the pot of money. Would those funds be invested to serve Ottawa's interests or Quebec's interests? That was the big question.

Thank goodness that big issue was dealt with, because now we have problems again. Take the finance issue, for example. Who remembers the Canada-wide securities commission? How many courts ruled that that was under Quebec's jurisdiction? It is not up to the federal government to create a national securities commission, but they did it anyway, both the Conservatives and the Liberals, they really pushed it. Fortunately, after multiple attempts and a lot of hard work, the Bloc Québécois succeeded in sending the commission packing. Its funding was axed. That feels good. It gave Quebec's financial system some relief.

What I just cannot fathom is the federal government's constant desire to get bigger. It is like a kind of spiderweb always out to suffocate the provinces, bit by bit. That is what it has done yet again with Bill C‑8. The federal government is going to take up all the space until there is none left for us.

The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords sought to restore the balance. That was the original objective. Every time the federal government reviewed areas of jurisdiction, it would say that it could not give this or that to Quebec, and there was ultimately almost nothing left. Quebeckers voted against these two accords because the offers were ridiculous, it has to be said. The federal government never seems to want to make concessions but is always trying to get more.

We are seeing the same thing with Quebec's Bill 96. Ottawa, with its Official Languages Act, is finding ways to try to undermine this legislation and restrict it from applying to federally regulated businesses.

I vehemently disagree with this and with the proposed centralizing measures they want to impose with their pharmacare and dental care programs. These may be good measures, but the problem is that they are not well intentioned.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on this important topic.

For weeks now, teachers and farmers in my riding have been impatiently waiting for their tax returns, which this bill supports. It is a bill for workers. The Bloc Québécois used to be a party for the working class.

Will my colleague support workers or will he hide behind the issue of jurisdiction?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his French. He is working on improving his French, which is very laudable. I like practising my English, but outside the House, of course.

I did not quite understand the premise of his question. He spoke about workers. I can assure him that we support workers 100% and that this is a fundamental value of ours. We have a bias towards workers and we stand behind it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy my colleague's interventions.

We have talked a lot in the House about the housing crisis in this country. We keep hearing about incentives for developers and different programs for new buyers. We went from 10% non-market housing in the 1970s and 1980s, before the Liberals pulled out of the national housing program, to what we are today at 3%. Europe is at 30%, and Vienna is at 60%. We know the Conservatives' priorities and Liberals' priorities are to get developers to build housing. We are glad to see some co-op housing. We are glad to see some movement on that in this recent budget.

Does my colleague agree that we need to rapidly scale up non-market housing and co-op housing to solve the housing crisis for workers and for people who are homeless, and look at models that are going to make sure people have housing security? We need to take a new approach in how we look at housing and see it not as an investment, but in making sure people have safe, secure and affordable housing.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's proposals are quite interesting.

In my opinion, not enough has been done on the housing file. However, we cannot forget that the federal government should not be getting involved at all. Much like the infamous tax that was discussed earlier, this is coming, but it makes no sense. If the federal government is going to hand out money for housing, we will take it because we need it, but it has to happen according to Quebec's conditions and wishes. The problem is that Ottawa always imposes a million conditions and messes everything up. Ultimately, nothing moves forward.

We need new federal approaches, but they cannot be layered on top of Quebec's; otherwise, we will suffocate.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his speech.

In his speech, he did not have time to share his thoughts on climate change in connection with Bill C‑8. I am curious about his views on how the government could use Bill C‑8 if it were serious about climate change.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague opposite.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see much about climate change in Bill C‑8. In fact, I do not think those words are even in it. I might have missed a page or skipped a sentence somewhere, but climate change does not seem to matter much to the government. It clearly is not focusing on it.

What could the government have done to fight climate change? Some of the actions we saw explained things that had been done previously, such as approving drilling in Bay du Nord or buying a pipeline.

The government is clearly not focusing on climate change. Unfortunately, Canada is missing the boat.

One good example of that—and I was talking about this in committee yesterday or today—was the government's move to force the hand of automakers and dealers to get electric vehicles in people's driveways. That makes no sense.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to request unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.

All those opposed to the hon. member's request will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at third reading to contribute to the debate on Bill C-8.

Two of the themes I have heard so far this evening that are emerging from the debate have to do, first, with inflation and, second, and relatedly, with the incredible increases in housing prices that Canadians have been facing that have made it very difficult for Canadians to afford a home. As we are hearing more often, it is causing many younger Canadian adults to give up altogether on the dream of ever owning their own home to be sure, and in many cases even just to find a home to rent. More and more people are having to stay with mom and dad a lot longer than they planned, if they have the good fortune of having parents who have a home that can accommodate them.

What I want to offer that I do not think has been said enough when we talk about inflation is to point to a couple of studies that have come out in the last several weeks by Canadians for Tax Fairness and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which have said that up to a quarter of the inflationary pressure that Canadians are currently experiencing can be attributed to price markups by companies for their products that go above and beyond their increased costs. Companies in the grocery business, the oil and gas business now as prices spike, banks obviously, insurance companies and big box stores have seen incredible increases or a growth in profit that is higher and faster than the growth of their costs. That is not to say businesses are not facing increased costs, but some of the largest businesses appear to be using that as an opportunity to gouge Canadians, whether it is at the pumps, the store or wherever they sell their wares. This is contributing as much as 25% of the increase in costs that Canadians are currently experiencing.

We could listen to the Conservatives talk about the problem of inflation all day. They would have us believe that it is only government spending that has contributed to inflationary pressures. They do not want to talk about international supply chains. We do not hear them talk about that. We just hear them talk about the government borrowing during the pandemic. They could be talking about the extraordinary increase in profits that far exceed the increase in costs that many of the largest companies in Canada are experiencing, but they do not. They only want to talk about where they see government as the problem.

The problem for Canadians, when they are looking for people to elect to provide some real solutions, is if they elect people who can only appreciate one kind of problem, it is like a tradesperson who only knows how to operate one kind of tool. The fact is tradespeople need to know how to use all of the tools in the tool box because they are confronted with novel problems and not all problems are the same and not all solutions are the same.

Cutting government spending sometimes is the solution to certain kinds of problems, but it is not the solution to all problems. Indeed, fixing some of the problems that we are facing right now requires government investment, but when we talk about the extraordinary price increases and profit increases that we have seen in certain industries that are really hurting Canadians in the pocketbook, the answer is to take those folks on. The answer is some regulation and legislation that will hold them to an appropriate standard and make sure Canadians are not getting fleeced by the private sector. As I said, there is some real evidence that that is going on, and it is not a big enough part of the conversation. If it is 25% of the problem for the budgets of Canadians, it certainly does not make up 25% of the conversation here, not even close, let alone 25% of the solutions that are being proffered by the government.

How do we know this is in part the case? We can look at not only some of the company profits I was talking about, but we can also look at some longer-term trends and the way they have accelerated during the pandemic. We have seen it with Canadian billionaires. There are not a lot of them, but man, do they ever have a lot of money, and man, have they ever managed to grow their net worth astronomically over the last two years of the pandemic. That is some serious evidence.

If we go back just to last fall, the Parliamentary Budget Officer issued a report that said that 1% of all Canadians have 25% of the wealth produced in the country, while 40% of Canadians are trying to get by sharing only 1% of that wealth. That was not always the case in Canada.

These are some of the important themes that are based in economic data that the government and the official opposition have to start taking seriously because we are missing the mark in the conversation about inflation by only talking about the extent to which government spending has contributed to that. In fact, we are in a time when, if we listen to most economists, we are in an inflationary period that is driven far more by supply constraint issues than we are in an inflationary period driven by excessive demand or money in the market.

It is true that, in some cases, there is an overheated market and housing, which is the second theme that I want to touch on. It is that par excellence. We have seen that. We have seen extraordinary price increases in the market. There are folks in the Conservative Party who have talked a lot about this here in the House. They would have us believe that this is simply attributable to some of the liquidity that the government injected into the market at the outset of the pandemic. They will talk about the Bank of Canada printing money. They want Canadians to believe that this is the whole story, that this is the only reason we have seen massive price increases in the market.

In fact, housing prices have been doubling about every five years or so for the last 20 years at least. I will speak to that, just because that is about as long as I have been paying attention to the housing market. This is not a new trend. It is a trend that has been accelerated, but it speaks to something that has been going on for quite a long time.

The particular financial measures that the government happened to adopt, most of which, incidentally, was money that was shared directly with Canadian households through the wage subsidy program and through the CERB program. There was a direct transfer of wealth from the government to individual households on an unprecedented level. If we look at the percentage of government spending that went to those direct transfers of wealth to individual households, while the pandemic was happening and while people were out of work, it is quite impressive.

These were not people who were then taking CERB money and buying multiple properties. Let us not kid ourselves. Two thousand dollars a month is not very much. There is nobody with an income of $2,000 a month who is going to the bank and saying that they wanted to buy the house down the street and having their bank sign off on that. Give me a break.

It is just absurd that people here would be out, say, on leadership campaign tours pretending that, somehow, the billions of dollars of government money that went to people who had lost their job during an unprecedented health crisis and were not making more than $2,000 a month are pouring gasoline on the fire of housing speculation and house prices.

What is a lot more likely is that these people, these 1% of people who have 25% of the wealth, for all sorts of reasons, including Liberal and Conservative governments, successive governments in this century, lowering the corporate tax rate from 28% in the year 2000 down to 15% today, were looking around and wondering, how are they going to make more money with their money, because that is what they do. They have whole companies, banks and advisors. There are whole industries predicated upon people with tons of money figuring out how to make tons more.

The fact of the matter is that anyone who has the job of figuring out how to make more money on money has been looking at the Canadian real estate market, not just in the last two years but in the last 20 years, and drooling all over the place, because it has been an excellent place to grow one's money for no effort.

Unless the government is going to get serious about taxing back some of that extraordinary wealth so that it can be invested by democratically elected governments in priorities like indigenous housing, reducing our emissions, and making prescription drugs more affordable and dental care accessible, we are not going to solve the housing problem. This is because part of the problem is that too much private money is trying to multiply itself in the economy and that it is free to do that. We have seen that with those tax breaks.

With regard to the 1% of people in Canada who share 25% of the wealth, they do not know what to do with all their money, so they are bidding up the price of houses and owning that because they like the idea of further growing their wealth by renting out houses and apartments at extraordinary rates to Canadians, and that is a huge part of the story of what is driving the extraordinary growth in housing prices, which is putting housing out of the reach of too many Canadians.

Here we are. If we just listened to the official opposition, all we would hear about is the role of government, and we would be missing the mark. That is why, if we listen to what they are saying, they do not have any good solutions.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member had a lot of comments on the failures of the government.

There are certainly things I would agree with and some I would not. He did have a lot of complaints about the government. I will note, though, that the NDP is, on this and other things, supporting the government and keeping it in power. I know he would probably stand up and say the NDP is getting all these promises and could extract all these things that the government is going to do. However, we all know, and he knows as well as I do, that the government is not very good at keeping its promises. I do not know why he would have any faith that it would keep its promises this time. I wonder why he would be supporting the government if he feels that way.

While I have the floor, I note that we do not have the quorum required under Standing Order 29(1). I would ask that we call for that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There has been a ruling made by the Speaker earlier today that there are no quorum calls during late sittings.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, surely the member knows, as he said as much and I agree with him, that this is a government that has had a lot of issues keeping its promises.

I want to assure him that the negotiations that happened between the NDP and the government were not done from a place of naïveté. We are here to work. We are here to fight for the things that we told the people who elected us we would fight for. We are sincere in wanting to get those things. We are in the second minority Parliament that has largely the same character, in terms of seat distribution between the parties. We think a lot of Canadians wanted to see more political stability after the unnecessary election of last fall, and we were willing to negotiate with the government.

Part of the way we are trying to ensure that the government does follow through on those central commitments was to release the terms of the agreement and be very public about how it is meant to work. There are obvious milestones, which happen at budget time and in respect of implementing legislation, and dates for certain initiatives within that agreement that anyone is welcome to see online. We think that is part of how to create a culture of accountability. There is a bit of an experiment in democracy here, in terms of trying to hold a government that has not been very good at following through on its own commitments, to following through on these particular ones, because we think they are important.

We invite Canadians to pay close attention, to read those documents, to watch how we behave in the House of Commons and around the Hill, and to offer their critique of how they think it is going, what they think is working and what they think is not. That is how we are going to get things done here for people.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, especially about rising margins in some sectors. I read a little about that in relation to the food sector, the supermarket sector.

What does the member think the cause of rising margins is? Is it price fixing in the grocery sector? Is the grocery sector too big? Do grocery chains need to be split up so there is more competition? What is giving rise to these inflated margins in the grocery sector?

In the oil sector, I understand it. If the international price goes up, oil producers are going to make a windfall. The marketing companies that do not have their own oil reserves, I do not think their margins are going up. However, in terms of the food sector, the retail food sector, what does the member think the problem is and how would he solve it?

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

Madam Speaker, this is something I am hoping we are going to have an opportunity to get into at the finance committee in our study of inflation. I have been advocating to try to get some representatives from the grocery industry there.

I think it is a notoriously opaque industry, and in this time, when we step back and see the extraordinary growth of profit that exceeds the increase in cost, as it must, because otherwise we would not see an increase in profit, it is time to shine a little more light on industries like grocery. I would add telecommunications, for instance, where Canadians are known to pay extraordinarily high prices compared to other places in the world. We tend to have an oligopoly structure to some of these key industries. We should be applying more public scrutiny to those industries.

One of the quicker fixes that we have proposed as a party, and we saw the Liberals adopt it with respect to banks and insurance companies, is to have what we have called an excess profit tax or a pandemic profit tax, where we tax the extraordinary profits in the pandemic period at a higher rate.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a huge honour to rise tonight to speak to the fall economic update.

Today, the families and friends of 20 Canadians will get the life-changing news that their loved one has died because of a toxic drug poisoning. Tomorrow, the families and friends of another 20 Canadians will get the same news, and again the next day and the next day.

The expert task force on substance use established by Health Canada accurately described what we are facing when it said:

The war on drugs has led to what ends up looking like a war on people who use drugs. People are dying every day, and the situation in Canada, already particularly deadly, is getting worse, not better. Canada has the fastest growing rate of overdose mortality in the world.

This is from the government's own expert task force.

The pandemic has accelerated the toxic drug supply crisis and there is no end in sight. The Public Health Agency of Canada, in its most recent modelling, predicted that opioid-related deaths will remain high until June and may even increase, yet the government has refused to take the urgent actions needed to stop the losses, including making investments, at the scale that this crisis requires, in addressing the root causes of problematic substance use, education and prevention, harm reduction and safer supply, and treatment on demand and recovery services.

The fall economic update failed to even acknowledge the public health emergency that has been devastating communities for years, and the 2022 budget added a mere $100 million over three years to be spread across the country. That is 10 provinces and three territories. The stigma is not just in policy, nor just in the laws in this country. It is in the amount of money the government spends to tackle this crisis.

The toxic drug supply crisis, which has arisen as a direct result of the failed war on drugs, is not just costing lives; it is costing significant amounts of money to all levels of government. Members have heard me say repeatedly in the House that this is a health and human rights issue, but this is also an economic issue.

The expert task force wrote about the financial burden of the criminalized approach to drugs on the health and criminal justice system. Its report said:

Criminalization leads to higher drug-related health costs because it keeps people who use drugs away from prevention and early treatment health services due to fear of being arrested, labelled, or outed.

“Criminalization drives people underground and means that people are less likely to seek assistance, or have difficulties if they try to obtain assistance.”

Because criminalization pushes people who use drugs to rely on an illegal, often contaminated drug supply, it is also responsible for high hospitalization costs.

“23,240 opioid-related and 10,518 stimulant-related poisoning hospitalizations occurred from January 2016 to September 2020 in Canada (excluding Quebec).”

In its second report, the expert task force put it bluntly, saying, “Current policies are currently costing Canada huge amounts. In—”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères on a point of order.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech is really interesting, really passionate and deals with a very important subject, but I am not sure it relates to the content of Bill C-8.

Have I misunderstood my colleague's speech and remarks?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

As I understand it, the member is raising a point of order on relevance.

I presume the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni will get there in his speech.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is again the problem in the House. We have four official political parties and a fifth party, the Green Party, and what parties do not recognize is that when 27,000 people die in this country in six years, this issue should be addressed in the fall economic statement. In B.C. it has killed more people than COVID-19, yet COVID-19 responses are in this budget. Absolutely, this is a fall budget issue and it is missing in this document. It is missing in the funding and it is missing in the response from the government. I am disappointed to hear my colleague think that this issue should not be responded to in the fall economic update.

I am going to go back to my speech, if I can.

The second report says:

Current policies are currently costing Canada huge amounts. In 2017, the estimate of healthcare costs in Canada related to the use of opioids and other depressants and cocaine and other stimulants was one billion dollars, and the cost of policing and legal proceedings related to drug possession exceeded six billion dollars.

These are 2017 numbers. Yes, this is relevant to the fall economic statement.

The task force recommended providing sufficient and ongoing funding to address the issue and stated, “Although a significant initial investment will be required to reshape the system and address the drug toxicity crisis, costs can be expected to decrease over time as the impact of new, more effective policies is felt.”

That there are societal costs to problematic substance use is not news. In 2014, a report of the blue ribbon panel on crime reduction was prepared for the British Columbia provincial government. It states:

Clearly, substance abuse is an expensive societal issue. Drug treatment is also an expensive enterprise. This raises the immediate question as to whether treatment is worth the cost. According to the US National Institute on Drug Abuse, “every dollar invested in addiction treatment programs yields a return of between $4 and $7 in reduced drug-related crime, criminal justice costs, and theft. When savings related to healthcare are included, total savings can exceed costs by a ratio of 12 to 1.”

This is an economic issue. This was an opportunity missed in the fall economic update. The report recommended that quality mental health and addiction services be made more accessible, finding that evidence suggests such investments would lead to significant future savings. It is an economic issue and should have been addressed in the fall economic statement.

Beyond these health and justice system costs, there are less visible costs to communities from the war on drugs. These costs are something I have heard a great deal about, as I have travelled the country to learn about the toxic drug supply crisis and speak about my private member's bill. I have been on a “stop the harm” tour, listening to people in Victoria, Duncan, Nanaimo, Edmonton last week, Saskatoon and Toronto. I was in Montreal today, in my colleague's home province, listening to frontline people. I hope he does the same, because they will tell him it is an economic issue as well as a human rights and health issue. In Halifax I hear the same thing.

I was talking to Jean-Francois Mary at Cactus Montreal today. He said that for someone who gets HIV, it costs $35,000 a year to get medicine. For someone with hepatitis C, it costs about $75,000. He says he gets $250,000 in funding from the province but does not get any federal funding. He is here to stop the spread of HIV and stop hepatitis C, so this is an economic issue.

I also heard this from Kayla DeMong at Prairie Harm Reduction. She said it does not make any economic sense that we are not investing in harm reduction. She just got her funding pulled from the Province of Saskatchewan. They need federal funding.

I could go on, but I will go right to the fact that we need empathy right now. We need to listen to the people. We need to open our hearts on this issue. It is an economic issue and it is a human issue as well.

I listened to Isabelle Fortier this morning, from Moms Stop the Harm. When I was at Dopamine in Montreal, she talked about her daughter Sara-Jane, who was studying law at the University of Ottawa. She got into a depression and started using substances to cope with it. She died 600 metres from a hospital from a preventable overdose. She wanted to volunteer at Amnesty International, Greenpeace and the Red Cross. She lost her dreams.

One thing I have seen from coast to coast to coast in the eyes of the people who are struggling the most with this crisis is that they have fear in common. They are scared. They are scared about where they are going to sleep. They are scared for what they are going to eat. They are scared that they are going to die of drug poisoning. They are scared that they are never going to be whole again, or be with their families, friends and loved ones. They are scared that their dreams are gone.

I am calling on all of us to have empathy. Gandhi said that, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” I am calling on us to be leaders and to show that we have courage, that we care about the most vulnerable, that we do not fail them and that we unlock their dreams. It is good for the GDP. We have an opportunity. We can look to Portugal, which took a health approach instead of a criminal approach. It is proud of taking on a complex issue with a complex solution. It had courage, it did not have fear, and it was good for the country's economy.

This is a fall economic update issue. It has been a fall economic update issue for six years. It has been a budget update issue for six years, with failed opportunities. I encourage us all to have the love, compassion and courage to make this issue a priority. All of us can dream to open up and unlock the dreams of the people who are dying right now by supporting them, by investing in them and by prioritizing them. We can do this, and I hope we will all do it and stop letting people die unnecessarily.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that I really appreciate the passion that this member has displayed today. I would agree with him that this is an extremely important issue. I really hope that we can see better funding come forward and better action taken towards dealing with this serious crisis that we have.

The member talked about the tour that he has been on in support of his private member's bill. I wonder if he can relay to the House what he has been hearing. What are some of the real-life experiences and stories that he has been hearing from people as he has been touring around the country? What they are saying, and what does he think they would want the House to know?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that they want us to listen to the experts, and listen to the evidence and the science. Health Canada has created a task force on substance use. It makes clear recommendations that are reflected in my Bill C-216, the health-based approach to the substance use act. They want to see us actually move forward, to look to other models around the world, to have courage and not put votes ahead of people's lives. That is what they want us to hear.

I encourage everybody in the House to talk to Moms Stop The Harm. It is Mental Health Week, which is built around empathy. I ask members to please listen to the moms, the experts and our chief medical health officer, and to talk to law enforcement. They will tell us that by criminalizing people we are just further harming them, and it does not work. It has not worked.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the NDP for his very passionate speech and his commitment to those suffering with addictions.

As the member mentioned, the theme of Mental Health Week, which is this week, is empathy. I think it has been said many times that the shortest distance between two people is in fact empathy, and that we can actually start to bridge some of the divides and heal our communities.

Can the member expand on some of the things he has been hearing in his consultations across the country on treatment and helping people get off some of their addictions?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things in there.

First, the member talked about mental health. We heard a commitment from this government of $4.5 billion over five years in transfers around mental health. We did not see it in the fall economic statement. In fact, we did not see it in the budget, but we are eagerly anticipating it, given post-COVID or coming out of COVID when we have a serious mental health crisis as never before. We absolutely need to make sure that people get access to those supports.

When it comes to treatment, we need to make sure that it is on demand. Certain provinces do not want to do a safe supply: They do not want to decriminalize and they believe just in treatment as a model, but they are not delivering it. They should go to Edmonton and go to Saskatoon. I was just there. A gentleman I met had dreams and wanted treatment, but he said that it was going to take weeks or months to get treatment. We need to invest. It saves money, and I talked about some of that. We need to invest.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech, which was indeed very passionate. It is obvious that he cares deeply about that issue. I do not think that this is the first time he has talked about this problem in the House.

Was my colleague surprised that the government asked him questions about what should be done? The government has been in power for six years, but it clearly has not done anything to improve the situation.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is hugely disappointing. I appreciate the member's question. In fact, his father's name came up today. I was meeting with an addictions doctor who was really proud of her relationship with the member's father, because he was a champion for harms reduction when the first safe consumption site came to Montreal. I appreciate his work and advocacy on that.

There has been talk about the need for real investments, action and a national strategy to tackle this issue. The government has talked about that for six years.

My bill comes up for a vote on June 1. I hope this member will do the right thing and support a bill that reflects the government's own expert task force on substance use. If he meets the doctors that I met today, they are going to be asking him to support it. They are going to be asking all members to support it because they know it is going to save lives.

We have to be strong. We have to have courage. We have to put saving peoples' lives, and expert, evidence-based decision-making, ahead of politics. We have to. It is our duty.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being midnight, pursuant to order made on Monday, May 2, 2022, this House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)

The House resumed from May 2 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 third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Hochelaga.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's debate 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. This bill is about making sure we have the tools we need to protect Canadians.

For two years, Canadians have been grappling with COVID-19. Two years ago, this pandemic triggered the steepest economic contraction in Canada since the Great Depression. At its worst, it cost three million Canadians their jobs as our GDP shrank by 17%.

Today, even in spite of ongoing challenges presented by the pandemic, we are on a strong footing. Canadians have put saving lives first. This has meant one of the lowest mortality rates in the G7. As of March 25, over 85% of Canadians five years and older are fully vaccinated.

The Canadian economy has seen the benefits of prioritizing our health. The Canadian labour market rebounded strongly from the omicron wave in February. We have already more than recovered lost jobs, a healing that took eight months longer than after the much milder 2008 recession. In fact, as of February, we have recovered 112% of the jobs lost during the pandemic period, compared to just 90% in the U.S., and faster than after any other recession. Encouragingly, growth was broad-based, supported by solid underlying fundamentals and an ongoing rebound in sectors hit hardest by the pandemic.

However, even with these encouraging signs, we know that businesses, especially small businesses, continue to need support. That is what Bill C-8 delivers, support where it is needed. Many small businesses continue to feel the impacts of the pandemic. They are playing a critical role by making sure their workers and clients are safe. They understand that proper ventilation makes indoor air healthier and safer, helping reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission.

Many continue to make further improvements to their indoor air quality, to protect their workers and customers. However, they are finding that investing in equipment to improve ventilation can be costly. That is why Bill C-8 is proposing a refundable small business air quality improvement tax credit of 25% on eligible air quality improvement expenses incurred by small businesses. This measure would make it more affordable for them to invest in safer and healthier ventilation and air filtration.

Businesses would receive the credit on eligible expenses incurred between September 1, 2021 and December 31, 2022 relating to the purchase or upgrade of mechanical heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, and the purchase of stand-alone devices designed to filter air using high-efficiency particulate air filters, up to a maximum of $10,000 per location and $50,000 in total. That is not just a good deal for businesses; it is a good investment in the health and safety of Canadians.

Our government has delivered significant fiscal policy support to Canadians during this pandemic, with $8 out of every $10 spent to fight COVID having been spent by the federal government. This has contributed to a rapid and resilient recovery so far.

The vast majority of the government's recovery plan is targeted towards growth-enhancing and job-creating initiatives such as the Canada emergency business account, which has been one of the key government supports for small businesses throughout the pandemic.

The CEBA program has provided interest-free, partially forgivable loans of up to $60,000 to small businesses to help recover their operating costs during times when their revenues have been reduced. In total, the CEBA has provided over $49 billion in support to nearly 900,000 small businesses affected by the pandemic.

In January, our government announced that the repayment deadline for the CEBA loans to qualify for partial loan forgiveness is being extended from December 31, 2022 to December 31, 2023 for all eligible borrowers in good standing. This extension would support short-term economic recovery and offer greater repayment flexibility to small businesses and not-for-profit organizations, many of which are facing continued challenges due to the pandemic.

Repayment on or before the new deadline of December 31, 2023 will result in loan forgiveness of up to one-third of the value of the loans, which means up to $20,000 in loan forgiveness. Bill C-8 would set a limitation period of six years for debts under the CEBA program to ensure that CEBA loan holders are provided consistent treatment no matter where they live.

The new measures in Bill C-8 would also build on the significant support for businesses that became law with the passage of Bill C-2 in December. Bill C-2 was built on the understanding that with the spread of the omicron variant, public health restrictions had to remain in effect in certain regions across the country to contain its spread, and that many of these restrictions would have an impact on businesses. With Bill C-2, our government made sure that economic support was available to them if and when they needed it.

While lockdowns have now eased across the country, the application period for the local lockdown program remains open to provide wage and rent subsidy support of up to 75% to employers who have had to reduce the capacity of their main business by 50% or more.

To expand access to the program at the height of the recent restrictions, we temporarily lowered the revenue decline threshold for eligibility from 40% to 25%. Expanded eligibility for these wage and rent supports ran from December 19, 2021 through to March 12, 2022.

For businesses facing other pandemic-related losses, support is also available through the tourism and hospitality recovery program and the hardest-hit business recovery program. Many tourism-related businesses in Bonavista—Burin—Trinity were able to take advantage of that support, and I am told many tourism businesses across the entire country were able to take advantage of that support.

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 said, this keeps people strong; it keeps families strong and it keeps businesses strong. That is what we need to keep our economy strong.

In conclusion, like all Canadians, we hope that lockdowns and capacity restrictions will continue to become a thing of the past. We know that Canadians are tired of COVID-19, but the unfortunate reality is that COVID-19 is not quite tired of us. We put supports in place so that public health authorities could make the right, albeit difficult, decisions, knowing that the federal government would be there to support workers, small businesses and other employers in their communities when needed.

That is why Bill C-8 is so important. It would continue to do what is necessary to sustain the recovery and provide help where it is needed, to create jobs and set the stage for strong growth for years to come.

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

Madam Speaker, early on in my hon. colleague's speech he described Bill C-8 as delivering support where it is needed. I am wondering if he could comment on whether he agrees with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who described this bill as delivering support that was not needed. Would he agree that it is feeding part of our present inflation rate?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, when many of the programs were put in place and agreed to by most members in this House, they were put in place in response to the emergency created by the pandemic and COVID-19. As a result, many of the programs were rolled out rather efficiently and quickly, creating some challenges. Nevertheless, we need to focus on the fact that these supports, like CEBA, rescued many businesses from failure. Therefore, Bill C-8 will continue to offer the great support that businesses and individuals expect across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, over the weekend, the Government of Quebec struck a deal with general practitioners and signed an agreement that will, among other things, improve access to first-line health services. The agreement will also create family medicine groups, which will enable 500,000 Quebeckers—half of the one million residents who do not currently have a family doctor—to have access to family practitioners.

On the other side of the House, the Liberals still think that health care was only important during the pandemic, when they sent money to help. The pandemic is more or less behind us now, hopefully, but the needs remain. One million Quebeckers do not have a family doctor, and we need money to pay for that. That is what the Quebec government is doing, as it reaches agreements with doctors and manages hospitals.

When will the federal government finally decide to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%, as all provincial governments are calling for?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, I share the hon. member's concerns around family doctors, particularly as we hear stories about the loss of family doctors in rural Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada. That includes every province in this country. There is no question that there are challenges, but the federal government recently transferred $2 billion to help with some of the supports that were needed as a result of backlogs in health care in this country.

I understand there are further discussions to be had somewhere in the not-too-distant future about how we can address health care challenges in rural Canada and right across the country, many of which were backlogs created by the emergency that we dealt with, called COVID-19.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues as part of Bill C-8 is the fact that teachers are supposed to be receiving tax credits for items they use in their profession. I know a lot of my constituents have had their taxes held up because of the holding up of this legislation. Maybe the hon. member could talk a little more about that and if he and his constituents share that frustration, because I know mine certainly do.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, teachers and others are being impacted by our not passing Bill C-8. There are many items in this legislation that impact teachers, farmers and others, and that is why we are here debating Bill C-8 today and why I encourage all members of this House to support this legislation and pass it for the good of all Canadians.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, Canadians have been grappling with COVID‑19 for two years now.

The pandemic caused the biggest economic downturn this country has seen since the Great Depression. At the height of the crisis, three million Canadians lost their jobs and our GDP dropped by 17%. The pandemic shook the global economy and was the worst planet-wide public health crisis of our lives.

Today, despite the presence of the omicron variant and subvariants, we are in a good position. We have recovered more jobs than we lost to the COVID‑19 recession. We still have work to do, and that is the purpose of Bill C‑8, with which we will continue to fight COVID‑19 while protecting Canadians' health and safety. I would like to highlight a few important aspects of this bill.

The first thing is ventilation in schools. In my riding alone, several families and parents have expressed concerns about ventilation in schools. This bill proposes measures to protect children by improving ventilation systems. Good ventilation makes indoor air healthier and safer, which helps reduce the risk of COVID‑19 transmission. This is particularly true for schools. The pandemic has not been easy for anyone, but it has been particularly difficult for students and their families, as well as for teachers and school staff. The spread of the virus led to school closures, followed by reopenings and more closures. For many parents, it was difficult to navigate.

Bill C‑8 therefore provides for an additional payment of $100 million to the provinces and territories through the safe return to class fund. These investments would be in addition to the initial $2‑billion envelope of the safe return to class fund. The money would be specifically allocated to ventilation improvement projects in schools, particularly in primary and secondary schools.

Education is of course a provincial and territorial responsibility. The provinces and territories are responsible for ensuring the safety of our children in the classroom, as well as the safety of teachers in the workplace. The provinces and territories could use the money to work on the projects they deem important. We are sending the message that the federal government is there to support them in their efforts to make their schools safer.

That said, the fight against COVID-19 must take place on multiple fronts, and this means we also need to help improve ventilation in commercial buildings in order to reduce the risk of the virus spreading in those settings. However, we know that making such upgrades can be very costly. Bill C-8 proposes measures to help businesses improve their ventilation and air quality systems. With this bill, we are proposing a 25% refundable tax credit for eligible small business expenditures to improve air quality. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our government has supported the provinces and territories, and we will continue to do so.

Another aspect of Bill C‑8 is of particular interest to me. It has to do with housing. In the economic update and in budget 2022, which we just tabled, we want to tackle the housing crisis with an ambitious financial plan. For Hochelaga and Montreal east, housing is one of the biggest challenges. The increase in the cost of housing and the shortage of inventory are putting more and more financial pressure on families. A family should not have to choose between food and housing. This is a basic right, a human right.

Bill C‑8, just like our recent budget, proposes tangible solutions to address housing affordability, as well as the right and the access to home ownership. It proposes bringing in a 1% tax on underused housing to directly support those who are struggling with rent increases and to address the shortage of housing. For many Quebeckers, it is almost impossible to find housing.

Also, in our recent budget, we want to double the construction of housing over the next 10 years and launch a new housing accelerator fund totalling $4 billion over five years.

I strongly believe in the co‑operative model. In my life, I have had the chance to help create three housing co‑ops in Montreal. The co‑operative model is a model of solidarity and shared ownership. I am very pleased to see that the recent budget proposes allocating $1.5 billion to this housing model.

For us to tackle the housing crisis and problems with access to ownership, we need a series of measures like the ones I just listed. We must also ensure that housing is a right and then pass legislation to that effect. That is why our government also wants to create an ownership registry in collaboration with the provinces and territories to curb foreign investment.

Today, there is a real generational gap for young families and young workers. It has become almost impossible to buy a property. To solve this problem in a serious and permanent manner, we must increase the supply of housing, which would make it more affordable and accessible. Bill C‑8 seeks to remedy this situation.

This bill also includes concrete measures to protect Canadians' health and to tackle the housing crisis. We want to make the investments that are needed. The government has been there from the start of the pandemic and we will continue to be there, not just to support the provinces and territories in the fight against the pandemic, but also to provide socio-economic support, primarily through access to housing.

After two years, we are still in a health crisis, which has made life more precarious for the most vulnerable. It is a real challenge for businesses, community organizations, all Quebeckers and the people in my riding.

I believe that all the members here should support Bill C-8 to provide real support to people who really need it.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. I know that she is quite involved in the housing file, as am I. She mentioned this in her speech. Housing is a problem in her riding, much like it is in my riding of Longueuil. It is a problem all across Quebec.

There are some good measures in the budget, especially when it comes to housing. I am talking about measures such as the tax-free first home savings account and the first-time home buyers' tax credit, which will help boost demand. The budget also allocates money to programs that support affordability, such as the rental construction financing initiative and the national housing co-investment fund. However, over the years we have seen that this does not always create affordable housing.

Would it not be better to focus on the programs that work really well, such as the rapid housing initiative? Organizations really like this program, but the problem is that it is underfunded. Would it not have been better to focus on that program to help improve access to more affordable housing in Quebec and Canada?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I share a lot of the concerns my colleague raised. I had the pleasure of participating in a round table he organized in his riding and I really appreciate that.

There is no one single measure that will address the housing crisis. That will take a whole series of measures. We cannot simply focus on social housing; we must focus on affordability, home ownership, and buyers' and renters' rights. It will take a series of measures, and that is exactly what we are doing with our budget and, in part, with Bill C‑8.

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

Madam Speaker, as we have heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there is a concern that the spending contained in Bill C-8 and other aspects of the government's fiscal agenda is contributing to the inflation crisis that is driving up the cost of everything in this country.

I wonder if the member has any comments on the fact that this is not about politics or partisan opinion. Rather, very respected fiscal experts are suggesting that the spending found in Bill C-8 and some of the other fiscal frameworks that the government has set forward is contributing to the cost-of-living crisis that our country is facing. Is restraint needed to ensure that we address the continuing issue of inflation?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find my hon. colleague’s question a bit ironic. In the last election, his party called for a lot more spending than what the government is planning.

I will put this question to him: If his party were in power and made all the investments it wanted to make, what would it have done?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 and Bill C-2 before it were meant to provide help for businesses struggling to get through the pandemic. They were both drawn up before the omicron variant hit and extended the pandemic by months and months.

We have had calls from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada to extend the benefits that were there before to help businesses that have struggled to stay alive until now. Even a few months would help some of them get through this pandemic alive, yet we are seeing the government abandon those programs. The Conservatives, as we just heard, are not trying to support businesses and workers.

Why did we not help those businesses get through the summer at least?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I can assure him that since the beginning of the pandemic, this government has always been there for the most vulnerable businesses and Canadians. During the pandemic, eight out of every 10 dollars invested came from the federal government. We will continue to be there to support the businesses, organizations, and people who need it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure if the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay put his earpiece too close to the microphone, but there was a bit of a buzz.

I want to remind members, if they are taking their earpiece off, to make sure that it is not close to the microphone.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just noticed that during the response from the member, there did not seem to be interpretation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, every time the hon. member gets up, there seems to be a buzz on the microphone. I am not sure what is happening.

I will allow the hon. member for Hochelaga to repeat her response.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was telling my hon. colleague, our government has been there since the beginning of the pandemic to support the most vulnerable businesses, organizations and people. Out of every 10 dollars invested during this pandemic, eight came from the federal government. We will continue to be there for businesses for as long as they need us.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it has been a while. I would have finished my debate on Bill C-8, but the last time I rose, I had five minutes and we had to break for routine proceedings. It is great to get back on my feet and talk about this bill.

This bill really looks at some of the budget implementations from the economic and fiscal update in 2021. There are seven parts to this bill. A lot of it has to do with amendments to the Income Tax Act. We have had a lot of questions around the 25% income tax for school supplies and rebates for the farm fuel industry and farmers and producers across Canada, and I will get to those discussions.

However, what the Liberals are putting forward is that Conservatives are holding up this debate. I would like to outline a bit of the timeline that we have seen and the incompetence in the legislative agenda by the Liberal government, which it is trying to blame us for. The Liberals did not introduce this bill until December 15, right before the House rose for the Christmas break. My colleagues across the way will know this is factual. Then, the Liberals did not start the second reading debate until February 2. Second reading was completed a week later, on February 10. That was the week of the completion of the second reading debate.

The finance committee studied the bill for less than a month and reported the bill back on March 1, after only three meetings. The current debate on report stage started March 4. Since then, there have been four constituency weeks, when the House did not meet, and only six days of debate in this chamber. There were 34 sittings days in the House for this bill to be debated, and they are complaining that this bill has been debated for only 11 days. Once again, the government is seen not completely telling the truth to Canadians on where and how this bill has proceeded through the House of Commons and the committee stage.

I said to some of my hon. colleagues yesterday, when I was asking questions, that it has been a long time since I have heard someone be so adamant that it is the opposition's fault that the government is not getting its work done. It is the equivalent of a kid saying, “The dog ate my homework.” Just because the government does not have the capacity to get its legislative agenda through, that does not mean it is the opposition's fault. We are standing and presenting different ideas and different priorities that Canadians might have.

A lot of this debate is around making sure the refundable tax credits are given out. There is just a different philosophy on this side of the House. The member for Winnipeg North gets so excited about how he can hand out money to Canadians across the country. On this side of the House, I asked a question that a lot of the constituents in Regina—Lewvan have. The government is excited for tax return season, but Canadians do not want to have their taxes given back to them at tax season. What they would like is for the government not to take them in the first place. The government is not giving out government dollars to Canadians; it is giving back money it should not have taken in the first place.

That is the problem we see with the Liberals. They think the $500 billion they are throwing around like a drunken sailor is their money. It is not. The government does not earn a dollar. It does not raise a dollar. The only way the government gets money is by taking it from Canadians who go to work each and every day and earn that money. That is why we feel the government should be a bit more careful with Canadians' money.

I should be more careful to make sure I say that I am going to split my time with my good friend, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

We are talking about how the government believes the money it is giving back is its money. It is something that we never really hear from people in Saskatchewan and in Regina—Lewvan. They always see tax season as a bit of a difficult time, because they see all the money and all the tax rebates, but the government is saying that people should be so thankful it is giving them refunds. Why take it in the first place? That is the question lots of people come to my office to ask.

Another thing is that the Liberals are like Robin Hood. They expect Canadians to kiss the ring and be grateful they are getting this money back at tax time, when they should have had it throughout the year. They should have had it when their kids needed new shoes. They should have had the money they earned when they had to buy school supplies. They should have had that money when inflation made their grocery bill $500 or $600 more each month. They should have had that money throughout the year, not just given back to them at tax time. That is something that I think the people across the way just do not understand, that all this money they continue to shovel out the door, time after time, has to come from somewhere and it is everyday Canadians who are the ones stuck paying the bill.

We have heard a lot of questions about schools and when teachers can get their rebates back. Do members know what I hear from teachers and what they are concerned about? What teachers and people in the school divisions across Saskatchewan are concerned about is the hundreds of thousands of dollars more that it is going to cost them each year to keep the classrooms warm in the winter and cool in the summer, because of the NDP-Liberals carbon tax.

In rural Canada, the cost of fuel for people to have their kids bussed to school continues to increase each and every day. That is something that hits people hard in their pocketbooks. It is basically a trickle-down effect. The municipalities and the provinces have to pay for that because of a Liberal initiative that continues to put pressure on each and every level of government. When we speak with school board trustees in the school divisions across Saskatchewan, that is one of their major concerns, and it is something they cannot control. They cannot control what the cost is going to be when they have to keep filling those buses with expensive fuel because of the Liberal carbon tax. In Saskatchewan, when it is -40°C, they have to have heat in their classrooms. What the current government continues to do, in basically each and every one of its pieces of legislation, is ensure that people in rural Canada are treated differently than everyone else across the country. The government continues to try to divide Canadians and make sure that what it is doing is seen as environmentally friendly, yet more Canadians are being left behind.

Another thing I find interesting when it comes to the economic and fiscal update in 2021 and now Bill C-8, and the government's budget as a whole in 2021, is the fact that the PBO said that of the $500 billion that was earmarked for COVID, because my colleague talked about COVID a lot in his speech, $200 billion was not even for COVID measures at all. He said it was not accounted for in COVID spending: $200 billion of the $500 billion the government spent, and said it needed to spend, on COVID basically is not accounted for whatsoever. There really needs to be more accountability when it comes to the government's legislative agenda. I think that is what the Liberals do not like. As we have seen time and again, accountability is not very high up on the government's list of priorities. Whether it be with respect to the Emergencies Act committee or the WE Charity scandal and the ethics committee, when it comes to accountability, this is definitely something where the government used to believe that sunlight was the best disinfectant, but that was long in the past.

I remember when, in 2015, the Prime Minister used to do his Care Bear stare, hand over heart, and say that the government had the backs of Canadians. With friends like the Prime Minister, Canadians truly do not need any more enemies. If this is the idea of the Prime Minister having the backs of Canadians, when 50% of them are $200 away from bankruptcy, when inflation is going to 6.7%, when the idea of owning a home in Canada for people under 30 is now a nightmare because they will never be able to do it and they will live in their parents' basement until they are 40, I think they would rather that he just take his walk in the snow and say goodbye.

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

Madam Speaker, I am certainly from the vintage of the Care Bear stare. I always thought the member was quite a bit younger than me and assumed that he would not even understand that reference, but he just looks great for his age, I guess.

I just do not understand the end goal here of the Conservatives. We have had speaker after speaker, more than 50 speakers, speak to Bill C-8 since report stage. The Conservatives have clearly identified some issues they have with the bill, and I get that, but does that justify doing absolutely everything humanly and procedurally possible to prevent this legislation from going forward?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do remember the Care Bear stare. There was one back in the 1980s and there was one again in 2015. I also remember the Prime Minister talking about having to imagine things that are different than space and time. Maybe that is what the current Liberal government is doing, imagining different space and time. The reason it cannot get its legislative agenda passed might be the fact that it does not actually understand time anymore.

What my colleague has said is basically that it is the Conservatives' fault that the Liberals are not getting their job done. When I was sent to the House of Commons by the constituents of Regina—Lewvan, and I am honoured to speak on their behalf, not one of them said when they voted for me, “Please, please make sure the Liberals get their agenda passed.” That was not a priority for my constituents in Regina—Lewvan. Therefore, I am going to ask questions on their behalf. I will do it as often as I can, to make sure that if this thing does get passed, it is done in the right way.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about a specific aspect of Bill C-8, and that is the tax on underused housing. Everyone agrees with the basic intent.

My first question has to do with the rate of 1%. Is that enough? We know that other places like British Columbia and France have much higher rates than that.

Other than the rate, there is also the way this tax will be applied. The federal government is once again infringing on areas of jurisdiction belonging to the provinces, and Quebec in particular. I think that this should be done in co-operation with the municipalities, rather than imposed by the great, all-knowing Ottawa. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I worked together on the agriculture committee and I do appreciate his insight.

One thing I would say is that the current government has not really taken a broad enough approach to housing. The Liberals brought forward a budget here in 2022 where they are not going to have one house built in a year and a half or two years.

I think a provincial approach to housing is a good idea. As a member of the legislature of Saskatchewan, I had some responsibilities and I know how the Province of Saskatchewan has reacted to housing issues. There should be respect for provincial jurisdiction, so provinces should have a good say and a fair say on some of the housing initiatives, moving forward.

The current government has failed on housing since 2015. Housing has gotten less affordable. Vacancies are fewer. Really, it is just a dog's breakfast when we look at the current government's housing initiatives.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan and others in the Conservative caucus have spoken many times about the impact of the rising costs on farmers and their opposition to the carbon tax. I would like to know why the Conservatives then have been holding up Bill C-8, which means that farmers are being held back from getting their rebates on the carbon tax.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from the NDP-Liberal member.

I was just at the national Holstein convention. There are 400 dairy farmers in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. What did they talk about? It was not about getting a rebate on the carbon tax, but about how much it will be for them to pay it when it gets to $170 a tonne. That is their biggest concern. They are tired of begging for scraps from the NDP-Liberal government's table. They want to be listened to. They want the carbon tax scrapped so they are able to actually make a living for themselves and their families. Their biggest concern right now is not the fact that their rebate is not ready to be submitted yet. Their biggest concern is that the government has not listened to them and has not exempted a lot of farm fuels. It is almost like the Liberals do not care what farmers across this country think.

Maybe what this member and a lot of other members should do is take the opportunity to visit some farmers, as the member for Kings—Hants did in Saskatoon a couple of months ago. It was nice to finally see a Liberal in Saskatchewan again, but not for that long.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will note at the outset that I will be moving a subamendment at the end of my speech to Bill C-8.

As always, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Out of respect for the four young men who lost their lives recently in Kingston, I will be taking a brief moment of silence to recognize their service and sacrifice, and to honour their memories.

On that note, I would like to thank all those who have served, both past and present. We have a number of people in the House who have served, and I thank all of them for their service. I thank all of our brave soldiers, who are currently enrolled in the forces, for enhancing our country's safety.

Last night I debated about what I was going to speak about on the bill, and one thought that came across my mind was the idea of trust in the government and how much trust the average Canadian should or should not put in government. I also thought about trust when it comes to fiscal affairs and trust when it comes to spending.

Trust, when it comes to this country's finances, is important. Do Canadians trust this government, and all of us here, to be good stewards of their money? When we think about finances, and I recognize that no government is perfect, the Prime Minister previously said things such as “the budget would balance itself” and that the budget would be balanced by 2019. I believe that was to be set in stone. During our most recent federal election he said that a reporter, or Canadians generally, ought to forgive him if he did not “think about monetary policy”. These things worry me as a parliamentarian, a Canadian, a father, a husband and a member of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I have spoken about my background in the House, and I will do it again, because I think it is appropriate at this time. My dad came from Italy when he was in his early teens, my mom came as a young woman, and they met in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My dad was a sawmill worker. My mom was a homemaker who went back to work when I was about 10 years old.

My parents paid off two houses on one income. As a young man, we did not go out for dinner because we could not afford it. Family trips to Vancouver were a big deal. Now, as a parliamentarian, I have to be candid, it was fairly novel to get on a plane. The luster has worn off, I will admit, but it is still an honour to be here at all times. However, what I learned is this: It is important to have one's own financial house in order, and that house includes this House and what we are spending in the House. It is important to be a good steward of the economy.

I remember my dad driving a 1967 Ford into the 1990s. Why did he do that? It was because that was a prudent financial move. My dad bought a truck, I believe, in 1981, and he practically ran it into the ground. We, as government, cannot act like we are leasing a Rolls‑Royce when we can only afford a lesser vehicle.

The problem I am arriving at is this: Interest rates are rising. This means that life will become more expensive. I am focusing on spending here, but there is a lot to say on Bill C-8. We just saw interest rates rise about a half a point, which is going to make every mortgage more expensive. It is going to make every line of credit more expensive, and there will be an impact on housing. There will be an impact on spending generally. However, this fall economic statement increases government spending by about $71.2 billion.

I am concerned about the lack of relief when it comes to the cost of living in this bill. It is a fairly lengthy bill and I know that colleagues across this House will point to aspects of the bill that are meritorious. One thing I am highlighting, though, is the gravity of the spending $71.2 billion. This is against a backdrop of inflation hitting 6.7% in March. The last time inflation was that bad was in the early nineties when the GST had just been introduced. I remember a can of soda going from 95¢ to $1.02, and we just were not used to using our pennies. That is where inflation is right now.

My colleagues across the aisle, in particular, have pointed out that inflation is a global problem. Globally, inflation is occurring but that does not mean that we ignore it locally because inflation is exacerbated by local policies. The printing of money necessarily contributes to inflation because more money is chasing around the same amount of property and services.

This high-spending agenda also concerns me. When we have high deficits, who pays? One of the reasons that payday loans, for instance, have been heavily scrutinized is because they are compounded, and that can result in death by a thousand financial cuts. There are people who simply cannot afford another payment, another tax, or another bit of interest.

The same goes for credit cards. With all due respect, I see the government, if I can draw an analogy, as having a credit card when it comes to the Canadian economy and when it comes to spending on behalf of Canadians, and here is the problem. It is like that credit card is maxed out, so rather than pay it off, the government keeps on making the minimum payments. That sounds like a good plan, but eventually the minimum payment just will not cut it, so what do we do? We up our credit limit.

That is what I feel is happening when it comes to this country's finances. What happens when this country's credit limit cannot increase any more? In 10 years, the Prime Minister may be going off to another climate conference in Scotland, or he may be surfing in Tofino, but my question is this: When that credit card is maxed out, who is going to pay? The Prime Minister will likely not be in this House to recognize that, so who is going to pay? I am, and we are. The people of Canada are.

Research from my office indicates that federal interest payments alone will reach $26.9 billion in 2022-23. This is estimated to be $49.2 billion by 2026-27. That is $16 billion. My rudimentary research is that our military operates on a budget of $22 billion per year, so three-quarters of our military spending will be taken up just in the differential of interest payments between 2022 and 2026-27. That should be concerning.

We still have spent double our military expenditure in just interest in this last year, so how do we deal with this? Is it going to be a home equity tax? The government has said no, but it has to come from somewhere. Is it going to be tax on capital gains? Is the NDP-Liberal government going to go there? Will it be taxes on the middle taxes, more taxes for more spending?

Those are my concerns about this. I have more to say, but I want to make sure that I move this amendment in time.

Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Brantford—Brant:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following:

“and that the committee report back no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

Continuing with questions and comments, we have 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 listened quite attentively to the member's discussion about the level of debt that has been taken on by this country, and there is no doubt that it is an extremely large amount that was taken on, in particular to provide assistance to Canadians collectively throughout the COVID pandemic. I will give this member the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he was not in this House when a lot of that funding was passed and spent, but I would like to inform him that the vast majority of that spending was done through unanimous consent motions. Conservatives voted in favour of those. All of this member's colleagues voted in favour, quite often through unanimous consent, for spending that money.

I am curious how he can justify standing before this House and being overtly critical of the spending, when his own colleagues voted in favour of it all.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I can be critical of imprudent spending. When my colleagues stood up we were in the midst of a pandemic, and I admit that at this point we are still in an endemic. However, as the colleagues across the aisle like to point out, we have recovered all of the jobs and our economy, according to them, is roaring.

We are here debating what is happening today, not the spending that happened yesterday. Bill C-8 is about today, so to reference and allude to the fact that I simply do not know what I am talking about because I am talking about today, with respect, misses the mark.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very sensitive speech. I came to really enjoy his company after spending 12 days with him on a recent mission in Italy.

I would like to know what he thinks about housing affordability. The real estate market is obviously overheated, given that the vacancy rate is under 3%, prices have gone up 18.6% over the past five years and it is considered normal to pay $2,225 a month in rent in Montreal, judging from what the government is saying.

What does my colleague think about that? Does he have any solutions to propose?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to spend time with my hon. colleague. He is someone who really does care about what happens in the chamber. I had hoped to talk about housing, but I just did not get there.

We need shovels in the ground. This is a supply and demand issue. I have frequently heard the housing minister talk in the chamber about the fact that they have spent money and done this and that. What we need is to increase the supply. Having programs that encourage people to save up over the years may well be helpful for some people, but those programs likely would not go far enough when housing prices have doubled from $430,000 to over $850,000 during this mandate.

To answer the question as directly as possible, we need shovels in the ground and to encourage that.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are hearing from teachers, the same teachers who throughout COVID have had to endure so many challenges. They have had to pivot to deliver online classes, and many of them are out-of-pocket helping to make sure their students have the supplies and tools necessary to continue learning. These educators are relying on a tax break that would be provided in this bill, which would give them an increase of 15% to 25% on the school supplies they purchase. Many of them subsidize the school systems.

Why are the Conservatives holding up this very important piece of legislation, which would support those educators who we absolutely need to support?

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

First, Madam Speaker, I reject the premise that Conservatives are holding this up. The House of Commons is predicated on rigorous debate, and we debate things as part of the democratic process.

I have heard from teachers about this. I actually was speaking with one of my colleagues today and learned that if the government had chosen otherwise, as in the choice between a refundable versus a non-refundable tax credit, royal assent would not have been needed. This was an issue when it came to drafting the legislation, as I understand it, and that is the issue. My sisters are both teachers. I would love to see this matter dealt with as quickly as possible.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-8 today. The government knows that elevated inflation and rising gas prices are leading Canadians to worry about the cost of living as the pandemic continues to affect our everyday lives. Let me remind hon. members in the House that this is a global phenomenon driven by the unprecedented challenge of reopening the world's economy.

For two years, Canadians have been grappling with COVID-19. Two years ago, this pandemic triggered the steepest economic contraction in Canada since the Great Depression. At its worst, it cost three million Canadians their jobs as our GDP shrank by 17%. Today, even in spite of ongoing challenges presented by the pandemic, we are on a strong footing. Canadians have put saving lives first. That has meant one of the lowest mortality rates in the G7.

As of March 13, 85% of Canadians five and older were fully vaccinated, and the Canadian economy has seen the benefits of prioritizing our health. The Canadian labour market rebounded strongly from omicron in February. We have already more than recovered the jobs lost: It was a healing that took eight months longer after the much milder 2008 recession. In fact, we have recovered 115% of the jobs lost during the pandemic compared with just 93% in the United States, and we have recovered faster than in any other recession.

The unemployment rate fell to 5.7%: the lowest since we started collecting data in this way. Canada continued to see a strong economic recovery in the fourth quarter, with economic activity increasing 6.7%. Encouragingly, growth was broad-based, supported by solid underlying fundamentals and an ongoing rebound in sectors hit hardest by the pandemic. However, this growth could not have happened or been achieved without government support. Our government delivered significant fiscal policy in order to support Canadians during the pandemic, and this has contributed to a rapid and resilient recovery so far.

Last December, we introduced Bill C-8, which 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. It is 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.

We are also working to address the issue of supply chain disruptions from around the world, and shipping bottlenecks that have made it harder for Canadians and businesses to get products and supplies they need and that, in many cases, are contributing to rising prices.

Let us review the facts. Bill C-8 was tabled in the wake of the omicron variant. The bill contains critical support for Canadians, including a tax credit for businesses that improve their ventilation in the wake of COVID, an expansion of the school supplies tax credit for teachers who bought additional supplies as a result of virtual school, a return of the price on pollution for farmers in backstop jurisdictions, $1.72 billion for rapid tests and $300 million to support proof of vaccination systems developed by provinces and territories.

Bill C-8 also proposes to establish a statutory authority for the Minister of Health to make payments in a total amount of up to $300 million to provinces and territories for costs associated with implementing COVID-19 proof of vaccination credential programs in their jurisdictions. Another important tool in our tool box to navigate through this pandemic is the use of rapid tests. With studies suggesting that people without symptoms may cause up to 50% of COVID-19 transmission, it is obvious that rapid tests can significantly help reduce the risk of outbreaks.

The Conservatives have seen fit to filibuster this bill for months on end, using procedural tricks to stop this support from getting to Canadians who, quite rightly, expect and deserve better.

With their report stage amendments, the Conservatives tried to delete from the bill an expansion for the school supplies tax credit for teachers who bought additional supplies as a result of virtual school, a return of the price of pollution for farmers in backstop jurisdictions, a tax credit for businesses to improve their ventilation in the wake of COVID, the expanded northern residents economic deduction, $100 million for provinces and territories to support ventilation projects in schools and $300 million to fund provinces and territories in order to support existing proof of vaccination initiatives.

Over the past two years, our government has put in place comprehensive, broad-based support programs that have since evolved to more targeted measures. We did this because it was the right thing to do at the time. As we look to the years ahead, our government is determined to continue to do what is necessary to support and sustain the recovery, to provide help where it is needed, to create jobs and set the stage for strong growth in the years to come.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

At the conclusion of her speech, she talked about Conservatives and procedural delays. It seems to me that when the Liberals were in opposition, the same would occur. Be that as it may, let us talk about the fact that there was a pandemic election, as British Columbia literally burned and as Kabul did, as well. On top of that, we also were not recalled back to Parliament until well into November.

I would like to ask my colleague this. How can this member say that the Conservatives are the ones to blame for the late fall economic update when we were not even sitting in Parliament because of the Prime Minister's decision?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, this was introduced in the fall. It is the fall economic statement and today, May 3, we are still debating this in order to get help back to Canadians who need it. Yes, definitely: there has been a delay.

We have been trying to get this legislation debated for months and we are still here today because of the Conservatives.

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

Madam Speaker, last spring, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion asking the House to recognize Quebec as a nation with a single official language: French. Most members of the House voted in favour of the motion, but my colleague who just delivered a speech abstained from voting.

I suppose she must have had something more important going on that day. Maybe she had to do a little gardening or attend to something on the stove. Today, I would like her to answer one simple question right here before Canada and the people of her riding: Is Quebec a nation, yes or no?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate Bill C‑8, which contains very important measures to give my constituents the help they need during the pandemic. I am thinking of the teachers in my riding who will receive a tax credit for changes to their work over the past two years. They have had to buy things for their homes so they could teach their students well.

Talking about this very important bill is the reason I rose in the House today.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched upon housing. I think there is not a member in the House who does not have constituents with serious concerns about the lack of affordable housing.

There are some measures in this bill that deal with housing, I think, mainly about underutilization of property, but there is nothing in the bill about an anti-flipping tax. There is nothing on blind auctions. There is no real additional funding to increase affordable supply, or a housing strategy by and for indigenous communities.

I am wondering this. What does my hon. colleague think about that, and what measures does she think the government should take in order to provide affordable housing options for Canadians?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that housing needs to become more affordable. This is only a start as to how we can get it to that point. I know that our government has spoken about commitments to further help housing become affordable in Canada, so I look forward to working with the member on this point.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, one item that was not in Bill C-8 was a guaranteed income for folks with disabilities.

I want to start by thanking the member for Saint-Laurent for her support alongside over 100 parliamentarians in this place who have called out, in light of that, for the government to reintroduce substantial legislation for the Canada disability benefit.

I wonder this. Would she mind sharing the importance of reintroducing the Canada disability benefit?

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I obviously completely agree that Canadians living with disabilities need extra supports. I would personally support any initiative that would help Canadians with disabilities get the support they need.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to rise and speak to important legislation, including today on Bill C-8.

I had that opportunity a couple of weeks ago. I want to say at the outset that I was sick of hearing about Bill C-8 then, and I still am. I will gladly stand here and speak to it, but I want to go on the record saying how disappointing it has been to see that the bill has not moved through the House at the speed in which it could. For those Canadians who are watching at home today, Bill C-8 is actually the legislative introduction of measures that were introduced before Christmas, in the fall economic statement.

The reality is we are on day 11 or 12, and it is concerning that these measures have not been brought forward. I have chided some of my colleagues opposite in terms of their seeming desire to keep this in this place for quite some time. I will start with that.

I also want to go on the record to say that, although there is not yet a decision, we are hearing reports from the United States that Roe v. Wade, the really important, fundamental decision that reinforced a woman's right to choose, could be overturned by the Supreme Court. I just want to say how concerning that is. I know that we, as Canadian parliamentarians, do not get to control judicial decisions in the U.S., but the policy implications and the impact on women across the United States is concerning. It is important for all members of Parliament in the House to reaffirm the belief and the protection of a woman's right to choose for her own body. We will see where that conversation goes in the days ahead in Canada. It is a sharp reminder of that importance.

One key element of Bill C-8 is the returning of fuel surcharges on the price on pollution. We have heard a lot of conversation about the price on pollution in the House. I am proud to be the Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We had discussions about this in terms of practices on farms, such as grain drying, heating of barns and certain other elements, and making sure that when farmers are not able to make a transition, or when they are not able to take on different techniques to get around the price, we are not punitive.

There is $100 million in Bill C-8 that is extremely important to get to farmers in backstop jurisdictions. The backstop jurisdictions are Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I head the opportunity, as the member for Regina—Lewvan commented earlier in the House, to be in Saskatchewan about two weeks ago, when we had a break. I certainly heard a lot from farmers around the price on pollution.

I reminded them of the importance of getting this legislation through. I know some of my Conservative colleagues would take a different view about the policy altogether, but I reminded them that the government is recognizing that we want to make sure the price signal stays and that we have a way to compensate farmers. I reminded the good folks in Saskatchewan that they should turn to their Conservative members of Parliament to make sure that we get this legislation through so that support could be going to farmers. I will keep that message for my kind colleagues across the way.

That element of Bill C-8 gives me an opportunity to talk about the importance of agriculture. I have had the opportunity in the House to speak to it before. On February 24, the world fundamentally changed its outlook, first and foremost because of what we are seeing in Ukraine and the tragedy and impact of human suffering. We are proud of the way that Ukrainians have stepped up to defend their sovereignty, and indeed to defend rules-based international orders. We have been there. Today is not a conversation on that.

However, the implications of that are such that we staring down a global food shortage. Members should let that sink in. Not just in the next couple of months, but for the next three to five years, the destruction of some of the agricultural infrastructure in eastern Europe is going to cause complications around the world. Indeed, it will be felt here in Canada. We have the propensity to step up and fill that gap. It is a really important time for all parliamentarians, regardless of what area of the country they represent, to understand that we have a chance to support the world in food production.

I want to just highlight for colleagues the importance of our agriculture and agri-food industry. It accounts for one in eight Canadian jobs. That is 12%, or almost 13%, of the Canadian workforce that is tied to this particular industry. It represents $140 billion of our gross domestic product every year. I really do believe, again because of world events that we have seen, that there will be a heightened focus on food policy and the way we as parliamentarians can be constructive in the conversation to make sure that Canada can play its part in the global context.

As I mentioned, I spent four or five days in Saskatchewan, and let me go on record as saying how impressive it was to see the innovation, the ingenuity and, really, the tremendous work of farmers and those involved in the industry. It is not only in Saskatchewan. I know this is happening across the country. However, Saskatchewan is certainly the heartland for where this is happening. Forty per cent of our arable lands are in that province.

I want to take the opportunity to talk about a few things that will be particularly important. I will move quickly, because I only have so much time.

Commodities are through the roof. We know that the price for energy, the price for fertilizer and indeed the price for our cash crops are high. That is going to create tremendous pressure on our transportation sector. Now is the opportunity to be identifying ways in which the government can work with rail companies, in particular, to try to address what we know is going to be a demand surge, as energy, critical minerals and harvest will all come to pass at the same time.

I had a conversation with Dr. Richard Gray at the University of Saskatchewan, and I want to mention him. He had two suggestions. We should get agronomists who are already on the ground across the country to take inventory of what we expect for our harvest come harvest time so that we can have estimates of the tonnage that will be needed and the number of railcars that will be needed to get this to port. The other suggestion, of course, is to work with the transportation industry to find out how we can meet this demand. It will not be a matter of the farmers planting. We know that the market signals are high and that they will indeed be doing that. It is going to be about whether we have the opportunity to get things to market.

With respect to plant breeding, it is not necessarily a sexy topic, but it is going to be extremely important and has been extremely important in the past. We talk about canola, for example. Back in the 1990s, canola did not exist in the way we know it today. That was driven by innovation through plant breeding cycles. It is particularly important for the government to be looking at its guidance documents for gene editing. This comes under Health Canada. It would allow us to have a regulatory market that can drive innovation in this space, which is going to be particularly important. My understanding is that before Christmas this was set to come forward. The sooner that we as a government and all parliamentarians call for this, the more beneficial it will be.

With respect to plant protein, I had the opportunity to be in Vanscoy, just outside of Saskatoon, at the Ingredion facility. It is a $300-million facility driving at the tip of the iceberg of what the plant-based protein industry represents. Indeed, this is something of a global movement, but our prairie provinces are well placed to take this opportunity. I was very pleased to see in the budget the continuation of funding for the supercluster. Hats off to Protein Industries Canada for its work in driving some of the private partnerships and capital we have seen.

I also want to take a moment to recognize the importance of supply management. During the pandemic in particular, we saw just how resilient the systems that support farmers across the country are.

Occasionally, some argue that Canadians would be better off without supply management, but the system ensures that there is national capacity across the country. It ensures a fair price, but it still has a competitive factor built into the model. Unlike in the United States and Europe, no government intervention is needed.

I am proud to represent the riding with the largest concentration of supply-managed farms in Atlantic Canada. However, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka is openly pushing to dismantle this system, and the Conservatives have not been consistent in their support.

Budget 2022 has made significant commitments to the sector, and I know that farmers across the country will take notice.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the speech by my friend from Kings—Hants. I always like it when people talk about Saskatchewan, and I will help the member out with some pronunciation when he goes back next time.

It is great to see a Liberal in Saskatchewan, because it has been a long time. Provincially, not since 1999 have the Liberals won a seat, and then after Mr. Goodale parted because the voters got sick of him, it has not happened since 2019.

I am wondering, with all of this experience in Saskatchewan, if the member would like us to put the Liberals on the species at risk list for Saskatchewan, because there are lots of rare sightings in Saskatchewan, such as Liberals and Blue Bombers fans. We want to make sure that once they get there, they feel safe when they are in our province.

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

Madam Speaker, I will say to the member opposite for Regina—Lewvan that I have great respect for him. I have worked with him on the agriculture committee. His question is not a serious one, of course, so I will ask him whether he would like us to put the Conservatives on a species at risk list for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, in many cases Nova Scotia and all of Atlantic Canada.

I do not think the question is really constructive, but let me go on record as saying that I really enjoyed my time in Saskatchewan. It could really use someone like Ralph Goodale at the table to make sure that there is strong representation here at the federal level.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's raising the request for the guidance documents. I met with representatives from CropLife Canada this morning. They, too, have been looking for them since December 8, so I hope he has the opportunity to encourage the minister to release them very soon.

I want to ask the member more specifically about the price on pollution for fuels, particularly for grain drying. Why does he consider the approach the government is taking in Bill C-8 superior to the one being proposed under Bill C-234? He mentioned that the government wants to keep a price signal. However, when there are no viable alternatives, what is that price signal doing? Is he hearing from his constituents, as I am from mine, that his is the more preferable approach?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Leamington for his collaboration on the agriculture committee.

There are a couple of things I will address.

On the price on pollution, to be fair, I do not hear a whole lot from my farmers in Nova Scotia. The provincial government there has taken an approach to carbon pricing that perhaps has not had the same impact elsewhere, or has had a differential impact on his constituents in Leamington. I do not hear a lot from my farmers in Kings—Hants on that.

As to the price, again, we will to continue to drive innovation. The government wants to see the industry take on different methods that exist. Some of those are coming to bear, and some of them are not yet in the market. However, I worry that getting rid of the price signal altogether stymies some of that innovation, and I know that it becomes a bit of an ideological argument. The bill we are talking about today tries to recognize the government's approach. We want to make sure that money is returned to farmers where there is no alternative to move right now. However, we think that an alternative will be coming in the days ahead.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.

We know that the government has put off its plan to address tax havens. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that, because this is about money, this is about the budget, and this would also be a way to bring down major deficits.

How does my colleague approach the issue of tax havens in connection with this budget?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will answer in English because some of the terms used for tax havens are different in English.

My understanding is that the government has taken on a number of initiatives to reclaim money from individuals who are trying to move forward with tax havens. In my view as a parliamentarian, it is fine to say that we are going to try to go after them and have different types of tax changes in the country, but this has to be a global effort, very similar to putting in a minimum corporate income tax and partnering globally.

Those same types of principles need to apply when working in partnership here so that individuals who have the means to move their money to other jurisdictions to avoid taxes are not able to move it to other jurisdictions, at the behest of Canada. We can work in a multilateral forum to make sure that individuals who have very high incomes are paying their fair and equitable share toward public programs.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be speaking to Bill C-8 for those in Canada who are watching today, and I will speak about how Bill C-8 fails our farmers.

What I learned recently, when I was back in British Columbia and spoke to the grain growers in my neck of the woods in northeastern B.C., is how dramatic the costs have risen over the last 12 months. Bill C-8 would not help. It would just makes things worse, and I will speak to that.

Ultimately, when we put our farmers at risk we put our food security at risk. I am going to mention the B.C. grain growers. That is the group I met in Dawson Creek a couple of weeks ago. They are good folks: President Malcolm Odermatt of Fort St. John, Vice-President Jennifer Critcher of Tower Lake, Robert Vander Linden of Clayhurst, Ernest Wiebe of Rose Prairie and researcher Kristyn Brody of Fort St. John. We heard what was obvious. We talked about Ukraine, the effects of Putin's invasion and its effects globally on fertilizer and things like it, and that accentuates what I am going to speak about. At a time when our farmers are getting hit with all these increased input costs, the government should be looking at any way possible to support our farmers.

This is what I heard. This is directly from farmers. From Ernest Wiebe of Rose Prairie, I heard that fuel has doubled over 12 months from 73¢ a litre $1.55 a litre this year. For Ernest's farm, let us speculate what the costs will be. Last year, in 2021, it was $110,000 for fuel, and in 2022, it will be $230,000. Inputs have doubled. Seed has doubled. Fertilizer has doubled. This highlights what the government could do with Bill C-8.

By the way, I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

The member from the Liberal Party has already spoken about what Bill C-8 could do, but what about what Bill C-8 does not do? What the government has been asked to do is to extend the carbon tax exemption to propane and natural gas. Instead of just diesel, it really needs to be applied across the board. For people in Toronto, Ottawa or Vancouver, heating a shop might be an option, but where we live, in northern B.C., it gets down to -40°C for long periods of time and this really is not an option. Natural gas and propane are also used in grain drying, so they are a much-needed commodity up there, and we are asking the government to allow propane and natural gas to be exempt.

We are talking about carbon tax credits for our farmers, and I have not even brought up what they really do by putting carbon in the ground through carbon sequestration. Then there are all the other measures that farmers contribute to our environment but do not get credit for. However, maybe I will talk about what the government is offering in Bill C-8.

It says it is offering $1.73 per $100. I think that is the promise it has made, and it is in the form of a rebate. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has already come back with a figure that is much lower than that. I will digress a bit here. A rebate is something that a farmer has to apply for and then get refunded in the future. It could be a year or 18 months before a farmer ever sees a dime of that rebate, or maybe never at all. Maybe a form was filled out incorrectly and the farmer does not see any rebates.

Let us get down to the brass tacks of what the government is offering. It is a lofty promise, but this is what really happens. This is from the member of Parliament for Foothills in a previous speech:

From the very beginning, when the Liberals have talked about their carbon tax, they have always said it is going to be revenue-neutral and that whatever anyone pays into the carbon tax they are going to be getting it back in a rebate. We know, from the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer that came out last week, that this is completely untrue. In fact, Canadian farmers only get about $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses that they pay on the farm. That is definitely not revenue-neutral. In fact, that is only a fraction of what a farmer or a farm-family producer or agri-food business would spend in a carbon tax.

There is a huge cost to farmers right now. We see that the risk farmers are under is at an all-time high too. There are huge costs. The margins are the way they have pretty much always been, but the risk is much higher.

I would like to talk about a positive way the Liberals could actually change this, with Bill C-8. We have put forward a motion on this side of the House, by the member for Huron—Bruce. We had Bill C-206 put forward by a member in the House in the previous Parliament. This Parliament it is Bill C-234, and it does exactly what I am asking to do today. I will read it out.

This is a quote from the member for Huron—Bruce. He said, “According to Bill C-8, in the fall update on page 83, the rebate is $1.73. When I read that I thought it was per hundred dollars of eligible expenses, but it is actually per thousand dollars of eligible expenses. Therefore, if farmers have a million dollars in eligible expenses on their farms, they would not even receive a $1,800 rebate.”

It is cents on the dollar. This is, again, when farmers are at an all-time high of just pure risk and pure money that they are spending, and they are all dependent on weather to get food on our tables.

Once again, the Liberals across the way say the carbon tax is neutral. This is from the PBO. This is not just from the member for Foothills. This is from the PBO. The PBO recently updated the fiscal cost of Bill C-234. It costed exactly the carbon tax on propane and on heating, and the benefit that the farmers would receive. This is what the PBO has said the net gain would be. The PBO recently updated the fiscal cost of Bill C-234, and what farmers would save. Previous reports were done for its predecessor, Bill C-206. As members can see, the numbers are relatively similar, with cumulative costs being $1.107 billion versus $1.104 billion for Bill C-206.

Clearly, we have a plan. The government could be putting this in Bill C-8, as I heard the member across the way mention. This would be a really easy fix for farmers and really supportive for farmers, especially in this very trying time we are stepping into in 2022.

I am going to speak more about Bill C-234. I have another quote from the member for Foothills. He said,

In contrast to what is being offered by the Liberals in Bill C-8, the Conservatives have put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-234, that would exempt farm fuel from the carbon tax, specifically natural gas and propane used for heating and cooling barns and buildings, as well as for drying grain. That would allow those farmers to hold that money in their accounts and reinvest those dollars into their operations, again to make them more efficient and more sustainable.

Unlike the Liberals' carbon tax in Bill C-8, Bill C-234 has almost unanimous support among agriculture stakeholders, including the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, which is a coalition of 14 different national farm organizations that represent 190,000 farm businesses and more than $70 billion in cash receipts. I think that is pretty critical, when all of those groups are supporting our approach to reducing emissions compared with the Liberals' obviously failing option.

The Liberals say we are holding up debate and holding up the House, but when there are simple things like this that they could be doing for farmers across the country, especially farmers in my riding who I just spoke to two weeks ago, it is unfortunate they will not make those simple changes that might get some support across Canada.

I will finish with this: Most importantly, whenever we put our farmers at risk and their businesses fail, what concerns me is that with one failed farm business, there are implications for our food security and for putting food on our tables across the country and well into the future. We all know that once farms fail, they rarely come back.

The Liberals know the right thing to do on Bill C-8. They have the opportunity to fix it and make it better. I would ask them to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, toward the conclusion of his speech, the hon. member justified why Conservatives have intentionally slowed this down. He basically said that it is because there is something in here that he would like to see different, but that is not how the democratic process works. This bill was introduced. It was debated here. It went to committee. Suggestions were made there. It came back from committee.

You win some; you lose some. He might not get exactly what he is looking for right now, but at the end of the day, he has to respect the fact that the democratic process worked. What he is basically saying is that because he did not get his way, he is going to kick and scream and not let this bill pass. Is that essentially what he is trying to tell this House?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really look forward to opportunities to speak in the House, and this is the first time I am speaking to Bill C-8 in respect to farmers and the negative effects of the bill on their operations and their farm families. This is part of the debate. This is part of what the House of Commons is for. I wish the member across the way would recognize that. This is a part of democracy.

We have seen the government across the way do a bunch of things that are, frankly, undemocratic. Canadians are becoming more and more aware of this, with the strong-handed, strong-armed approach of the Prime Minister, followed up by support from members like the one who just asked a question. My hope is that we can get some better measures in Bill C-8. That is why we are debating today.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As my colleagues may guess, I appreciated the fact that he talked a lot about agriculture.

I would like him to tell me what more we could do for our agricultural community. We are talking about a credit that does not even apply to Quebec. Beyond that, how could we treat our agricultural community in a more forward‑looking and respectful way, if only by giving them their compensation—I have suggestions in that regard—and providing them with adequate support in their role as conservationists?

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to talk once again about Bill C-234, being the measure we referred to that could potentially give a carbon tax exemption to farmers for propane and natural gas to dry and heat their shops, etc. It is a perfect opportunity. It is not finished yet; there are still votes. We still have an opportunity to support it.

I would hope that the members across, from the Liberal Party, would support a measure like this, because they missed the opportunity before. If they really want to do great things for our farmers in this country, that opportunity is still forthcoming. Again, I hope to see support for that across the way.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies obviously cares a lot about the farmers in his riding. He also, I know, has a lot of small businesses in his riding and a lot of tourism operators, yet the government has abandoned small businesses and tour operators in the last year, because it has not extended the supports they need to get through this last omicron variant. The tourism industry has pleaded to extend those benefits to the end of the summer. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business wants CEBA loans extended for two years, and the government has abandoned them.

I am just wondering why the Conservatives are siding with the government in abandoning small businesses and tour operators.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really respect the member, but to say that we are siding with the other side is really rich when we have seen the terms of the NDP-Liberal marriage. It is clear for all to see.

I will just bring up one example of when the government promised one thing. It said that carbon taxes were going to be neutral. Here again, the PBO said that just that one carbon tax exemption alone would save farmers across Canada $1.107 billion. That would be huge for our farm families and farmers across this land.

My hope, again, is that Bill C-234 passes. The government has made a good change to Bill C-8, but I digress.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place and on such important issues.

Before I get into the substance of Bill C-8, and I have a lot to say about that and there is a lot my constituents expect me to say, I trust I will be given a bit of latitude. I wanted to share specifically how much I appreciated being able to join this morning with members from all parties at the Sam Sharpe Breakfast. There, I joined with other parliamentarians, veterans' rights groups and organizations, and folks from across the country, including some both current and retired military personnel, to hear from an esteemed guest speaker and to talk about the need to ensure that mental wellness, operational stress injuries and PTSD are part of the central conversation related to the realities our men and women in uniform face on a daily basis.

I just wanted to start my remarks by thanking the member for Durham and the retired general and senator Roméo Dallaire for their work in helping make sure we could have what I think was very important. How fitting it was for the first public event in two years to bring together members of our military to talk about something as important as mental health. It is so very important, so I thank all those who made that happen, and I look forward to more of these sorts of events happening in the heart of what is supposed to be Canada's democratic infrastructure.

The second part of the context for this debate is very important. We are debating Bill C-8, a bill to implement various measures related to the fall economic update, but the context here is incredibly important. The Liberals have claimed a lot of things, as they often do, about how it is somehow Conservatives' fault that we are now in May, still debating the implementation of various measures in the fall economic update.

What the Liberals have failed to mention is the fact that it was only a day or two before Parliament rose for the winter break that this bill was introduced. If they were serious about their legislative agenda, they could have prioritized this to see that it was passed and to allow for the fundamental function of this place to ensure that members of Parliament are able to speak to such important pieces of legislation.

I find it really ironic that members opposite will talk about how it is all the opposition's fault. It is a little like the coach of a losing team blaming the fans for its performance on the ice or on the field. I am deeply troubled by the passing of Motion No. 11, which I think could have serious consequences to democratic discourse within our country, and I certainly hope the Liberals and their partners in the NDP will think long and hard about how we all have the responsibility to take our jobs very seriously.

On that note, I will jump into the substance of what Bill C-8 is about. I would just note that I heard comments from my colleague from Prince George and earlier the member for Regina—Lewvan, and there is important context for some of the measures that are included.

Part 1 of Bill C-8 talks about various amendments that would be made to the Income Tax Act when it comes to providing a refundable tax credit to eligible businesses on, for example, qualifying ventilation expenses. In the midst of a pandemic, I think most Canadians would think that is very reasonable. However, this is another example of where, according to many health professionals, we are moving into an endemic stage of COVID-19, yet this is what the Liberals are moving forward.

They are also expanding the travel component of the northern residents deductions to $1,200 and expanding the school supply tax credit, which would include electronic devices.

There is one part of the amendment to the Income Tax Act that I want to focus on specifically, and that is for farmers. I have heard members opposite talk a lot about how Conservatives debating Bill C-8 are somehow not serving farmers well. Let me be absolutely crystal clear. For members opposite, I happen to be from a farming family. We are the fifth generation to work the land in what is called Alberta Special Areas. It is in the north part of the Palliser Triangle. I hear often from farmers in my constituency and across Canada who are tired of the Liberal government's approach to try to control everything they do. This amendment is another example of that.

The Conservatives are opposed to the carbon tax: let me make that very clear. When it comes to the reality that farmers face, they are paying significant costs when paying the carbon tax on the fuel they burn. This is not an option for farmers. A large tractor can burn hundreds of litres of fuel per day. There are many green eco-activists, I am sure, on the Liberal and NDP benches who would like to suggest that somehow that should change. The fact that we are feeding the world is the reality that these farmers face. There are many examples where the taxes and expenses that are imposed on farmers by the government are inhibiting their ability to do what they do best.

The fundamental policy difference between Conservatives and the left in this country seems to be that Conservatives believe that farmers can and should be able to do what they do best, while the Liberals simply want to control and have a say in everything that they do. Let me again be crystal clear. Farmers tell me that it is not bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa who know how to farm: it is the farmers themselves, and this is simply another example of how the Liberals seem not to be able to catch on to that.

I would suggest that, as my colleagues alluded to earlier, when it comes to expenses related to farming, the Conservative bill to bring forward an exemption to the carbon tax for agricultural activities is common sense. It is something that, quite frankly, should have had universal support within this place. There were, I believe, 18 Liberals in the last Parliament who voted in favour of this bill, and I am sure that they heard from their constituents in that regard. Again, there is that fundamental difference: the common sense of keeping dollars in the hands of farmers so that they can do what they do best and feed the world, versus heavy government bureaucracy controlling farmers.

That is not to mention the massive costs and the fact that the government is talking about a fertilizer mandate that could have devastating implications for global food security. There is the fact that fertilizer is directly related to the oil and gas industry. There are many other dynamics.

There is so much more to say on this. There are seven main parts to this bill and I only got through one of seven, so I could truly go on for probably another 60 minutes or so as I address all seven aspects. If there was unanimous consent, I would be happy to continue indefinitely.

I would simply sum up the next six parts by saying this. The Liberals have significant questions that need to be answered when it comes to even the most simple aspects of how they would approach this bill. I read through the costs for things such as their vaccine passport system. As provinces end the mandates—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, 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, when the member was speaking earlier, he was talking about the desire of the Conservatives to continue to discuss this bill. He expressed his displeasure with the fact that a new motion that was introduced and passed last night gave the ability to give it even further discussion and debate in the House over the next few months. If I heard him correctly, he referred to that as being undemocratic or as somehow an abuse of powers, or the opportunity to debate, in this place.

I wonder if he can explain that to me. The motion we passed last night was to extend the ability of members to speak in the House and gives more members the opportunity to speak so that when another motion or bill comes forward and over 50 Conservatives want to speak to it, such as with Bill C-8 at report stage, they would have an opportunity to speak to that.

How can he phrase that motion in such a way?

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

Madam Speaker, let me simply conclude the sentence that I had started before I get into the substance of the member's question.

Because the government wants to spend $300 million on something the provinces and the public health experts have so rightfully suggested we need to move away from is why the Conservatives have said clearly that it is time to end the mandates.

I would simply suggest to the member opposite, who at length spends time in the House equivocating on Prime Minister's Office talking points and defending the indefensible, that if he was so interested—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, am I not entitled to the right to speak in this place when I am recognized by the Chair? The member suggested and indicated through his comment that somehow I am not entitled to do that. If I am acting out of line, I would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is an issue for debate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I did not recognize the point of order, so the hon. member will pursue his answer briefly.

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

Madam Speaker, it is ironic. I will just leave it at that.

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

Madam Speaker, in Bill C-8, there is some mention of housing, but there is a bit more in the budget. Canada is the worst country in the G7 for the average number of homes per 1,000 population. This is already a scandal, it is already something quite significant, and it is a major problem.

The budget even contains an admission of failure, since it recognizes that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units in order to solve the crisis, but it does not indicate how it is going to be solved. It does not propose any measures for addressing it.

I frequently hear my Conservative colleagues criticize the government on housing. During question period, they keep asking the Minister of Housing question after question on this issue, with good reason, but I do not hear them suggesting any solutions. What are their solutions for fixing the acute housing crisis that Quebec and Canada are currently experiencing?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is certainly right. There has been a litany of failures when it comes to housing. I did not have a chance to get into the fact that the Liberals' approach to try to address the overinflated housing market certainly has not worked in other jurisdictions in Canada that have tried. I am doubtful that it will work in this case.

Here is the reality. Canada needs to become a country that says yes again. Canada needs to become a country that allows homebuilders to build houses again. Canada needs to become a country that ensures there can be investments in things like property so that people can have affordable housing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things that concerns me is that so many people across Canada go without dental care. I was recently contacted by a senior in my riding who is on a very small, fixed income and was told by her dentist that she would have to pay $6,000 to have several teeth pulled and appropriate dentures made so that she could eat. She said that without them she would simply not be able to eat and is looking at maybe buying a blender as a cheaper alternative.

Could the member talk about how important it is for all people to have dental care, just as all the MPs in the House do?

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

Madam Speaker, I actually had an extensive conversation with my brother-in-law, who is a dentist and serves some communities that have a great need for these sorts of services. What I find very interesting is that there has been a lot of talk about how the NDP have somehow solved the challenges related to ensuring that all those Canadians who need it have access to dental care. They have basically claimed victory when nothing has yet been accomplished. That is typical—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This is a pleasant surprise for me. I am happy to share something with this colleague. Perhaps this is the beginning of something. We do not usually see eye to eye.

I am going to talk about Bill C-8. The main problem that we have with it is the underused housing tax, which is yet another jurisdictional encroachment.

Allow me to clarify that, fundamentally, everyone agrees on the basic principle that something needs to be done about the housing shortage and foreign speculation. On the substance, we are in perfect agreement. The problem is how to go about it.

The Standing Committee on Finance heard from constitutional expert Patrick Taillon, who explained that the tax was legal, but that the problem lies in using the tax as a way to regulate the sector. We agree, so we think this must be done in collaboration with the municipalities, and especially with the provinces and Quebec. We are seriously concerned about this, and it is going to be a big stumbling block for us when it comes time to vote.

As usual, as the party that believes in constructive, positive, sensible opposition, the Bloc Québécois suggested adding a clause requiring the agreement of the cities involved. Our suggestion was rejected, so we have no choice but to oppose the measure.

There are other things missing from Bill C‑8, such as measures to address the labour shortage. Everyone knows that I am a good sport in Parliament, because I am willing to acknowledge the positives. I will acknowledge that there are things in the budget that will help, particularly when it comes to immigration. However, this is an urgent matter, and I do not think that enough is being done to address it.

The number of calls we are getting about delays is absolutely staggering. Money has been announced, of course, along with a lot of good intentions, but something needs to be done quickly. Processing times are atrocious. The government is all smiles as it makes big announcements to the media, promising to do this or that, which sounds good, but, months later, nothing has changed.

Take, for instance, the increase in the cap on temporary foreign workers in the agri-food industry, which was announced in August but did not end up being implemented until late January. That is too long. The government needs to be more efficient.

We have other ideas for measures to address the labour shortage, such as tax credits for people aged 65 and over. I see that as a simple measure that everyone would support right away. I look forward to seeing that implemented, but it has not happened yet.

We can be creative. Why not bring in a tax credit that would apply once a certain threshold of hours is exceeded in a given week? Let us sit down and get to work, because our entrepreneurs need these workers.

There is also the whole issue of the supply chain. I am willing to believe that Bill C-8 was prepared some time ago, since it has been around for a while now. On this point, I agree with my Liberal friends. However, we can always improve things, especially in the next Parliament, in order to do something to help our farmers.

There has been a lot of talk about agriculture today, particularly about an additional credit for the carbon tax, but now we have other problems, such as the fact that fertilizer from Russia is now subject to a 35% tax. This will have repercussions on all of eastern Canada, which gets its fertilizer from Russia.

We had meetings with the parliamentary secretaries and ministers to explain the situation, and they told us that they would always be there, that they would monitor the situation and act accordingly.

We need to do something, because our constituents are sounding the alarm. We raised the issue in question period last week, because this is ultimately going to have an impact on the cost of groceries, and that affects everyone.

There is nothing about tax havens either; it boggles my mind. Every time that we talk about the budget or the money available to deliver services to the public, I am sorry, but I cannot not talk about tax havens. It is estimated that at least $7 billion is lost to tax havens every year. These amounts are rather fuzzy because nobody is sure of what is really going on.

At the same time, the government is dragging its feet on bills such as Bill C-208, which deals with the next generation of farmers. This is about agriculture. If we respect our farmers and want to provide for the next generation, we have to get rid of the vagueness surrounding this bill. I just quickly touched on this, but I hope that the government will hear my message.

I did not bring up compensation for people in supply managed industries either. Wherever it is paid out, we will be happy, but it has to be paid somewhere.

Let us talk about health transfers. How can we not talk about them? We are being praised for bringing in a dental plan. Again, the same principle applies as to the underused housing tax. We all agree on the substance, but there are areas of jurisdiction in this federation, and they are the responsibility of the provinces. Why not increase health transfers to the provinces and Quebec, which is something they have been calling for?

When we talk about health transfers, we are talking about increasing the federal portion to 35% of expenditures, or $28 billion per year, which represents $6 billion for Quebec alone. That needs to be ongoing funding, not just a sexy press announcement about a one-time shot of $2 billion to show just how generous the fine Canadian government is. That is smoke and mirrors. The pandemic was temporary, but the problems with the health care system have long been an issue and they are not going away.

Of course, then there are seniors. Those 65 and older suffered the most during the pandemic. The government still has its head stuck in the sand.

I see people are looking at me with interest. Earlier, when I was being asked questions, I was expecting to hear that they were there for seniors, that they increased old age security starting at age 75 and that they handed out $500. Those are all temporary measures. We want to see an increase to old age security starting at age 65 so that we do not have two classes of seniors. That is important.

There are other measures in Bill C‑8, including the underused housing tax. We have expressed our reservations about who would implement it and how it would work. Essentially, will a 1% tax actually be effective, considering countries like France have taxes as high as 12% or 13% the first year and 25% the second year? That may be more effective. Why not go a bit further? Again, it is all in the execution.

As far as help for businesses is concerned, we also agree. It is good that the deadline for repaying Canada emergency business account loans has been pushed back, but that is not enough. We have proposed other measures.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also sounded the alarm, saying that its members are struggling. They have taken on heavy debt loads, and the concern is that many of these businesses will not weather the crisis.

For example, why are we not providing more support to brick-and-mortar businesses facing unfair competition from e‑commerce? That could be a solution. We could also decide to make a larger share of the loan non-refundable. Why not help businesses set up online purchasing and electronic marketing so they can compete?

There is also the issue of shipping costs. I do not understand why it only costs $2.50 for a Chinese company to send a package to Canada when it costs me $20 to send a package to Lac‑Saint‑Jean. Something is not right. Can we help businesses with shipping?

There is also the $2 per book to help bookstores.

These are all Bloc Québécois proposals. These are suggestions we have made, and we will be there to collaborate if the government wants to make improvements.

Some members have given speeches about agriculture and education and a tax credit for electronic devices. These are good measures, but they are too small. Let us get serious and provide appropriate support to our farmers and teachers.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the property tax issue and health care transfers. It is important that we recognize that members of the Bloc Québécois very much would like the breakup of Canada. At the end of the day, Bloc members would ultimately argue that Canada should be nothing more than an ATM from which cash would just flow to provinces.

The Bloc members do not recognize that within Canada is a great federation with provinces and territories and with incredible leadership from indigenous communities. It is a nation that makes for the best country in the world to live in. This means that the national government does have some leadership roles to play, whether in housing or health care, according to the Canada Health Act. I wonder if the member feels that, maybe for the rest of Canada, Bill C-8 is a good thing.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that at least one person understands what we want. Ultimately, what we want is for Quebec to be independent. In the meantime, why are we here?

We are not here to cause trouble. We are here to salvage something from the wreckage and to work together in a positive way. That is what we try to do every day. I would like the parliamentary secretary to understand that part too. It is all well and good to keep repeating that we are trying to pick a fight, but I think that, if the parliamentary secretary is even the slightest bit serious, he will see that we always propose real solutions.

What we want is respect for the essence of the contract that was signed behind our backs for as long as we are stuck with it.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments about agriculture. I would like his opinion on the different approach we are taking to the carbon tax on farm fuels. The government is proposing that the farmers act as the bank account for the government. This is setting aside the fact that $1.73 per $1,000 of expenses does not come close to covering the cost of the carbon tax. What would the member's opinion be on the utility of having the farmers be the bank account for the Government of Canada versus granting an exemption up front?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Obviously, he wants me to talk about Bill C-234, so that is what I will do. The Bloc Québécois is extremely rational. We want to protect the environment in a way that makes sense. The reason we are supporting this system is that there is currently no other alternative. However, we need to do a lot more than this. That is why we are proposing an environmental partnership with our farmers, something serious that will not be controlled by the great, all-knowing Canada.

We need to decentralize funding for farmers, these entrepreneurs, so that they themselves can bring in technological and environmental innovations to improve yields. These innovations must be recognized, and compensation must be given for them. That money needs to be available to farmers for the next innovation. If we trust our farmers, I guarantee we will not be disappointed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that Quebec is no different than any other province in that the citizens of these provinces are having a terrible time finding affordable housing. This is one of the areas where we are all in agreement that it takes all levels of government working together in order to provide a supply.

In my riding, we still have many constituents who have benefited from the very successful co-op housing program of the federal government of the 1970s and 1980s. I wonder if my hon. colleague can comment on whether co-operative housing and federal support for building co-op housing in Quebec would be a significant way to help people of Quebec develop at least one model of affordable housing.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

The federal government certainly has a role to play, but the parliamentary secretary opposite will be happy to hear that the what the federal government needs to do here is to provide funding, because this is Quebec's jurisdiction. That is fundamental. My colleague said that he is sure that Quebec is no different than any other province, but it is a little different. I am not trying to cause trouble. We are here to teach others about the reality in Quebec.

Quebec's AccèsLogis program is not being taken into account. I must point out that the last time there was money for social housing, the government transferred money to the other provinces but took three years to send the money to Quebec.

We are behind, which is not right.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-8, but like some of my colleagues who have spoken before me, I too want to bring up the fact that I am gravely concerned about what we are hearing coming out of the Supreme Court of the United States, the leaked document that suggests that it will be rolling back its ruling on Roe v. Wade. I think it is incredibly concerning. I think that, as a global community, we should be concerned about such a regressive form and attack that the United States is taking as it relates to such an important issue.

Equally as alarming, I am very concerned that the leader of the Conservative Party sent out an email to all of her MPs today telling them that they are instructed not to speak to the leaked document that has come out. I see some people shaking their heads, so I better quote this for them. It says, “Conservatives will not be commenting on draft rulings leaked from the Supreme Court of the United States.”

That was sent to Conservative members by the Leader of the Opposition this morning around 9:00 a.m., and I think that the Conservative opposition leader should allow her MPs to stand up and say exactly what they think about this because I think it is extremely problematic. Conservatives should stand united with the vast majority of Canadians in their feelings toward this.

Nonetheless, we are here to talk, once again, about Bill C-8. Bill C-8 is the bill that keeps coming up in the House. It is, for some reason, the hill that the Conservatives have chosen to die on, and I do not understand why.

This is a fall economic statement implementation act from the fall of not this year but last year. It is very likely that budget 2022 may be passed before we actually see the fall economic statement of 2021 passed. In any event, it is there to provide very important supports for Canadians during the conclusion of, and coming through the end of, the pandemic and into the endemic state that we are going to see COVID enter into.

For this to be the hill that Conservatives have chosen to die on is absolutely outstanding to me. I cannot, for the life of me, understand their strategy.

This is because most times, when a political party chooses an issue that will be the issue that it will define itself by through filibustering and doing everything possible to influence the way the House treats it, there is a common theme behind their approach. Normally, if it is something like, for example, we were suddenly going to do something dramatic to the health care transfers, I imagine that the Bloc Québécois would put up an endless fight on that, and I think that everybody on this side could appreciate and understand where they were coming from, given the fact that they raise it on a daily basis.

The Conservatives are not doing that. They seem to be all over the place in their approach when it comes to Bill C-8. They are picking and talking about this little bit, and then they are talking about another thing over here. Then they are talking about farmers. There is no common theme. I am left to conclude that the only common theme is the absolute stalling of Parliament, doing whatever necessary, for whatever reason, for any reason at all, to make sure that legislation cannot get through the House.

The rationale for their approach to Bill C-8 is entirely politically motivated. I do not know if they have just dug their heels in so far that they are now just saying, “Well, we have come this far, we may as well not stop now.” They need to explain to the House what it is that is so offensive within this piece of legislation.

I have heard Conservatives talk about the fact that they have some concerns about stuff that is missing from this legislation. That is fair. I think that is a good way to be critical about it. It is part of the democratic process, but it went to committee. It came before the House, was debated, went to committee and was discussed. Ideas were put forward, and I imagine some ideas were adopted and some ideas were shot down. Then it came here, and we are debating it again. That is the democratic process.

As I said earlier to the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, one wins some, and one loses some. One gets some, and one does not get other things. At the end of the day, we eventually should be voting on a piece of legislation that we do know is going to impact and help a lot of Canadians.

I bring this up, because on this bill at report stage alone, as of my count yesterday, 51 Conservative members had already spoken to it. That does not include today. Just for comparison, and this is before today, four members of the Bloc spoke to it, two members from the NDP, two Green members and four Liberals. That is just to put it into context for members. The Conservatives have monopolized the time of debate on this particular issue.

The Conservatives are going to stand up and say, “Well, that is part of the democratic process: rigorous debate.” Of course it is. It is important to discuss and bring forward members' ideas, but it is very clear to people after a while that we have passed the threshold of vigorous debate, and they are just being obstructionists for the sake of being obstructionists.

There is no desire among the Conservatives to actually see this go through. They just want to ensure that they can inflict as much damage as possible, in terms of allowing this government to move forward its political agenda, and nothing made it clearer than when we debated the motion yesterday about extending sitting hours. One would have thought we had done something dramatically unparliamentary and undemocratic: those two terms, by the way, were brought up by the Conservatives. One would have thought we had done that, but all we did was say, “Let us debate more. Let us have more time to talk into the evenings and all the way until midnight.” The Conservatives had a problem with that, so they wanted to ensure that we could not even do that.

Members will forgive me if I come off as being very cynical about it and as assuming that there is some ulterior motive here. I cannot seem to wrap my head around why the Conservatives would take this approach, again, on a bill that would provide supports to Canadians. It is not a hill that, in my opinion, any political party would be willing to die on, but the Conservatives have chosen to do that.

In the last few minutes that I have to speak, I want to talk about some of those incredible supports that were introduced in the fall economic statement, which we are talking about on May 3.

I will speak specifically to the one that really is important, and I think it should be to all members of this House. This is supports for safe schools and teachers. This is about increasing the ability to provide quality air ventilation in schools. This is about allowing teachers to claim certain expenses on their income tax. This is stuff that none of the 50-plus Conservatives who have spoken has brought up. They have not commented on them at all. I am not just talking about being against them: they have not commented in favour of them, either. However, those are some of the supports we are talking about here. Teachers are literally beyond the deadline to do their taxes for 2021, and they cannot, because the Conservatives have still held this issue up.

There are so many other things, such as employment insurance details, supports for businesses and the underused housing tax act. These are all things in here that, in my opinion, should be passed. If we missed stuff, and members of the Conservative Party are still very upset about the fact that they have been missed, then they have representation on the finance committee and should bring forward a motion. They should go and garner support from a majority of members of Parliament on the committee, have a study on it and then make a recommendation to Parliament. That is how this body works. That is how the democratic process works in our chamber, and that is certainly how I would encourage the Conservatives to approach it, despite the fact that they have completely chosen not to do that.

I am running up against my 10 minutes, but I am very glad that we finally have some time allocation on this bill so that we can get moving on it and pass the fall economic statement from the fall of 2021.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate and ask some questions of my colleagues across the aisle.

Just for context, for the people at home who love watching CPAC, the member who just spoke, the member for Kingston and the Islands, and his colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, have the responsibility to help get the legislative agenda through the House for the Liberal government. That is why they are little testy right now. It is their job to make sure the legislation gets passed that the government wants and that is its priority.

Those members are upset: They basically got their hands slapped because they were not getting the job done. That is why the members are so upset. Unfortunately, this is probably the fourth time the member for Kingston and the Islands has spoken on this bill. The biggest problem he has is that when he goes to the PMO, they are asking him why he is not getting the job done. That is why he is a little more animated in his speech today.

Quite frankly, I do not think he is delivering on the promises he made to the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, for the record, I am way less animated today than I was yesterday. I am sorry that member missed that speech.

We heard the reality in his question. That member said that this is a priority for the PMO. This bill, and the details of this bill, should be a priority for every member of the House. The supports in here are for teachers and small businesses. The Conservative member for Regina—Lewvan basically said in his question that this is not a priority for the Conservatives but that it is a priority of the PMO, and that is the only reason why this side of the House wants to get it passed.

Not everything comes down to a political agenda. From time to time, even though the member might not realize this, we are here to serve Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, frankly, I thought that was a rather strange speech. The member spent a lot of time talking about the official opposition instead of his government's bill. That was an interesting choice to make.

Since my colleague encouraged the opposition to support the bill and tried to get the support of a majority of opposition members in committee, I want to ask him how this works now that one of the opposition parties is systematically supporting the Liberals.

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

Madam Speaker, the only way this got back here is if a majority of the members at committee voted in favour of it. That is the only way that the report would have gotten back to the House. Clearly, that happened at committee.

The member said that he found my speech to be unusual. Did he listen to the 55 Conservatives who have spoken to Bill C-8 just since report stage? It was literally the same speech over and over again, with no central theme to it. There was no central theme to attacking a particular portion of it.

This is not the hill to die on, yet Conservatives continually put themselves in a position as though Bill C-8 is the be-all and end-all.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, in addition to the toxic drug supply crisis, Canada is experiencing, as we know—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Could we have some silence to actually hear the questions and the answers? Thank you.

The hon. member.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, thank you, I really appreciate that.

In addition to the toxic drug supply crisis, Canada is experiencing a broader mental health crisis as we deal with the impacts of two years of the pandemic. COVID-19 highlighted what many of us already knew, which is that our mental health care system is woefully underfunded. The Liberal government committed, in its election campaign, to establish a mental health transfer with an initial commitment of $4.5 billion over five years. However, we have yet to see any concrete action or fulfilling of that promise to make it a reality.

We know that mental health is health, and Canadians deserve to be able to access the mental health supports they need without worrying about barriers such as cost or availability. This week is Mental Health Week in Canada. I ask my colleague this. Is this one thing that we could all unite behind as parties, and have empathy for those who need support for mental health? When will the government be moving forward with the transfer?

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member 100%.

The member brought this issue up yesterday. I asked him a question about his private member's bill, and he provided some feedback on what he was hearing throughout the country when he was touring around, talking to people about it.

We have come a long way in our understanding and our appreciation of mental health, in terms of the genuine health challenges we have around mental health. I would be willing to work with this member, as I know many members on this side of the House would, to do and provide more, in terms of mental health supports.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington will have about two minutes before Statements by Members.

The hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my hon. colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I am pleased to rise today to give my second speech on Bill C-8. I have always indicated my support and preference for proper scrutiny of the bill as it comes through this place.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Could we have some quiet please so we can actually listen to the speech? Thank you.

The hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier this week, I spoke to the House about the importance of allowing Parliament to scrutinize legislation. Imagine my dismay when I glanced over the Notice Paper later that day to see what the government House leader had placed on notice.

It was a motion that would mark a severe departure from the normal practices of this place and set a precedent that could easily be abused by current and future governments. Parliament is supposed to be a legislature based on collaboration, not coercion. While I am absolutely in favour of increased scrutiny of legislation, this motion would give the Liberals and the NDP enablers the power to adjourn the House on any whim of any minister.

I would note the Liberals chose their executive designation, a minister, as an enabling mechanism, not a member. We should all be wary when the executive tries to worm its way into the proceedings of this place. It is 2022, not 1640.

In my earlier speech, I also highlighted just how important the role of a parliamentarian is. We are here to scrutinize the spending of public funds. I will remind my colleagues of the two maxims that govern this institution: One, the executive should have no income that is not granted to it or otherwise sanctioned by Parliament. Two, the executive should make no expenditures except those approved by Parliament, in ways approved by Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member will have almost eight minutes to conclude her speech after question period.

Statements by Members, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour.

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 third time and passed, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

When we last went off, the member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington had the floor. She has eight minutes left and five minutes of questions and answers.

The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to resume my intervention on Bill C-8.

Earlier, I noted that Parliament is supposed to be a legislature based on collaboration, not coercion. I also highlighted how important the role of Parliament is in scrutinizing the spending of public funds. Now I want to bring this around to something that the leader of the NDP, the member for Burnaby South, said just last week in his speech on the budget.

He said that in the past couple of years, Canadians have had to deal with the pandemic and the growing cost of living, which is at a crisis level now. The cost of everything has gone up, from filling up our cars to buying groceries to finding an affordable home and to paying rent. On top of that, there is a war that makes everyone across the world feel less safe. In this context, Canadians sent us to Parliament, he said, in a minority government, to get them help and to find ways to help them solve the problems they are dealing with.

My hon. colleague then went on to claim victory, touting potential dental care as a surefire sign of victory. All it took was surrendering the most basic function of parliamentarians to the Liberal government, and that is their ability to scrutinize public expenditures. This is what their confidence and supply agreement necessitates, the automatic support of money bills. In my opinion, that is not a win for Canadian. That is an abstract shirking of the most basic duties of a parliamentarian. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that my colleagues in all parties are satisfied with the content of this legislation. Out of a 124-page bill, there is a singular area for improvement and nothing else that they would like to see added to the legislation.

On this side of the House, this is not the case. For example, at committee my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South raised concerns about the inequitable nature of the distribution of the carbon tax rebate for farmers. He rightfully pointed out that a dairy farmer in Stirling would have different expenses than a wheat farmer out in Saskatchewan. There are both regional differences and industrial differences, differences that the legislation does not differentiate. This was confirmed by Ms. Lindsay Gwyer, the director general of the legislation, tax legislation division in the tax policy branch at the Department of Finance.

Subsequent witnesses confirmed that the government's approach was not ideal. When asked whether his members supported the approach to the carbon tax rebate as laid out in the private member's bill of my colleague from Huron—Bruce, as opposed to the patchwork job in Bill C-8, Mark Agnew, of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce replied, “We'll take what we can get in the meantime, but certainly working towards Bill C-234 is what we hope can happen.”

My colleague from Calgary Centre rightfully questioned the value and efficacy of a 1% increase in housing tax. He said:

I cite in the House of Commons the example of British Columbia, where there is a municipal tax already on foreign transactions in the housing market of up to 2%, depending on the buyer, plus a provincial tax up to 3%, for a total of up to 5%. In addition, there is a 20% transfer tax on foreign buyers, and yet 7.7% of activity in the Vancouver real estate market is still being consumed by foreign buyers of real estate in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland.

These small taxes aren't having much of an effect on buying, unless we're looking ex post facto at this. How do you suppose an extra 1% jurisdictional overreach is going to solve the housing problem in Canada?

The response from the government official was, “I will just point out, very simply, that this is a tax, the purpose of which is to raise revenues. It's estimated that the tax will raise $735 million in revenues over the next five years.”

Another witness styled the tax as perfunctory, stating:

I would say at a very basic level that you are looking at with the cost of doing business is. In this case it's the business of crime. When you are talking about laundering millions of dollars, a 1% hit on that could be considered the cost of doing business.

This is why we talk about, as well, the need for penalties for money laundering to be highly substantive and not just seen as the cost of doing business, to properly dissuade money launderers from exploiting Canadian housing.

At a time when young Canadian families are living in their parents' basements because of the obscene increase in housing prices, this government comes in and increases it further, and not to combat foreign ownership or restrict purchasing, but to exclusively raise money to pay for its record spending.

It was interesting to have been able to approach this particular type of legislation with a different mindset than I had had previously. Armed with new information, we were able to contextualize how Bill C-8 would truly affect Canadians. Paired with the budget, Bill C-8 clearly signals what this government views as a priority and, unfortunately for many people across Canada, including struggling families in Hastings—Lennox and Addington, they are not included.

I had previously highlighted some areas I believe the government needs to focus on to best serve struggling Canadian families. This includes investment in rural infrastructure, taxation relief, cutting red tape and support for our agricultural sector. It is my firm belief that these are the most effective measures to get our economy going and stifle crippling inflation.

The record increase in inflation we experienced months ago has not subsided. The cost of fuel has continued to increase, and with that, the cost of living. Canadians need a government that will help them through this extremely difficult time. Through my eyes, Bill C-8 would not do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member talk about collaboration, and she suggested that this place requires collaboration. That is absolutely true, but collaboration does not equal consensus. The way our entire system works is to bring forward ideas, a bill in this case; bring it to committee; have robust discussion at committee; formulate a response with a majority of the committee members voting in favour to send it back here; debate it one more time in this place; and, ultimately, vote on it.

Can the member explain to me why she feels as though the collaborative process has not occurred? If a majority of the members on the committee have sent the report back to the House for final debate and to vote, it clearly has.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member fails to mention that it is not consistent with the views and concerns that I am hearing from people at the dinner tables across my riding. People are fed up. They are disappointed, and they are concerned. What we need is a government that has the support, the will and the hope of Canadians.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to Bill C-8, the health transfer escalator will be 3% until 2027. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois is against this bill. Quebec and the provinces stand united in demanding that the government cover system costs and increase the health transfer escalator to 6%. All the experts have told us that the system has become more vulnerable than ever and that we need to restore the strength of our health care networks to recover from the pandemic.

Can my colleague tell us whether she agrees with the Liberals’ measure, which seeks to maintain the Harper government's action to reduce the health transfer escalator to 3%?

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

Madam Speaker, we have to recognize that the budget projections are fiction. They do not necessarily account for the promises in their future costs.

Earlier today, I read a comment from a colleague of mine back home, and I am going to share it with members, because it really gives the sense and the pulse of where Canadians are at. She recently shared, “Shelby, I am not the only one who is busting their backside. Moving forward in this world is difficult. Our patience is being tested daily with an economy that is crumbling and creating barriers for all ages. So many people are struggling. Is it normal to have to create an income as a side job to be able to get gas to drive to your full-time job?”

This is not okay, and these are the types of messages I am getting from people in my riding.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have been receiving emails from constituents. One in particular says that 50,000 teachers are waiting for their tax refund. As a single parent, this constituent is counting on this money and has been waiting for this bill to finally be passed to implement the refundable tax credit for teachers.

Does the member agree that the time to move forward is today, so teachers can finally get the funding that they have been waiting for to do the work that they do, which is just so important?

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

Madam Speaker, I have two girls, one in grade school and one in high school, and the work their teachers do is admirable. I respect them for that.

I reject the member's comments that Conservatives are not necessarily supporting it. At this point, I would encourage the hon. member to get involved in her local provincial campaign and address those particular types of issues.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-8, and my comments will focus on part 5 of Bill C-8. This is the government's effort to double down on its failed strategy of mandates and in fact try to push provinces, which are all moving away from mandates, to try to bring them back. Specifically, part 5 of the bill says:

The Minister of Health may make payments to the provinces and territories not exceeding $300 million in total for the purpose of supporting their coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) proof-of-vaccination initiatives, with the amount of each payment to be determined by the Minister of Health.

This is the context in which we are living: Provinces are recognizing and moving away from these mandate policies, and the federal government is doubling down on its failures.

Members who travel back and forth to Ottawa will see the realities of how the federal mandates conflict with the provincial mandates and really how absurd it is. This weekend, I was at a trade show in my riding, and in keeping with the provincial rules in Alberta, anybody could come to the trade show without needing to present proof of vaccination. I think that is a good thing. People are not required to wear masks, which is positive and reasonable as well.

I was at this trade show meeting with constituents who were coming through, shaking hands, kissing babies, talking to people about the issues on their mind. None of these requirements were in place at the provincial level. Then, when I go to the airport and get on an airplane, all of a sudden I am in federal jurisdiction, which means that all of a sudden the pandemic is back once I arrive at the airport. I need to wear a mask, and I need to provide proof of vaccination to get on the plane. There are all these new requirements in place.

Then I get to Ontario and leave the airport. In Ontario, people do not have to present proof of vaccination to get into restaurants. They do not have to wear masks in restaurants. I get off the plane, come downtown and go to receptions. There are all these receptions being hosted off the Hill in restaurants, and I see Liberal, NDP, Conservative and Bloc staff and members at these receptions not wearing masks. No proof of vaccination is required. They are in a restaurant and it is all fine, apparently. Then, when they get on the Hill, they are back in federal jurisdiction and the government insists that proof of vaccination is required and they have to wear a mask.

I try to make sense of the science behind the apparent conclusion that COVID-19 can only be transmitted when we are in places regulated by the federal government. How does it make sense scientifically for Liberals to say we need these mandates in these small, limited areas of federal jurisdiction, even when provinces are lifting these mandates? It is perfectly okay for Liberal members and staff to go to parties and restaurants in Ottawa outside of the parliamentary precinct and there is no risk from COVID, apparently, in those places. However, when they come to the Hill, apparently we need to ban any person, staff member or member of Parliament who is not vaccinated and require people to wear masks. It does not make any sense. These rampant inconsistencies do not make any sense at all.

This is what has frustrated so many people throughout COVID-19. They are being told they have to follow the science, and then they are being faced with these obviously radically inconsistent rules that are applied in different ways. Insofar as there are things that make sense scientifically, they should be in place across jurisdictions. If the same people are going to events in their ridings and going to restaurants, out and about where they are not wearing masks and the government is not insisting that there be proof of vaccination in those places, and then it insists on the continuation of discriminatory mandates in areas of federal jurisdiction, we should note and call out how absurd that is.

We should also know that these federal mandates that are being promoted in Bill C-8 are applied regardless of the risk of transmission or exposure. One would think that the government would be happy to include an exception for those who take a rapid test. If people have just completed a negative rapid test, they are obviously at much lower risk of having and transmitting COVID-19 than if they were vaccinated a significant number of months ago. I think that is fairly clear in terms of the scientific data that we have right now, and yet people who have not been tested recently can get on an airplane if they were vaccinated, but if they have just produced a negative test and they are not vaccinated, then they cannot get on the plane.

This is clearly not about risk to other people on the airplane. It is clearly not about risk to other people in that space. It is about the government trying to be as punitive as possible toward those who have made a personal choice with respect to their health.

We have federal mandates that say to public servants who work from home that they have to be on leave. That does not make any sense. Those mandates do not affect just the unvaccinated; they affect vaccinated people who rely on federal government services. We are seeing in immigration and so many other departments delays in the provision of government services and major gaps in terms of the provision of key government services. People need to wait years for their citizenship application to be processed. People who are trying to sponsor refugees in vulnerable situations need to wait three years before they can privately sponsor someone to come to Canada. It may be that a contributing factor to that is that the government has told people who work in immigration processing and other areas, even if they are working from home, that they cannot continue to work if they are making a choice not to get vaccinated. How does that make sense?

For all members of the government know, the people they are interacting with on public transit and servers at restaurants close to the Hill at the various receptions they are going to may or may not be vaccinated, yet they insist that public servants who are working from home providing vital service to Canadians in immigration processing or working on providing support to people who are filing their taxes, and other areas, have to be vaccinated or they will be put on leave, again, even if they are working from home.

These mandates clearly do not make any sense. They have never made sense, because they are not applied with a view to risk; they are applied solely with the objective of being as punitive as possible toward those who have chosen not to be vaccinated. Why else would these have happened?

At this point in time, where we are today, in May 2022, let us acknowledge that any meaningful impact on vaccination rates of these coercive mechanisms has now run its course. I do not think these mandates made sense at any point in time, but certainly at this point, any people who are going to be impacted in their vaccination choices by these coercive tools have already had the opportunity to consider the impacts, and if they are not vaccinated, they have definitively, despite the coercive pressure from the government, chosen not to.

It is time now for the government to recognize that people have been presented with information and they have made the choices they want to make. Now, proposing the spending of another up to $300 million to promote mandates at the provincial level just does not make any sense. Let us recognize that at this stage, two years after the start of the pandemic, many Canadians have been vaccinated and we have worked hard to address the issues we need to address in terms of health care capacity and other things, and it is time now to try to move forward.

People I talk to across the country, including in my riding, do not want to see the permanent realization of vaccine mandates. We saw at times the government proposing funding for three years of vaccine mandates, and it is simply grossly unfair that people would be still, and possibly in the future, prevented from getting on airplanes, prevented from seeing family members and prevented from coming into Parliament in the event that they are not vaccinated, especially given that people from federal jurisdictions are going out and participating in things where they are interacting with people without masks and people who are not vaccinated.

In the time I have left, I want to comment on the principle behind vaccine mandates. It was interesting in question period to hear the transport minister say that we cannot at the same time think that vaccines are useful from a health perspective and also say that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that the button the member is wearing is in reference to what is definitely known to be a political statement in here, talking about ending mandates. We all know, and in particular this member does, that we are not supposed to be wearing any kind of buttons that promote any kind of political agenda or statement in that manner, and the member is clearly disregarding that rule. I am wondering if you could politely ask him to remove it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure. Maybe the hon. member can tell me what his button says so in that way I will be more clear about my decision, but I want to remind members that I have asked members not to wear buttons in the House unless it is something that has been approved throughout the House.

If the hon. member can tell me what his button says, then I will be able to better say whether he should remove it right now.

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

Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge that the member might have a point. I did not intend to leave this button on for this speech. I will tell them, since members are curious, that it says “end federal mandates”. I could also table the button if—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the hon. member to remove the button. I will remind members not to wear buttons in the House unless it is something that is being supported throughout the House itself, such as the Moose Hide Campaign or the White Ribbon Campaign.

We are now at the time for closure, unfortunately.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, certainly in light of the conversation that was just had, I would hope that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to support the message of “end the mandates” here in this place. I would ask for unanimous consent in that regard.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has asked for unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that the House rules are that these are props and they are not to be used in the House. It is not the first time that we have had to raise that with different members of the House. I would again ask members not to wear buttons. It is certainly a conversation that we will have at the House Speakers' breakfast, whenever we have it next. There are to be no buttons at all.

I would say that if the respect is not going to be there for the Speaker's ruling, then I would ask those members not to come to the House if they prefer to wear the button.

It being 3:51 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 28, 2022—

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

Madam Speaker, I know you mentioned that the time for debate on Bill C-8 was over. My impression was that it was going until 4 o'clock, and that was counting five hours from a particular point. I just wonder if the table might be able to inform us when that clock on the five hours began and therefore when it finishes.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

After question period, there were 23 minutes left, which led us to 3:51 p.m..

It being 3:51 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 28, 2022, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to the House]

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment to the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 4, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The House resumed from May 3, 2022, 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 third time and passed, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It being 3:50 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the sub-amendment to the amendment on the motion at third reading of Bill C-8.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #73

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the subamendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. House leader for the official opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #74

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. opposition House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #75

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)