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.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, a couple of the Liberal colleagues today have put out this statistic that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax. That is completely and utterly false. We know that the vast majority of farmers pay much more in carbon taxes than they would get in any rebate. In Bill C-8, which I am sure my colleague is referring to, the average farm gets about 15% to 20% back on its carbon tax. However, there is no exemption on natural gas and propane, which we are talking about today.

Can my colleague please table with the House the document that states that 97% of farmers are exempt from the carbon tax? I would love to see where the Liberals come up with that number.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand up and speak to Bill C-47, the Liberals' budget bill. Certainly, I have had an opportunity to speak with my constituents with respect to the concerns that they have about this Liberal legislation. The thing that has been raised the most is that, going into the budget, they were told by the Liberal finance minister that there would be some fiscal restraint. Maybe for the first time in the Liberals' eight years in power, there would be a commitment to fiscal common sense. However, that certainly did not happen in this budget; we now see a $43-billion deficit. If that is the Liberals' definition of fiscal restraint, I would hate to see what happens when they turn on the taps and say that they are going to spend unreservedly.

When it comes to Canadians, the Liberals are now asking every single Canadian family to contribute an additional $4,300 to the Liberal government coffers to pay for their spending. I want Canadians across the country to have a different perspective on what the Liberals are asking them to do. I am asking Canadians to consider themselves shareholders in the corporation of Canada. Every single Canadian is a shareholder in this country. When the Liberals say they are taking on this debt so that Canadians do not have to, it is extremely misleading. The main funder of this corporation of Canada is the Canadian taxpayer. Therefore, if I am the Liberal Minister of Finance and I am asking Canadians to fund our $43-billion deficit spending with an additional $4,300 per family, as the shareholder of that company, the first question I am going to ask is this: “What is my return on investment? What is my ROI on an additional call-out for cash from the Liberal government?”

If the Liberal government has to explain to Canadians what their ROI is on that additional tax grab, it is a pretty tough sell. We Canadians have a $30-billion-plus Infrastructure Bank that has not built a single project. We have chaos at the airports. We cannot get a passport if we want one. People might not be able to get their questions on their tax returns answered by the CRA. The carbon tax is going up, and we are going to have skyrocketing inflation and food prices. We have lost the respect of our most trusted trading partners. We cannot fund our own military and defend ourselves or respond to crises around the world. Other than that, Canadians' investment is well spent with the Liberal government in the corporation of Canada.

How would any common-sense Canadian feel that this has been a good return on their investment? I would say that there is not a single Canadian who would say that the current Liberal government has been a good steward of Canadian tax dollars. I would say there is no government in Canadian history that has spent so much to achieve so little. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has spent so much on the bureaucracy and the public service to see it come to a state of such dysfunction. I do not think there is a Canadian government in history that has been so committed to taxing Canadians into submission.

I do not think there is any better example than the Liberals' carbon tax. At a time of 40-year record-high inflation and a struggling economy coming out of COVID and the pandemic, no other government in the world was increasing taxes through a carbon tax. Our number one trading partner, the United States, does not have a carbon tax; the carbon tax is putting us, our farmers, our ranchers, our food producers, our manufacturers and Canadian industry at a stark competitive disadvantage.

What makes it more frustrating for those Canadians who are being asked to contribute more to the Liberals' out-of-control spending is that the Liberal carbon tax has been proven to be a sham. The latest reports confirm that the Liberals have not met a single environmental emissions target they have set for themselves. Now the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed what we have pretty much known all along, which is that the carbon tax costs Canadians more than they get back from the Liberals' sham of a rebate. In fact, it is going to cost every Canadian family and certainly every Alberta family about $1,500 a year. What a surprise that Canadians are not better off paying a higher tax. I would ask the Liberal government to show me any tax that has made Canadians better off.

We knew this when the Liberals brought in the carbon tax rebate for farmers that was supposed to make farmers whole. It was going to be revenue-neutral. However, we have now seen the numbers, and farmers get about 15% back in the carbon tax rebate from Bill C-8. This is nothing new.

The Liberals have been telling Canadians for years that they get more money back than they pay in the carbon tax through rebates, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer made it glaringly clear that this is not the case. It is costing Canadians money. Rather than admit their mistake and say that the carbon tax is a scam, the Liberals are doubling down. They increased the carbon tax again on April 1, and on July 1, it will be imposed on Atlantic Canadians: happy Canada Day.

What the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition does not understand is that there are very real consequences to these types of decisions. For example, when the carbon tax is tripled by 2030, it will cost an average Canadian farm $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone. It is going to put the financial viability of Canadian agriculture and agri-food in jeopardy. It makes us uncompetitive. We already had the most expensive harvest in Canadian history last year, and this is only going to add to those input costs.

For the average Canadian, the consequences are very simple. Higher carbon taxes mean higher production costs and higher prices at the grocery store. Every single Canadian is paying the price for the carbon tax coalition, and they are paying for it at the grocery store when they buy bread, pasta, fruit, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs. They are paying for it over and over again.

I had a constituent family with four kids tell me their grocery bill went up $700 a month. I do not know very many Canadian families that could afford that. Again, we are seeing the consequences of that when one out of five Canadian families is skipping meals because they cannot afford groceries. They cannot afford to put food on the table for their families. They are having to make that decision to pay their mortgage and their heat and power bills by skipping a meal.

We had the CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto come to the agriculture committee a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about food security. His comment was that their numbers in March quadrupled from what they would normally see in visitors to the food bank. He called the numbers they are seeing “startling” and “horrific”. He has been quoted as saying, “we are in a crisis. The Daily Food Bank and food banks [in Toronto] are at a breaking point”. There are very real consequences when we increase costs and taxes on Canadians and food production. The numbers we are seeing at the food bank are a direct consequence of that.

Canada's food price index is showing that groceries for a family of four are going to go up another $1,000 in 2023. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse if the Liberal government continues with the policies it is imposing. A recent study that came out last week from Dalhousie University is bracing Canadians for even higher food prices. The study says that, by 2030, the average food price is going to go up 35%. Bread will go up 35%; dairy, 40%; fruit and vegetables, 29%; and meat, 45%. That is what may happen if the Liberals continue on this ideological policy drive that they are on. Increased carbon taxes are increasing production costs, regulation and red tape on transportation and supply chain, which means direct costs to Canadians.

The solution to higher food prices and higher food costs is simple, and one of the steps the Liberals could take is eliminating the carbon tax. It is not meeting any environmental targets that they are setting themselves, and it is certainly causing more pain than anything else. When the carbon tax is tripled, it may cost an average Alberta family $2,200 a year.

In conclusion, I ask the NDP-Liberal carbon tax coalition to reflect on the hurt and the pain they are putting on Canadians. In fact, the NDP used to be the party of Canadian farmers. I wonder why it has lost that support over the years. Maybe they should take some time to reflect on what happened.

We cannot support this budget. As Conservatives, we are going to stand up for Canadian families and affordability, not the ideological policy that is hurting Canadians.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join the proceedings virtually to talk about Bill C-234, but let me start by saying it has been a difficult day for my family. This morning, we had to put down our beloved Bernese mountain dog, Sulley. If you would permit me, I would like to put his memory on the record in Hansard.

As all of us do as colleagues, I have what I call the “grand bargain” in terms of the partnership I have with my wife in order to be able to pursue this job to the greatest extent that I could. Back in 2019, when I first got involved in public life, that was the bargain, that we had to get a dog. My wife said that if I was going to be away participating in debates, she needed someone at home with her. Sulley has been with us ever since my first day in public life. He was a special dog. I know everyone who has an animal would say that, but with his demeanour, his poise and his presence, he is going to be missed. This is a small way in which I can make sure his memory is on the record and in Hansard for life.

It has been a difficult morning, but let me also reiterate the importance of working virtually. My colleagues know that if there is any opportunity for me to be in the House, I will be there, but this morning gave me an opportunity to be with my wife and my dog and also be able to speak to this really important bill. It is not without its challenges, but the virtual tools are extremely important for parliamentarians to be able to do their work.

Let me get to Bill C-234. This bill would expand existing exemptions under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. When this government was developing its carbon price plan, there was considerable thought given to exempting on-farm fuels from the carbon price. Let me just say that I have had a front-row seat to this particular bill as the proud chair of the agriculture committee. We have had the opportunity to study it and to hear from witnesses, and that was one thing that was covered.

There are a number of existing exemptions for those involved in the greenhouse sector for on-farm fuel use. There is already no carbon price applied. However, at the time the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was developed, it seems as though there was not necessarily a lot of thought given to grain drying and, particularly, to barn heating for livestock. That is exactly what this bill tries to do. It would extend to what a number of policy-makers feel was a small oversight at the time of the original drafting of the legislation that brought the carbon price into force.

At its core, carbon pricing is about changing behaviour and driving innovation to be able to get around what is a market signal around the price. Sometimes that is easier said than done. In the case of grain drying, we have heard repeatedly from witnesses who have knowledge on this subject that although there may be some techniques down the line and there is work being done, there is nothing commercially available to Canadian farmers at a scale that is needed right now to be able to meet that demand.

On barn heating, certainly it is a little less objective that there are no alternatives, but the committee unanimously amended this legislation to make sure that we were focused on just barn heating for animals. When we think about poultry barns, propane and natural gas are often used to make sure that even in the coldest winters the animals are protected and are in a comfortable temperature. That source is needed and although technologies are forthcoming, they are not readily available at this time.

That brings me to my second point, which is around the sunset clause. Parliamentarians are not saying that this is forever. This is an eight-year exemption sunset clause, which is anticipating that some of the technologies that carbon pricing, government policy, and innovation in the private sector alone are driving are going to make it perhaps more plausible by around 2030-31 that this bill will not necessarily be necessary and farmers can be making those important investments accordingly.

That brings me back to the point that it is difficult for farmers to be able to get around this carbon price, in the sense that there are not those technologies. Of course, we would all want to be able to do so, but if there are no readily available techniques to do so, it does have a punitive measure to a certain extent.

I am sympathetic to the government position, to a certain extent, because for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, the carbon pricing regime is seen as a way to incentivize major transitional projects and investments to reduce carbon emissions, by economists and governments around the world. There are 46 other countries around the world that have some form of carbon pricing.

There are people, organizations and groups all seeking exemptions along the line. I can appreciate the concern from the government's side that if we give an exemption in one particular area it may create a cascading impact to suggest that more should be done for other industries. That may be the case, but on this particular issue, as it relates to the evidence we heard, the government is well within its right to move in this direction without necessarily opening the door to other exemptions where the technology may not be available. We are talking about something quite fundamental, which is input costs associated with farmers across the country, which plays into the price of food.

The government, to its credit, has sought to redress this issue. It was in what was formerly Bill C-8. What happens is that all the revenue collected under the carbon price at farm level is aggregated and then brought back to farmers on the basis of the size of revenue on the said farm, so there is a return model.

However, as has been noted in the debate, this does not take into account the actual elements of what a farmer may produce. For example, a dairy farmer may not actually be grain-drying and may not be incurring some of those costs, so there is no ability to return it on an equitable scale that actually takes into consideration the farmers who do not have the readily available tools, to be able to return that in a way that is not being punitive to certain industries.

This bill is the best pathway to be able to move forward.

The second thing is around the affordability of food. There have been lots of conversations about that. Our agriculture committee is studying the price of food right now. We have had the opportunity to hear from grocery CEOs, farmers and industry stakeholders. I do not think this should be overplayed, but even though it will not be a silver bullet in a moment when food prices are high, it will be a small step toward alleviating some of the costs that may be incurred, at a moment when there is not really an ability to actually innovate and drive the technological change we may want to see.

The member for Timmins—James Bay kind of suggested the government has no programs in place to help incentivize technological change and innovation on farm. I would disagree, respectfully, with the hon. member. This government has put nearly a billion dollars over the last two budgets toward just that: measures that help drive down emissions on farm. This government is supportive. This government has put money back to farmers to do exactly that. In this particular instance, it is about correcting a small miscue that would have happened back in 2018 when this legislation was originally drafted.

Mr. Speaker, you and I, both in the Annapolis Valley, share one of the largest agriculture ridings and concentrations of farms in Atlantic Canada. It is the largest concentration east of Quebec. With the federal pricing coming into effect in Nova Scotia by July 1, this bill has added importance for my constituents and the farmers in Kings—Hants. It is reasonable and sensible public policy, and I will be supporting it when it comes up for a vote on Wednesday.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill and the opportunity to memorialize our boy, Sullivan. I will leave it at that. I look forward to seeing members in Ottawa later this evening.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much I can cover in a minute, but I will say that I find it quite interesting that the Conservatives, through this bill, and I recognize it is a private member's bill, have spent a great deal of time talking about the need to support farmers, yet when Bill C-8 was brought into the House, it took quite a while as a result of Conservative partisanship and Conservative games that were being played. That bill, in particular, helped 24,000 farmers throughout Canada. We talk about the need to assist our farmers throughout the country, but when push came to shove and there was an actual piece of government legislation before the House, it was actually Conservatives who were playing endless games in order to prevent the legislation from moving forward.

There is no doubt that farmers are on the front line of the climate crisis—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to take part in today's third reading debate on private member's bill, Bill C-234.

As our government has made clear over the course of this debate, ensuring the strength of Canada's agricultural sector is of crucial importance. Canadian agriculture is a cornerstone of rural communities across the country. It feeds and sustains our urban centres and is fundamental to our overall economic performance. Our farmers also help feed the world.

I will tell us that this issue is very close to me personally. My father and mother both grew up on farms and I visited our family farm every summer.

The supply chain and inflationary aftershocks of the global COVID pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine have underscored the importance of ensuring that Canada's farmers remain competitive and that our agricultural production continues to grow.

Our government is delivering effective support to Canada's farmers to make that happen.

However, contrary to what is being proposed in Bill C‑234, we are doing so in a way that does not negatively impact important objectives such as fighting climate change or ensuring that the tax system treats Canadians fairly and equitably.

An official from the Department of Finance explained how this will work in his testimony at committee stage of private member's Bill C-234. As he explained, the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act currently provides upfront relief from the fuel charged to farmers for gasoline and diesel used in eligible farming machinery, such as farm trucks and tractors. He added that the GGPPA also provides relief of 80% of the fuel charged for natural gas and propane used to heat an eligible greenhouse.

He went on to explain that recognizing that many farmers use natural gas and propane in their operations, Bill C-8 introduced a refundable tax credit in order to return a portion of fuel charge proceeds to farm businesses operating in the backstop jurisdictions of Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta, starting with the 2021-22 fuel charge year. I would note that since this statement was made, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island are being added to those backstop jurisdictions.

However, what the Department of Finance official said at the time still applies today. He said, and I quote:

Through the refundable tax credit, the total amount to be returned is generally equal to the estimated fuel charge proceeds from farm use of propane and natural gas in heating and drying activities in backstop provinces. This ensures that all the proceeds collected from this farming activity are returned to farmers. It is estimated that farmers will receive $100 million in the first year, with this amount expected to increase as the price on carbon pollution rises.

He went on to say, and I quote:

In this manner, the credit aims to help farmers transition to lower-carbon ways of farming by providing support to farmers, while also maintaining the price signal to reduce emissions.

This is a different approach than that proposed in private member's Bill C-234. Bill C-234 would directly relieve fuel charges on natural gas and propane used in eligible farming activities and thus would completely remove the price signal intended by the carbon pricing regime.

As he concluded, if fuel charge relief for farmers was extended through Bill C-234, farmers in backstop jurisdictions would receive double the compensation by benefiting from the refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, while also being almost fully relieved from the fuel charge. Such double compensation would come at the expense of households or other sectors in those provinces. This would not only be unfair to other taxpayers, but it would also undermine our efforts to address climate change, which itself is a grave threat to the viability of our agricultural sector and a key reason why we are taking action to address it.

Letting climate change run unchecked is simply not an option for our government. We know for a fact that farmers across the country are experiencing the impacts of climate change first-hand, like droughts and floods. It is hitting their bottom line, and to their great credit, they are taking action to address it. Farmers have been leading the adoption of climate-friendly practices, like precision agriculture technology and low-till techniques, which could help reduce emissions and save them both time and money.

Our government is taking action to support them. Our recent budget, for example, proposes to provide a further $329.4 million in remaining amortization to triple the size of the agricultural clean technology program. It proposes $150 million for a resilient agricultural landscape program to support carbon sequestration and adaptation and address other environmental co-benefits, with the details of this to be discussed and worked out with provinces and territories.

It also proposes to provide $100 million over six years, starting in 2022-23, to the federal granting councils to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that would allow for net-zero emission agriculture, and it proposes to provide $469.5 million over six years, with $0.5 million in remaining amortization, starting in 2022-23, to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to expand the agricultural climate solutions program's on-farm climate action fund.

Moreover, the budget proposes renewing the Canadian agricultural partnership, which delivers a range of support programs for farmers and agriculture in partnership with both provincial and territorial governments.

Each year, these programs provide $600 million to support agricultural innovation, sustainability, competitiveness and market development. This includes a comprehensive suite of business risk management programs to help Canadian farmers cope with volatile markets and disaster situations, delivering approximately $2 billion of support on average per year. At the same time, as pointed out by the finance official at committee stage, Canada's agricultural sector already receives significant relief under the federal carbon pollution pricing system compared to other sectors.

These are the right ways to help farmers increase production while addressing climate change that threatens production.

Our pollution pricing system simply seeks to recognize that pollution has a price and to encourage cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. The federal government will not keep any direct proceeds from the federal carbon pollution pricing system. Under our plan, any proceeds from the carbon pollution pricing system are returned to the jurisdictions from which they were collected.

Our pollution pricing system is simply about recognizing that pollution has a cost and encouraging cleaner growth and a more sustainable future. Returning these proceeds helps Canadians make more environmentally sustainable consumption choices, but it does not change the incentive to pollute less. With this system, not just farmers but also consumers and businesses have a financial incentive to choose greener options every time they make a purchase or investment decision.

Canada has been a world leader in fighting climate change through pollution pricing. We should not do anything that would undermine this achievement, as Bill C-234 would, for the reasons I have set out here today.

I am thankful for the opportunity to make the government's position clear in this regard.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the best decisions this member has made was seeing the clock to private members' time today so I have to give him credit for that.

In regard to Bill C-8, the bill he is talking about, almost half of my speech talked about the critiques that were in that and that was to do with the rebate. The rebate falls short. I hate to say it. One can go to any farmer in any province and they will tell us that if one has $1.73 or $1.47 per $1,000 allowable expenses and if one has half a million dollars or a million dollars in allowable expenses, how is a $1,700 cheque going to help out? It does not help out at all.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk at great length about supporting farmers. He said that any measures we are able to come up with we should do expeditiously to provide that support. However, I can not help but reflect on the fact that for Bill C-8, which was specifically intended for and helped 24,000 farmers throughout the country, the Conservative Party and this member put up roadblocks by bringing in various political games to avoid the passage of the bill, a bill that would directly impact and provide supports to farmers.

I am curious if the member can rectify the fact that, although he says it now, that was not what we saw when Bill C-8 was before us, which had support in it for 24,000 farmers.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for tabling this opposition motion today as it shows our farmers, producers and ranchers, as well as consumers across Canada, that the Conservative Party certainly understands food security and their economic viability.

In my opinion, the Liberals have a stark decision to make in the next few months. The decision is either to continue on this activist, ideological agenda, increasing carbon taxes and taxes on producers, or to start to understand that food security and the cost of food should be a priority for all Canadians. For a government that prides itself on making science-based decisions, clearly the policies it is putting forward are not based on sound science.

What is stark and what is really the impetus for the motion is the new 2023 food price report. It showed that by 2030, when the carbon tax would be tripled by the Liberals, farmers of a 5,000-acre farm, not a large farm by any means but a typical one, would pay $150,000 a year in carbon tax. I would ask the government how it could possibly think a farm family is going to absorb that cost and still be able to produce affordable, nutritious food, not only for Canadians but to help feed the world.

How does the Liberal government possibly feel a farm family could absorb $150,000 a year in carbon taxes alone and still remain economically viable? It simply cannot. That is the stark reality the Liberal government needs to understand sooner rather than later. When it makes these extreme ideological policies, there are consequences.

Part of that food report also stated that the average family of four would see its grocery bill go up more than $1,000 a year to a total of close to $17,000 a year in one year alone. The consequence of that, as we saw in March, is that 1.5 million Canadians were accessing a food bank, the highest number in our history. I cannot believe this is happening in Canada, a G7 country, where we are unable to feed our own people and where food security is at risk.

As my colleague said in response to the Bloc question, we did have the third-best harvest in our history this year. Why, if we had such a great harvest, are we talking about food insecurity and the economic viability of our farms, which are at risk? When there is a large harvest, the issue is that if the input costs far exceed the value of that crop, then the farmer is further behind at the end of the year rather than being ahead.

At committee yesterday, we had Rebecca Lee, executive director of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, say that 44% of its members are selling their products at a loss. Almost half of the produce growers in Canada are selling their products at a loss. They cannot afford the massive increases in fertilizer costs. They cannot afford the massive increases in fuel costs.

How long does the Liberal government expect these farmers are going to stay in business? If they go out of business, we have to import more of those foods from other countries around the world. What will that do to our GHG emissions? What will that do to the government's climate change philosophy and policies?

We had Dr. Sylvain Charlebois at committee, one of the most respected food scientists in the country, from Dalhousie University. I am paraphrasing a bit, but he basically said, and I quote this part, the carbon tax is a bad idea. The carbon tax is putting farms out of business and putting our food security at risk. That is one of the top food scientists in Canada. He is saying the carbon tax is a bad idea and we are losing farms as a result of it.

When we lose farms, food prices go up. When food prices go up, food security is an issue. As a result, we see what has happened with more Canadians having to use the food bank.

There is more to that as well. This is where I think the Liberals are missing the point when they make these decisions not based on sound science and data.

For example, we asked the Minister of Agriculture yesterday at committee why the Liberals are imposing these massive carbon tax increases on Canadian farmers when we are already more efficient than any other country on earth. The data show that out of Canada's total GHG emissions, which is about 2%, 8% of that comes from agriculture. That is 8% of 2%. That is infinitesimal on the global scale. The global average is 26%. That is a stark contrast when comparing where we are to the rest of the world. Why is the Liberal government not celebrating those achievements of Canadian agriculture?

Instead of punishing farmers with massive increases in the carbon tax, which is going to have a profound impact on food security in Canada, why is the government not saying to the rest of the world, “If you want to reduce your GHG emissions from agriculture, we are already there and we will show you how to get there. Use our technology and our practices, and we will export our manufacturing”?

We are already using zero till. We are already using cover crop. We are already using precision agriculture. We manufacture air drills in Canada that we are happy to export for other countries to use in their production. We use 4R nutrient stewardship. All of these things are already being used in Canada, but they seem to be ignored by the current government.

We asked the minister yesterday how she expects the family farm to absorb these types of costs. Her answer was that she does not understand what our definition of a family farm is. She is the Minister of Agriculture. If anyone should know what a family farm is, it is the Minister of Agriculture.

What makes it worse is the Liberals put forward Bill C-8, which included a rebate on the carbon tax for farms. We know from the Ontario grain farmers association that their members get back about 15% of what they spend on the carbon tax. Finance Canada said the average payback for a farm family is about $860. The government can compare that to the $150,000 that the farmers are going to be paying. They are going to get $1,000 back. Does the Minister of Agriculture not understand that? She was saying the families are going to get that back, but that the farm is a business. Ninety-five per cent of farms in Canada are family farms, owned by the family. Yes, they may be incorporated, but they are family farms. It is not possible to separate one from the other.

That is why we put forward our private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to help with grain drying, heating of barns and those operations that are integral to the family farm. We have the support of all the opposition parties on that private member's bill, including the Bloc, the NDP and the Green Party. The opposition understands how important agriculture is to the Canadian economy and our food security not only here at home, but around the world.

I am hoping the opposition parties also will be supporting our opposition motion today. It reinforces the importance of Canadian agriculture, and that the decisions impacting our families must be based on sound science and sound data. Instead of apologizing for the incredible achievements of Canadian agriculture, a Canadian government should be going around the world, as proud as it can be, being a champion of what we do and not apologizing for it.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should read his own legislation. The farm tax rebate, through Bill C-8, gives farmers pennies on the dollar back on what they spend on the carbon tax. The result of that is Saskatchewan farmers just had the most expensive harvest in their history. Their on-farm costs exceeded $11 billion, the highest year-over-year increase since 2012. On-farm fuel has more than doubled, and the cost of fertilizer is up 110%. The carbon tax is pounding farmers to the ground and putting our food security at risk.

What will it take for the Prime Minister to cancel his plan to triple the tax on food, fuel and farmers?

Opposition Motion—High Food Prices

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it a difficult task to follow the leader of the official opposition, but I will do my best to carry on with our message about the NDP opposition day motion, which I also agree does not go far enough. It does not put a lot of the blame on the inflationary crisis we face where most of it belongs, which is on government spending.

We cannot say that CEOs, corporate Canada or global companies are driving inflation when we have a federal government that has put in half a trillion dollars in spending, which is having a significant impact on the prices that Canadians are facing all across the board.

I find it interesting that we see a bit of schizophrenia with our NDP colleagues, where with every opportunity they have to support increased spending and the tripling of the carbon tax, they vote with the government, yet their motion today attempts to try to make life more affordable for Canadians.

In question period yesterday, the leader of the NDP had concerns about rising gas prices, especially in his province of B.C. where fuel has hit $2.40 a litre. That is exactly what Liberal and NDP policy wants to achieve. It wants us to have higher fuel prices. It wants to force us to drive our cars less. I am sure that works in many of my colleagues' urban communities. Some days they can park their cars and take public transit or ride their bikes. My riding is almost 30,000 square kilometres.

Public transit does not exist in my riding. My constituents must drive their car. They must drive long distances to work. They must heat their homes and their barns in -40°C weather in January. These are the facts of life. These are the necessities of life. These are not extravagant choices; they have to do that. In response to that, our Liberal colleagues, supported by the NDP, want to triple the carbon tax.

I am going to focus a little on the agricultural sector and the impact that is having on rural economies and rural Canadians. I would argue that rural Canadians, especially our farmers, producers and ranchers, pay the carbon tax over and over again.

It was interesting to hear my Liberal colleague say that while farmers were price-takers, the carbon tax did not have an impact on the price of food. It is true that they are price-takers. However, when we triple the carbon tax, we triple the price of fuel. We saw the price of fertilizer go up 100% last year. That does not include the 35% tariff on fertilizer from Russia and Belarus. That impacts hauling their grain, hauling their cattle and transportation to the terminal. Every single time they are paying that carbon tax over and over again.

The company or rail company hauling their grain passes that carbon tax on to the consumer. Every time those prices go up on those transportation or commodity services, it impacts the price of food. That is why we have seen the cost of groceries go up more than 10%, the highest rate of inflation in more than 40 years.

Therefore, I understand my NDP colleagues when they say that the CEOs in Canada should pay their fair share. I agree with that. Every Canadian should pay their fair share. The Liberal government has been in power for seven years. If there are loopholes, it should be holding taxpayers accountable for paying their fair share. Obviously, it has not done that. However, to shift the blame from where it lies to other parts of the economy is disingenuous.

An interesting statistic came up yesterday at the agriculture committee, and I want to highlight it. We heard it from my Bloc colleague, who I have a lot of respect for as well. Climate change is real, but to put the price of fighting climate change on the backs of Canadian farmers is not fair. Let us be real here, as my colleague was saying. Let us have an honest conversation about this. GHG intensity in agriculture is about 28% globally. What it is in Canada? It is 8%. We are tenfold better than any other country in the world when it comes to GHG emissions and intensity in the agriculture sector in Canada.

With respect to the fertilizer issue, the Liberal government wants to see a 30% reduction in fertilizer use. As I said, grocery prices have gone up 10%. If the Liberals follow through with this policy, all I can say to Canadian consumers is “you ain't seen nothing yet”. When farmers have to see their yields go down between 30% and 50%, depending on what the commodity is, that means significantly lower yields and significantly higher grocery prices. That has nothing to do with the CEO of Loblaws. That has exactly to do with government policy put forward by the Liberals.

Again, what makes that so frustrating is they are saying to Canadian farmers that they are not part of the solution; they are the problem. Canadian farmers are 50% to 70% more efficient in their fertilizer use than any other country on planet earth. Instead of congratulating them for that and going around the world saying that we are the gold standard and here is where everybody else in the world should go, we are apologizing and dragging our farmers down to where everybody else is. That is the wrong philosophy and certainly the wrong policy.

All that is doing is making our farmers worse off. It is also more harmful to the environment, and food prices will go up. It is a triple whammy. Instead of doing the right thing and being a champion and advocate for Canadian farmers, we are going in the exact opposite direction.

There are other policies the Liberals have put forward that have made the cost of groceries and the cost of food go up, and I really want to focus on this part. I am going to backtrack a little to the carbon tax again. My colleague from the Bloc brought that up. In the agriculture committee, we are talking about Bill C-234, a private member's bill brought forward by the Conservatives to exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax on farms. This is a critical piece of legislation that would ensure our farmers are able to remain competitive on the global stage. However, the Liberals are arguing that we do not need Bill C-234 because farmers get a rebate through Bill C-8.

We now know from Finance Canada officials that the average farmer will get about $800 back a year through that rebate. We also know that farmers pay close to $50,000 a year on average in carbon tax. I asked a representative from Finance Canada how they could argue that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral when they were admitting that the average farmer is getting about $800 to $860 back. His answer was that if we made it revenue-neutral, urban Canadians would have to subsidize that. Okay. He was telling me that rural Canadians were subsidizing the carbon tax and wealth redistribution for urban Canadians. That is what he was telling me.

That is not what the Liberal policy on the carbon tax was. They said it was going to be revenue-neutral and that eight out of 10 families would get more back than they paid. That is baloney. Rural Canadians are suffering and certainly paying significantly more in carbon tax than other Canadians. That is not what the Liberals are selling. Again, it is Liberal policy that is driving inflation and driving up the price of food.

It is going to get worse. Although we had a bit of a win this spring when we got the Liberals to back down on front-of-pack labelling on ground beef and pork, they are still going ahead with front-of-pack labelling on most other products. The cost of that is going to be $1.8 billion to the industry. Who do we think pays for that? I can guarantee that Galen Weston at Loblaws is not covering that cost. I can guarantee that French's ketchup is not covering that cost. They are passing that right on to the consumer.

Again, a Liberal policy that no one asked for and serves very little purpose is going to be passing on $2 billion in costs to the Canadian consumer for no reason. That is not to mention that the United States has already identified this policy as a trade irritant. Therefore, not only are we upsetting Canadian consumers, but we are also upsetting our number one trading partner, which is looking for every excuse possible to fight back against Canadian trade.

In conclusion, I appreciate what my NDP colleague is trying to achieve with this motion, and there are many portions of it that we agree with. Certainly CEOs should pay their fair share and affordable food should be available for every Canadian, but the facts are the facts. Inflation is being driven by ideological, activist policy by the Liberal government. That should be the focus of the House.

Cost of Living Relief Act, No. 2

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-31, which is legislation styled as an act respecting cost of living relief measures. I emphasize “styled” as an act respecting cost of living relief measures, because the measures put forward in the bill can at best be described as half-measures and band-aid solutions that fail to address the root causes of the cost of living crisis faced by everyday Canadians.

The bill offers measures by throwing some money here and throwing some money there, all in a desperate effort by a desperate government to make it appear that it is doing something, anything, to address the cost of living crisis, a crisis of this Liberal government's own making. I have to say that it is a bit ironic that, even though the bill is styled as legislation to address the cost of living crisis, it would, in fact, exacerbate the cost of living crisis. It would do so because it comes with a price tag of several billion dollars that would be borrowed and would pour fuel on the inflationary fire that is at the heart of Canada's cost of living crisis.

The cost of living crisis cannot be understated. It is happening. It is real, and Canadians are hurting like never before. Inflation is at a 40-year high. It hit 8.1% in June. Inflation for essentials such as food is even higher. Grocery prices are increasing at a faster rate than we have seen in 40 years, with food inflation hitting 10.8%. When one looks at some dietary essentials, prices have gone up even more. Fresh fruit is up 13.2%. Eggs are up 10.9%. Bread is up 17.6%. Pasta is up 32.4%. I could go on. The average family of four is now spending $1,200 more this year over last for groceries. That is $1,200 more this year over last year just to put food on the table.

While members opposite and their coalition partners in the NDP will undoubtedly pat themselves on the back for handing out $500 rent cheques, which, by the way, most renters would not even qualify for, that is a mere fraction of the increased cost that Canadians are paying just to put food on the table. It underscores the severity of the cost of living crisis and the empty response on the part of this government in tackling it.

How did we get into this mess in the first place? Undoubtedly there are a number of factors, but perhaps the biggest factor is the government's reckless fiscal policies and the government's out-of-control spending. Never in Canadian history have we had a government that has spent more, borrowed more and added more debt. To put it in some context, in the past seven years, the Prime Minister has accumulated more debt than all the debt accumulated in the 148 years of Canada's history leading up to the election of this government.

The Prime Minister has added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined. That is staggering. It demonstrates a total lack of prudence and a complete recklessness on the part of the government, which has now resulted in this cost of living crisis with 40-year-high inflation. The government told us not to worry and that it can spend and spend some more because interest rates are low, until they are not.

We saw the highest increase in interest rates in a quarter of a century last summer and interest rates are undoubtedly going to go up even further. The Liberals say they had no choice because of COVID, except when one looks at the facts, the government cannot hide behind COVID as an excuse for its out-of-control spending.

Let us look at some of those facts. To begin with, the government added $100 billion in debt in its first five years in office, before COVID hit. In other words, the government added more debt during the good times, indeed, more debt than any government had accumulated during that period of time, leaving the cupboard bare.

Of the half a trillion dollars in new spending that we have seen over the past two years, this fire hose of spending, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has determined that more than 40% of that is unrelated to COVID. The Liberals say it is because of COVID, yet hundreds of billions of dollars of the half a trillion dollars of new spending, according to the PBO, is unrelated to COVID.

Then, in January, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the stimulus spending was not serving its intended purpose anymore. The PBO effectively called on the government to stop the new spending. What was the government's response to the Parliamentary Budget Officer? It was to do exactly the opposite. The government did the only thing the government knows how to do and that is to spend other people's money, with $71 billion of new spending with Bill C-8, $60 billion in new spending with budget 2022 and now billions more dollars with this inflationary spending bill.

To pay for it all, the government, through the Bank of Canada, did something that no other government has done before, and that is quantitative easing or, in other words, the printing of money. After all of the spending, all of the debt and all of the money printing, there has been a cost. That is the cost of 40-year-high inflation. The more the government spends, the more the cost of living goes up. The more the government spends, the costlier it is for Canadians to purchase goods. Canadians are making less in their paycheques and their purchasing power is being diminished, all because of the government's reckless fiscal policies.

Although we find ourselves in this position of 40-year-high inflation, fuelled by the government's reckless spending, one must say that it ought not have been a surprise to the government that it would find itself in this place. After all, it was quite foreseeable. When we have more money chasing fewer goods, we are going to get inflation. That is called economics 101.

The leader of the official opposition, when he was the shadow minister of finance, called on the government to monitor inflation. He predicted that, if the government did not get spending under control, we would see inflation. What was the response from the finance minister and the Prime Minister? It was to completely ignore the Leader of the Opposition. They said to not worry about inflation and that, if anything, we must be concerned about deflation. How wrong they were.

I guess it is a consequence of having a prime minister who has admitted that he does not think much about monetary policy. Perhaps if he thought a little about monetary policy, we would not find ourselves and the country in this fiscal mess and the consequent cost of living crisis that everyday Canadians are enduring. If the government was serious about addressing the cost of living crisis, it would not be doing what it is doing, but it is doubling down on the same failed approach that got us into this mess in the first place, with even more spending.

What the government should be doing is heeding the advice of the Leader of the Opposition by reining in spending, by restoring a fiscally responsible policy and a sound monetary policy, by finding savings and by rooting out waste in government. There is no shortage of waste to root out.

If the Prime Minister was serious about tackling the cost of living crisis, which begins with tackling the out-of-control spending of the government, the Prime Minister would be doing what the Leader of the Opposition has called on the government to do, which is to introduce legislation such as “pay as you go”, whereby the government must find a dollar of savings for every new dollar of spending.

Some Liberals might scoff at the notion of “pay as you go” legislation, but it has worked. It has worked in the largest democracy and the largest economy in the world, that of the United States. More than 20 years ago, a Republican Congress passed and a Democrat president, Bill Clinton, signed into law “pay as you go” legislation. What was the result? It was a balanced budget for the first time in decades, and the United States paid down more than $400 billion of debt.

Do not expect the current government to implement measures such as this. Do not expect it to rein in spending. Do not expect it to reflect on its failed policies and reverse course, because, on issue after issue, the government's measure of success, as it measures success, is based upon how much it has spent.

We see this with respect to housing. The government has spent billions of dollars, more than $40 billion, on housing. Billions more were announced in budget 2022. What have been the results?

To begin with, the average Canadian is now paying roughly half of their monthly paycheque to cover their monthly housing costs. When the government came to office, the average Canadian was paying roughly 32% of their paycheque. They are now paying 50% of their paycheque. As well, housing prices have doubled. They have gone up 52% in just the past two years.

We have the most land in the G7, and yet we have the fewest houses in the G7 on a per capita basis. The Liberals can pat themselves on the back for spending all this money in housing, but when we look at the results, we have the fewest houses in the G7, among the highest prices, which have doubled under the government's watch, and now Canadians are paying half their paycheques just to put a roof over their heads. I would call that a policy of failure. Canadians certainly have not received good value for all that money that went out the door.

If the government were serious about tackling housing affordability, it, again, would be turning to the Leader of the Opposition, who has put forward a comprehensive plan to make housing more affordable so Canadians can purchase a home or rent a unit, by, among other things, tackling supply, increasing supply, by selling off a portion of the federal government's real estate portfolio to build more housing units and by incentivizing municipalities to allow more houses to be built, including tying federal infrastructure dollars to municipalities based upon new units built. These are reasonable solutions to try to address a very real problem that is impacting so many Canadians.

What is the government's solution? To hand out a $500-rent cheque. Its solution is a $500-rent cheque that does not even cover one week's rent in most Canadian cities. Not only that, more than six out of 10 renters will not even qualify for the cheque, and those who do will see whatever short-term benefit of that $500 eviscerated with the Liberals' inflation, rising interest rates and, most significant, planned Liberal tax hikes in the new year.

At a time when Canadians are paying more in taxes than in housing, transportation, food and clothing combined, at a time when Canadians are faced with 40-year-high inflation, the Liberal government has suddenly decided it is a good time to increase payroll taxes and triple the mother of all taxes, the tax on everything, the hated carbon tax, which, by the way, is contributing to inflation.

It demonstrates that the government is not serious about addressing affordability. If it were, as a starting point, it would heed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and cancel the planned tax hikes. It will not, so we have a government that is with one hand handing out some cheques to some Canadians only to take whatever benefit away with the other hand in the way of planned Liberal tax hikes.

This legislation may be styled as an act respecting cost of living relief measures, but this is not a serious plan to address the cost of living; it is more Liberal smoke and mirrors. It is an empty PR exercise in the absence of a real plan. It is why I will be opposing the bill.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it truly is an honour to speak in support of our opposition day motion for the Liberals not to increase the carbon tax.

I want to read a couple of quotes from agriculture producers I met with this summer, including a farmer in Ontario who told me the only threat to the success of his family farm is Liberal government policy. A Saskatchewan farmer said, “When it comes to farming, I feel like I'm digging my own grave to follow my dream.”

In fact, a recent survey showed that the biggest stressor for Canadian farm families is not commodity prices and it is not weather. It is government policy and regulation. I would say, for the first time, Canadian farmers see their government as an adversary, not an ally. This is having a huge impact on the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers.

According to a survey on farmer mental health by the University of Guelph, 75% of farmers have mid to high stress levels and farmers are four times more likely to commit suicide than any other part of the general population. This is the kind of stress and anxiety that our Canadian farm families are facing, and their number one stressor is the policies and regulations imposed on them by the Liberal government.

I will take a moment to look at a couple of them before I get in depth on the carbon tax. Last November, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change announced there would be a fertilizer emissions reduction of 30%, with no consultation and no idea exactly what that would mean. However, now it is putting further pressure on Canadian farm families regarding what they are going to do to make themselves economically viable as the government takes away some of the most important tools they have.

Why is the government not looking at our hard-working Canadian farm families, our innovators, our agri-food businesses and our researchers as a critical part of the climate change solution? It is almost looking at them with disdain, instead of looking at them as part of the solution. For example, in 1981, the average farmer was getting about 27 bushels to the acre. Now they are getting more than 50, but the kicker is that they are doing that on less than half of the acreage, significantly reducing their carbon footprint. Do they get any credit for that whatsoever? No, they do not. On average, we are 50% more efficient in fertilizer use than any other country on the face of the earth. Do Canadian farmers get any credit for that? No, they do not.

Instead, when it came to this fertilizer emissions reduction policy, here is the narrative the Liberal government should have had. When the European Union started making massive cuts to fertilizer use in livestock production, that was its decision, but the Liberal government should have said, if there is an issue in the European Union, why not look at what we are doing here in Canada? Why not look at our innovators, our farmers, our experience, our technology, practices like precision farming, variable rates, 4R nutrient stewardship and show Canadians just how impressive Canadian agriculture is? Instead, its fallback every single time is to look at Canadian farmers, much like it does our energy workers, as the enemy rather than part of the solution.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even if the carbon tax is increased to $170 a tonne, does anyone know what the impact on emissions from agriculture is? It is zero. The reason is that there are no other options. Farmers right now, many of them use combines and they cannot fuel them with anything other than diesel. As one of my Liberal colleagues told me a few months ago, they cannot put a solar panel on top of those machines. They run 24-7. They do not have any other options. This is what they do to ensure that they can not only feed Canadians but feed the world.

Now I would like to focus on the carbon tax specifically. We heard it again today in question period. In answer to a question from one of my colleagues, the parliamentary secretary said that farmers are exempt from the carbon tax on all farm fuels. That is patently not true. Some fuels are exempt, but fuels like natural gas and propane are still subject to the carbon tax. The Liberals are either misleading Canadian farmers or they really do not understand their own policy. The parliamentary secretary said in committee that, even talking to farmers in his riding, and he talked about it again in question period today, we have Bill C-8. We have a farm carbon tax rebate.

The message from the Liberals is always that the carbon tax is revenue neutral. We now know from Ontario grain farmers, from the Department of Finance and from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture that this is also not true. Farmers are getting less than 30% and in some cases less than 15% of what they are paying in carbon tax, through that rebate from the Liberal government.

In fact, the Department of Finance said that the average farmer was getting $800 a year through the carbon tax rebate. I have seen the carbon tax bills from some of my farmers, especially large poultry operations, large dairy operations and certainly our grain growers here in Ontario, who are drying grain or heating barns. Their carbon tax bills are in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a month.

When we hear the finance department say that it is revenue neutral because the farmers are getting $800 a month, that is a slap in the face to Canadian producers who are certainly carrying the burden of the carbon tax. It has basically become wealth distribution on the back of Canadian agriculture. When a Canadian farmer is getting between 13% and, on a good day, up to maybe 30% for their carbon tax rebate, members can see why, as the opposition in the Conservative Party, we are so adamant that we cannot see this carbon tax continue to rise and triple to $170 per tonne.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business also ratified and confirmed the numbers from the Grain Farmers of Ontario, saying that, in the first year, the average farmer paid about $14,000 in carbon tax. After it went up this previous April 1, the average farmer is now paying $45,000 in carbon taxes. My math is not always the greatest, but between $45,000 and $800 there is a big gap, which certainly shows that the carbon tax is not revenue neutral.

The frustrating thing is that the finance department know it and the Minister of Agriculture knows it, and the Liberals continue to allow this to happen. The Minister of Agriculture is complicit in seeing Canadian farmers being taxed to death. They are going to be losing their businesses.

We have put forward two private members' bills: one in the previous Parliament and one in this Parliament. The one in this Parliament is Bill C-234, which would exempt the carbon tax from all farm fuels. I am very happy to say that we have the support of all the opposition parties, which include the Conservatives, the Bloc, the New Democrats and the Greens. The holdout is the Liberal Party, the government, which still does not see that this was an error. The carbon tax should be exempt on all farm fuels and not just a couple. This is imperative to the financial success of Canadian farmers.

Farmers are the ones who are paying the carbon tax over and over again. When buying fuel, buying feed, buying fertilizer, transporting grain and transporting cattle, they are paying the carbon tax every single time. Here is the kicker: Many Canadian consumers see this as an agriculture problem and a rural issue, but farmers have nowhere to pass those costs on to. The result of that is seeing food prices go up more than 10%, which is the highest rate of inflation on food in more than 40 years. This impacts every single Canadian in every single corner of the country, as many Canadians are unable to put food on the table.

By tripling the carbon tax, which we are asking the Liberals not to do in a time of record inflation, they are demanding Canadians to pay more to fuel their out-of-control spending. They are demanding seniors to pay more. They are demanding that youth pay more. They are demanding single mothers to pay more. They are demanding our small business owners to pay more. They are certainly demanding our Canadian farmers to pay more. It is nonsensical, especially in a time of global food insecurity, when we need our Canadian agriculture to be firing on all cylinders to meet the demand that we are going to see, not only here at home but also around the world.

Therefore, I am asking my colleagues from all parts of the House to support our opposition day motion to ensure the financial and mental health of our Canadian farmers first and foremost because they are part of the solution. They are not the problem.

Bill C-21—Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my counterpart from the Bloc Québécois talk about managing the legislative calendar.

However, managing the parliamentary calendar depends on the good faith of all parties and their willingness to not systematically block bills, such as Bill C‑8, which helped us provide assistance to Canadians in this pandemic and inflationary environment.

I would also like to point out to my friends and colleagues in the Bloc Québécois that Quebeckers support additional measures to control firearms, handguns and assault weapons. The Minister of Public Safety is advocating these measures, and I invite him to tell us again why we should hear from Quebeckers and Canadians on this issue.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member of the House voted for the Conservatives' plan to run a $168‑billion deficit in their campaign platform.

On this side of the House, we made a point of indexing the Canada child benefit to inflation and cutting income tax for the middle class not once, but twice. We increased old age security and included a tax cut in Bill C‑8.

The Conservatives voted against Canadians. We are voting for Canadians.

Global Food Insecurity

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Chair, I want to say at the beginning of my intervention that I am encouraged by the words of the minister that the Liberal government now understands the importance of things like fertilizer and gene editing and seed technology and the role they will play in the future for food security, because I would think we are in the midst of a food security crisis. This is not something that will happen; this is something that is happening right now. I would hope the minister understands the critical geopolitical role that Canadian agriculture can play, not only here at home but around the world.

To put this in perspective, Ukraine is the breadbasket of much of Europe, Asia and Africa. The uncertainty that is going around with this conflict is certainly have a significant impact on the price of these commodities, and not only in Europe. We were very naive if we thought we were not going to be impacted here at home as well.

We had the honour of having the Ukrainian minister of the economy at committee the other day, and I want to mention a quote from him. He said that Ukraine is seeing a catastrophe on top of a catastrophe, with a global impact seen since World War II, and that farmers have dropped their breadbaskets to stand in breadlines. That is very apropos and puts some perspective on how serious this situation is.

We also had the Ukrainian agriculture minister at committee. She said that Russian soldiers have occupied 23% of Ukraine. They are stealing grain, destroying critical infrastructure and blockading Ukraine's ports. This will seriously impact Ukraine's ability to export whatever harvest of commodities it may be able to achieve this spring and again next year. As the minister said, this will lead to social unrest, famine and, very likely, conflicts around the world, especially around the Horn of Africa. How we respond here in Canada to this tragedy and this food insecurity crisis is critical.

I am going to go in a different vein than the minister did, because I think Canadian agriculture has a key role to play in addressing this food insecurity crisis. I was speaking to Canadian farmers across the country over the last few weeks and months as this started to unfold, and every single one of those farmers has said it is our moral obligation to step up and do everything we possibly can to address this food shortage crisis. They want to be there to help their allies and their friends in Ukraine. Certainly for us in western Canada especially, our agriculture sector was developed and the ground was broken by Ukrainian immigrants who came to Canada more than 100 years ago. We are in their debt.

However, for Canadian farmers to be able to do that, to reach that potential and to reach out and help to address this food shortage, they have to have the tools they need to be successful. Farmers certainly understand that there are many variables outside of their control, but there are some things they rely on from the federal government perspective to have certainty. These things include competitive regulatory and tax regimes, an efficient and reliable supply chain, bankable and efficient business risk management programs and access to global markets. I would argue that unfortunately the government is failing agriculture on all of these pillars right now, which is certainly handcuffing our ability to reach our full potential, to increase our yields to not only meet our commitments, not only here at home but around the world, and increase our ability to step up in times of crisis, as we are seeing right now.

One example of that is the federal carbon tax that the government has imposed on Canadian farmers. We heard at committee today from the Grain Farmers of Ontario about Bill C-8, which is what the Liberals have said is the carbon rebate program to farmers. The message that we are getting from the Liberals all the time is that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral, that whatever a Canadian is paying into that carbon tax, they are getting back. However, we heard in testimony today from the Ontario grain farmers that they are getting back between 13% and 15% of what they pay in the carbon tax. That is a long way from being revenue-neutral. In fact, I would say that it is misleading Canadians when the government says this program is revenue-neutral. It is far from that. The impact is that it is hurting Canadian farmers in their ability to innovate, invest and grow their business and certainly to grow their yields.

The CFIB pretty much ratified those numbers from the Ontario grain farmers, saying that what the farmer is going to be paying in a carbon tax is going to go from $14,000 on average to $45,000 on average as a result of the increase on April. According to Finance Canada today, the average farmer gets back $800 a year. The farmers are putting in $45,000 and getting $800 back. Again, that is nowhere near revenue-neutral.

This program is devastating and unnecessary to Canadian farmers, especially when we have put forward a much better solution in Bill C-234, which would exempt farm fuels from the carbon tax, especially natural gas and propane for heating barns and drying grain. This would allow farmers to reinvest that money in the things they need to improve their operations.

The Food and Agriculture Organization has said that the linkage between energy prices, such as the carbon tax, and fertilizers has put the agriculture sector at significant risk. Renowned agriculture trade expert Robert Saik has said we must be making decisions based on science, not ideology, to ensure the sustainability and health of the agriculture sector.

The World Food Programme has said that 800 million people are facing food insecurity around the world. As a result of the conflict with Russia and its illegal invasion of Ukraine, they are expecting another 13 million people to be at risk of food insecurity. That shows us how serious this situation is and how important it is for Canadian farmers to be competitive and able to reach their potential.

To put that in perspective, the United States has not put a carbon tax on its agriculture sector. The United States is our biggest trading partner but also our biggest competitor on the global stage. In fact, the United States is also not punishing its farmers with a tariff on fertilizer. Canada is the only G7 country in the world that is charging a tariff on fertilizer.

We have asked the Liberal government to exempt the tariff on fertilizer purchased from Russia before March 2 to ensure that Canadian farmers are not carrying that burden, and I want to be really clear here: Vladimir Putin is not paying that tariff. The Russian military is not paying that tariff. Only Canadian farmers are paying that tariff. Now we have seen the numbers, and that tariff is going to cost Canadian farmers, especially in eastern Canada, about $150 million a year.

That is $150 million taken directly out of the pockets of Canadian farmers and going to the Liberal government's coffers. Not only is that a financial hit, but as a result of that we are going to see farmers using less fertilizer. The consequence is that we will have smaller yields. We already had a 40% decrease in yields last year because of weather issues. Depending on the weather, if we see that yield decrease further or not return back to our normal, it is going to have a significant impact. We are going to see food prices increase, not only around the world but here at home as well, and it will impact our ability to try to address food insecurity issues around the world. This only punishes Canadian farmers. It does not punish Vladimir Putin.

We also heard from the Ukrainian minister of agriculture that Ukraine needs seeds, machinery, fuel and temporary storage facilities for its grain and commodities. What it needs is for Canadian agriculture to be firing on all cylinders to make sure we can step up and help when it is needed. However, at this time of a global food security crisis, again when we need Canadian agriculture to be punching above its weight, the Liberals have decided to put burdensome red tape, regulations and taxes on Canadian farmers.

Another example is front-of-package labelling, which is a $2-billion bureaucratic burden on the industry. Not only will that impact Canadian beef, pork and veal farmers, but it will also impact our processors, manufacturers and consumers. We are talking about the food insecurity crisis and the impact it would have on people around the world, in Europe and the Horn of Africa, but food insecurity is also an issue here at home. If we cannot take care of our own, how are we expected to step up and take care of others in their time of need?

This is also sending a very frightening message to our trading partners. Why should they be importing Canadian beef and pork when we are admitting to the world that we feel our products are unhealthy?

In conclusion, in a time of crisis, instead of treating Canadian agriculture with disdain or as a carbon tax cash cow, the Liberals need to see modern Canadian agriculture and our farm families as a way out, as a way to step, as a key geopolitical tool in the fight against totalitarianism and the likes of Vladimir Putin.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, going back to the question that was just asked and answered, the member suggested, and she is absolutely right, that the government sets the agenda. However, the opposition has tools that it should and can use from time to time to slow down legislation and the legislative process in here.

My question to the member is very simple. Does she not think we would have been able to table this bill and start debating it sooner had the Conservatives not held bills up, such as Bill C-8, the fall economic statement, which they held up for five or six months in the House? If we had seen fewer partisan games to slow the process down, would we not have been able to deal with items like this sooner?

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have known where that rhetoric was in support of Canadians when we were in the House trying to pass Bill C-2, Bill C-8 and the budget implementation act, which include billions of dollars to go into the hands of Canadians. Instead, we took the reins to make sure we could get legislation passed, so we could get $8.9 billion into the hands of Canadians.

For child care, which the people on the other side just want to shred, in Toronto alone, a family will save $19,790 a year. That will help families afford groceries and gas. We are doing this across the country because this government puts Canada first.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that there has been hours and hours of debate at committee. He also knows that their side continues to filibuster. The conspiracy theories and nonsensical ideas of censorship are just beyond the pale.

Quite frankly, this is one in a list of examples of the Conservatives going past opposition to obstruction, whether it is Bill C-8, the budget implementation bill or Bill C-11, the Conservatives do not want to debate; they want to obstruct the work of this Parliament.

Canadians elected us to do good work, and they know that the CRTC is independent. They know there is nothing here that is going to affect Canadians' uploading material to the Internet. This is about making sure that the platforms contribute into the Canada Media Fund, that they develop more content here in Canada, and that we open up the platforms to racialized people, LGBTQ people, indigenous people and disabled people who are creating content for Canadians. This is about moving into the Internet age, not the past, where the Conservatives are stuck.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed 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.

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, I will say that it is certainly not my preference. When we started, we actually had a really good beginning, I think, working with the Conservative opposition on Bill C-3 and on Bill C-4, where ideas came forward. We were able to work together and we were able to find middle ground. Then there was a change. All of a sudden, with Bill C-8 as an example, it took over four months. Consistently, we were told “just a couple more speakers, just a bit more time”. Four months disappeared, and an enormous amount of House time was used.

At a certain point in time, I had to come to the realization that there was no earnest effort to move things through the House, that the interest was in obstruction. We saw that in Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is a bill that the Conservatives support. Even though they support it, they were moving amendments to hear their own members, shutting down the House, moving concurrence motions and using them to obstruct. I am left with one of two choices: get nothing passed or use time allocation. As they obstruct, on the one hand they block any legislation from moving forward and not even allow that as an option; on the other hand, they criticize the only tool we have to actually get legislation done, a tool they used with great frequency.

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, there are a number of good measures in Bill C-19, and this tax credit is certainly one of them. It is important, and that is why we will be supporting Bill C‑19.

However, I would ask the government to implement this tax credit more quickly than the one they gave to teachers in last fall's budget. It is still not in effect because Bill C-8 is still before the Senate. Normally, when a bill is winding its way through Parliament, tax credits can be put in place more quickly. It appears that because the opposition parties are against Bill C‑8, they are being blamed for not granting this tax credit, which several teachers have asked me about.

I would therefore ask that the tax credit to help seniors stay in their homes be implemented more quickly than the tax credit for teachers.

I do not know if I have enough time to respond, but I would add that the situation in the long-term care facilities was carnage, a real disaster. The long-term care facilities are the poor cousin of Quebec's health care system, which brings to mind the chronic underfunding of the health care system. Obviously this goes back to the years of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who, in order to balance Ottawa's budget, massively cut transfers to Quebec and the provinces. The situation has never been rectified since, and we expect Ottawa to send massive transfers to the provinces to respect each one's ability to pay.

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

Madam Speaker, we are now at third reading of this omnibus bill.

In fact, there are all kinds of statutes stuffed into Bill C-19, with topics ranging from strip searches to justice in space. That might be helpful for addressing all the mischief Brad Spitfire could get up to, but it does not belong in a budget implementation bill. This is a half-baked omnibus bill. It is no wonder it is full of problems.

To start, the paper copy we were given was missing more than 20 pages. We were working with the wrong version for far too long. That is unacceptable, and it seriously undermines the government's credibility and our trust in it.

A lot of changes were made to this bill at the Standing Committee on Finance, and I applaud the work we did. However, it is so big that there was no way the committee could do an in-depth study of the entire bill.

I will have to criticize the government's approach once again. The government promised that it would not introduce any more omnibus bills, but only the willfully naive are buying Liberal promises these days.

Regarding our study, I am sincerely grateful for the help we got from the other House of Commons standing committees: Justice and Human Rights, Citizenship and Immigration, International Trade, and Industry and Technology. Let me add an honourable mention for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and our superhero there, the member for Thérèse‑De Blainville.

Bill C‑19 put forward a lot of changes to the employment insurance system, including the EI board of appeal. The government did not do its job properly. It did not consider the consultations and the needs expressed by stakeholders, such as unions. It is rare for the employer and the union to agree that something like this was poorly done. The member for Thérèse‑De Blainville was very efficient at bringing all those people together with the finance committee and the human resources committee so parliamentarians could hear from them. Their message was clear. Better to strike the issue from the bill altogether rather than pass flawed measures.

We in the Bloc Québécois prepared for both eventualities. We introduced several amendments and asked that the section be deleted. In committee, I pressed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to lobby his government to have it removed.

I tabled a motion to that effect. My colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville got the human resources committee to adopt a unanimous motion to delete it. The Conservative and NDP members also requested the same thing. The government listened to reason. It backed down and committed to tabling something a little better in the fall.

This is what we MPs are here for. It is what the House and the parliamentary committees are here for as well. We study government bills. We review them with the people they would affect. If the bill is good, we support it. If it is bad, we reject it. We work tirelessly to improve the bills.

We know the government is tired and worn out. The pandemic took its toll on us all. The Prime Minister gave an election a shot in the fall. That tired out his government, which is still a minority. We had the blockades in the winter, followed by the war in Ukraine, which has been going on for over 100 days. That has kept everyone busy.

The Prime Minister is overwhelmed and exhausted. The Minister of Finance is playing the roles of both prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, especially with respect to the war. All the work she is doing is very honourable. The problem is that she is caught up in all these fast-moving issues, so she no longer has enough time to do her job properly as finance minister.

We saw that with her budget. We saw that with the crisis facing specialized businesses that convert trucks into ambulances, armoured vans and other specialty trucks. They are affected by the semiconductor shortage, which has shut down truck manufacturers in the United States. This input shortage is hitting our businesses hard. We cannot afford to lose these good niche jobs.

In December, the finance minister promised that the shortage was over. We supported Bill C‑8 based on her assurances. She had agreed to provide us with the statistics showing that things were getting better. We believed the Liberals' promises, but we never got the statistics, and the situation of these businesses is getting worse and worse as the weeks go by. We have been pressing the minister on this issue since January, but we have still heard nothing.

The only response we received came in her fall economic update, when she committed to subsidizing semiconductor manufacturers. However, this is a far more complex market, and she has completely missed the mark. We were unable to secure a meeting with her to discuss this subject. We were also unable to get her to come to committee to talk about inflation, even though we officially invited her in January to come testify sometime before May 31. It is now June 8, and we have still heard nothing.

We know that the Minister of Finance is very busy with the war and all of the other files she manages for the Prime Minister. The only problem is that that does not leave her any time to take care of finance. The associate ministers and parliamentary secretaries have not been delegated to follow up on this or other files. It is a serious problem that will have harmful consequences for our economy.

I have another example. In Bill C‑19, the budget implementation bill, the government presents the details of its luxury tax. It is 170 pages long. We agree in principle that people who buy luxury cars, planes or boats should pay a luxury tax. That is one way to redistribute wealth. However, the tax needs to be well constructed and the situation properly assessed.

For example, this tax will have serious repercussions on the entire economy and on jobs related to the use of personal boats. When I asked the Department of Finance to show us its impact studies for this new tax, the departmental officials told me that they had not done any studies. There is nothing. This has a real boys‑in‑short‑pants feel about it. Santa Banana could have done a better job of this.

What we have here is an ideological tax. It is all about the principle, and no one cares about how it will be implemented. In any case, the minister does not have time to waste on that.

This tax will be disastrous for the aerospace industry, which has been in a complete panic for almost a year now, not because the wealthy will no longer be able to afford to buy private jets, but because the tax will apply to companies and exports, even though it is not supposed to.

This whole thing is a big mess. The government gave the Department of Finance carte blanche, and it did not do its job properly. It did not feel like doing it, so it did a poor job. Because the Minister of Finance is busy dealing with the situation in Ukraine, the government is letting this slide. That is unacceptable. This measure is so poorly thought out that unions and employers, along with some members of the House, have banded together to warn us about how serious this situation is.

Canada is already the only country that has an aerospace industry but no industry strategy, not even for government procurement. Now the government is imposing poorly designed taxes that are harmful to the industry without even doing an impact study. That undermines Canada's credibility with the industry.

I would remind members that greater Montreal is the third-largest aerospace hub on the planet. Such a high value-added sector helps drive our economy. Anyone in the world would be very careful to preserve such a cluster—anyone, that is, but Ottawa. Is this all because the industry is in Quebec? That is unacceptable, and it reminds us of the repercussions of being under our neighbour's thumb.

Working with the unions and employers, we submitted several amendments to correct the poorly drafted tax measure. For instance, one amendment stated that the tax must not apply to exported aircraft. Another would have excluded businesses from the tax, which is how it is supposed to work. The Liberals and NDP voted against all those amendments. Yes, the NDP voted against what the unions were calling for. Why? It is because of their deal with the Liberals and their promise of unwavering support, to the point of compromising their principles.

The Conservatives voted with the unions on the luxury tax in Bill C-19, and the NDP and the Liberals voted against the unions. They were so quick to compromise their principles for a promise that benefits only the party that wanted it in the first place.

All of this will undermine our important aerospace industry and its unionized, well-paying jobs. This is all because the tax is ill-conceived and fails to meet its objective of taxing people who purchase luxury vehicles. Instead, the bill will tax airplane and helicopter manufacturers on aircraft that they export, over 90% of their output, or sell to businesses. This comes at a time when the industry is barely recovering from being hard hit by the pandemic. This is all because we have a finance minister who is no longer doing her job, since she is doing the Prime Minister's job and nothing is delegated. This is all because the government is not putting more effort into supporting and developing our economy.

In a normal democracy, a government like that would be overturned and replaced, but not in Canada. This government is supported by a party that is afraid of losing seats and is facing an opposition that is torn apart by extreme and polarizing ideologies. This is the price of following our neighbour's lead. It has little concern for our economic issues and has its own fish to fry.

With respect to the problems that the ill-conceived luxury tax will cause for the aerospace industry, I spoke numerous times with the finance minister, members of her team, her parliamentary secretary, her department and several other government members. That accomplished next to nothing. All we were able to get passed was an amendment that allows the government to delay implementation until after September at its discretion.

In addition, we had to wait until the report stage. My colleague from Saint-Jean and I introduced the amendment, as did the member for Elmwood—Transcona. This is the last glimmer of hope. If the government can take its head out of the sand and does its homework, we are offering it the opportunity to not implement the tax and to come back with a better bill in the fall. I urge the government to take us up on our offer.

The government is proposing a vast array of legislative changes in this mammoth bill. It has cut corners and done a poor job. The government is patting itself on the back for holding lots of consultations on everything. The only problem is that it is not taking the feedback into account. The Liberals' idea of democracy is letting everyone talk without listening to a word they say.

Luckily, we got the government to backtrack on its ill-conceived employment insurance amendment. We told it to go back and do its homework and listen to stakeholders. Unfortunately, we did not get the government to backtrack on its new tax that is 170 pages of poorly written text, but we did get one amendment passed that will create a window for changes in the fall. That will depend on whether the government sees fit though. I am very worried, as are the industry and union members. The government has not seen fit for quite some time now.

We managed to fix another of the government's egregious errors on another subject entirely in Bill C‑19. Australia took its dispute with Canada over an excise tax on wine to the World Trade Organization. Obviously, it was about wine made from grapes. However, because wine is not just grape wine to Ottawa, the tax applies to many other products too. In committee, we heard from cider and mead producers. The tax would have really hurt them and undermined a rapidly growing sector. We worked with them to propose an amendment that would exempt them from the tax. I think we made some important progress that will enable these passionate people to keep improving their quality products so that we can enjoy the fruits of their labour. I think we deserve congratulations.

More generally, let me say that I am very proud of every member of the Standing Committee on Finance. We spent many hours working constructively and collaboratively. From my perspective, we engaged in successful dialogue and made progress. I am sincerely grateful to every member of the committee, including its chair and the parliamentary secretary. I believe we made substantial improvements to Bill C‑19, and that is down to how well we worked together.

I also want to commend the work done by the other committees that studied parts of Bill C-19. I thank them for their insights. Lastly, I want to once again commend the hard work of my esteemed colleague and friend from Thérèse-De Blainville, who helped force the government to commit to redoing its homework on EI. I salute her for that.

Despite all my criticisms, Bill C-19 does include many good measures. Even though the government introduced a mammoth bill, even though it cut corners, even though we were not able to improve the bill as much as we would have liked, the fact remains that, when we weigh it all out, there are more pluses than minuses for the Quebec economy. That is why we decided to support the bill.

Opposition Motion—Measures for Immediate Financial Relief

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Simcoe North.

We are talking about an affordability crisis in the House today. I am very confident that I am not the only member of the House who is getting dozens and dozens of calls and emails every single day from constituents who are very concerned about their ability to put food on the table, put fuel in their cars, heat their homes and put their kids in the activities they enjoy the most. What we are talking about here in our opposition day motion is reducing taxes to make life more affordable for Canadians by eliminating the GST on fuel and the carbon tax.

What I am hearing is somewhat unbelievable. The argument from the Liberals and the NDP is that somehow eliminating a point-of-sale tax does not put more money in the pockets of Canadians. I am not sure how one can even argue that. In fact, their argument against this is that retailers are going to collude to ensure that savings are not passed on to Canadians. I can say from experience that in Alberta, where the provincial government has removed the provincial sales tax on fuel, fuel is about 20¢ cheaper than anywhere else in Canada. Albertans are benefiting from a government that has seen the difficulties Canadians are facing, has taken action to address them and has passed savings directly to Canadians.

What I am hearing from my constituents, after two years of the pandemic, is that they are exhausted; they are tired. They want to get life back to normal. While they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that the pandemic is all but over and that businesses are opening back up, they see the affordability crisis, where fuel prices are exorbitant, grocery prices are going up and housing prices are going up. A lot of this has to fall at the feet of the Liberal government.

I know the Liberals like to say this is a global issue and that the war in Ukraine with Putin is causing prices to increase. However, I have been in the House pretty much every day and I do not ever recall Vladimir Putin sitting across the way and voting in favour of a carbon tax. I do not recall Vladimir Putin putting forward legislation or a bill to increase the carbon tax on April 1. Maybe I missed that. I am not sure if my colleagues around the House can confirm that Vladimir Putin is the reason the carbon tax went up 25% on April 1, despite an affordability crisis around the world and a war in Ukraine. I am not sure how we put this all at the feet of Vladimir Putin.

Instead of the government offering relief to Canadians when they need it most, the Prime Minister is travelling around the world with no mask in sight, and here at home he is punishing Canadians over and over again with his draconian mandates and travel restrictions, which are not in place anywhere else around the world. That really seems to be the modus operandi of the Liberal government. It is going to punish Canadians at home and do something completely different around the world.

A good example of that is the fertilizer tariff. My colleague across the way does not seem to think that this is a problem and thinks this is a way of punishing Russia. I would invite my Liberal colleagues talk to any farmer, especially in eastern Canada, and ask them if the fertilizer tariff is hurting Vladimir Putin. The only people this fertilizer tariff of 35% is punishing are Canadian farmers. Vladimir Putin, once again, is not paying this tariff; Canadian farmers are paying this tariff. Even before the war in Ukraine, fertilizer prices in many parts of the country were more than double what they were the year before, as a result, in many cases, of the carbon tax. Do members know what makes fertilizer? It is natural gas. Carbon taxes put on natural gas cause prices to increase.

Canadian farmers are being punished and we have offered solutions. We have asked the Liberal government to provide an exemption on fertilizers purchased before March 2, before Russia invaded Ukraine. The Liberals said no. We then asked them if they would offer compensation to farmers who have had to pay an exorbitant price for that tariff. Again, the Liberals said no.

Let me put this in perspective. Canada is the only G7 country putting a tariff on Russian fertilizer, meaning that Canadian farmers are now at a severe competitive disadvantage to our compatriots around the world. They are paying an exorbitantly high carbon tax and they are paying a tariff on fertilizer.

At the same time, we are in the midst of a global food crisis. Food insecurity is probably the number one priority on earth and we are the only country on earth that is increasing taxes and putting a tariff on fertilizer. How does that make us competitive? How does that give us the ability to carry the burden of helping in a global food crisis, which our farmers absolutely want to do? They want to be there to help, but the Liberal government is doing everything possible to ensure that we cannot do that and do not meet our potential.

Despite the Conservatives offering these solutions, the Liberals carry on with this activist agenda, let us say, or the theatrics they are putting on that this is somehow punishing Putin when it is only punishing Canadian farmers. However, it is not just Canadians farmers who are going to feel the impact of this. If Canadian farmers have to reduce their use of fertilizer simply because they cannot afford it, yields are going to go down and the prices of commodities are going to go up. We have already seen the price of groceries go up. In many cases they are up 15%, depending on the product. This is only going to get worse. We are not only talking about countries that have been relying on Ukrainian commodities such as barley, wheat and sunflower oil; this is going to be felt here at home.

My NDP colleagues have been talking about food insecurity here at home in Canada. A lot of that is the result of Liberal policies. The Liberals are the ones increasing the cost of those groceries by increasing the carbon tax, putting a tariff on fertilizer and having additional red tape, making it very difficult for our farmers to do the job they do best and better than anyone else in the world. We are the only country with a government, in a food security crisis, that is asking Canadian consumers to pay more. It is the only government asking farmers to pay more. How does this make any sense whatsoever?

I want to get to another part of our opposition day motion. I talked about fertilizer, but I also want to talk about the carbon tax.

The carbon tax is something for which the Conservatives have offered a solution. My colleague from Huron—Bruce offered a private member's bill that would eliminate the carbon tax on farm fuels, Bill C-234. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in assessing the carbon tax, has said a few things that I think are very enlightening: The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, the carbon tax increases inflation and the carbon tax does not reduce emissions. This is everything the Liberals are saying the carbon tax will accomplish, and the study by the Parliamentary Budget Officer has refuted all of those claims. Why are we charging this carbon tax on our Canadian farmers? We put forward a solution in Bill C-234 to eliminate the carbon tax from farm fuels.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done the math. In the first year of the carbon tax, Canadian farmers paid on average about $14,000 a year. With the increase on April 1, that goes to $45,000 per average farmer. The Liberals are going to say there is a carbon tax rebate and eight out of 10 families make more off the carbon tax. Again, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an arm's-length officer of the House, has said that is not the case. In Bill C-8, with the carbon tax rebate, farmers get $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are contributing to the carbon tax. Farmers are price-takers. They cannot afford to carry the burden of the carbon tax when we are asking them to improve yields and their efficiency. It does not make sense.

At a time when we are talking about global food security, we also need to talk about affordability. Our farmers, producers and manufacturers need to be able to do what they do and do it efficiently. I have talked about the carbon tax and the fertilizer price, but there is another issue where the Liberals continue to throw on red tape and obstacles, which is going to be coming out in the next little while. It is front-of-package labelling. That is a direct attack on beef and pork producers in Canada. The United States has already identified this as a trade irritant that will impact our beef exports and increase grocery costs here at home, making things even more unaffordable for Canadians.

In conclusion, our motion is very prudent. It would ensure that we address the affordability crisis facing Canadians, and, most importantly, help our farmers, producers and ranchers, who are doing all they can to address a global food security crisis, ensure that groceries are affordable for all Canadians.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to call into question my colleague's comments that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral. We know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that this is not true, and I want to give the hon. member an example. Through Bill C-8, Canadian farmers are getting $1.70 for every $1,000 of eligible expenses as part of their carbon tax rebate. Some of them are paying more than $19,000 a month right now to run their machinery during seeding. They are getting pennies on the dollar for what they are paying in carbon tax.

Would my colleague not agree that this is not revenue-neutral?

Report Stage

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

Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging that I speak today virtually from the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation. I raise my hands, and in the language of the traditional peoples of this land I say Hych'ka Siem.

I am speaking today at report stage of Bill C-19. I cannot help but reflect on the debate we just had on the application of time allocation to this bill. I would like to point out to the House and put on the record that, of course, I voted no to ending debate in the fashion that has become entirely too routine under the current government and the Conservative government before it. Having been used routinely under the administration of Stephen Harper and now under the current government, it is unlikely to ever return to what it was before 2011, which is to say that the House will suffer a permanent loss of normal, democratic debate under our standing orders for bill after bill.

In this case, Bill C-19 was tabled for first reading following the April 7 budget. It was tabled for first reading April 28. That is not that long ago in the life of this Parliament. This is not like Bill C-8, the fall economic statement bill. That was tabled in December 2021 and only passed in the last few weeks in this place. Bill C-19 has been dealt with quickly and sharply. It went to committee for reports, and it is already, and this is an important point that I wish to make, in prestudy before the finance committee in the other place.

The question of delay in handling this bill and allowing for proper debate at this stage is rather wrong-footed by the fact that, even though we will finish with it very soon in any case, despite the obstructive activities by the official opposition, there was ample time to get it properly debated at report stage and third reading and sent to the other place, where prestudy has already begun. It is a significant bill. For those who may be observing our deliberations today, let me just point out that this bill is hundreds of pages. It is an omnibus bill. It is not an illegitimate omnibus bill, as it deals with all the measures that were flagged in budget 2022 on April 7. It is not one that has extraneous measures crammed into it, which would make it an illegitimate omnibus bill.

This legislation is lengthy. There are 32 separate divisions, with hundreds of pages and over 502 sections. I cannot propose for a second to think that I could comment on all of them, even those with which I agree. However, the scope is enormous. We deal with everything in this legislation from safe drinking water in first nations communities, which of course nobody would want to have anything but speed apply to, to something called the “lunar gateway” and Criminal Code offences related to an agreement we have with the United States for events that may take place on the moon, as I understand it, to changes in the Criminal Code that raise some civil liberties concerns. They are in division 21 and would extend jail time up to two years for people who are denying the Holocaust, for which there is no defence. It is appalling and will now have a criminal sanction of up to two years in jail.

I think it is worth considering the scope of this bill, because it covers so many different measures, including ones I support, like the application of Magnitsky sanctions and being able to act to further sanction Vladimir Putin's cronies in order to apply pressure so that we get to peace talks as quickly as possible in the horrific and illegal war that is now occurring in Ukraine. However, we have a lot in this bill to discuss, and I put it to the House that the application of time allocation that just occurred in this place is inappropriate.

There are things that I would like to discuss in more detail. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc who spoke ahead of me. The employment insurance regime needs a lot more review. We have some measures in this bill that are good, but we have not begun to get to the work that needs to be done to consider, in particular, people in regions of the country where it is harder to find employment and people in seasonal industries where their employer makes the decision to lay them off seasonally and bring them back. Workers in those categories need to know that they can count on their insurance employment benefits, or what we used to call “unemployment insurance”. It is past time that we do a full review to make sure that unemployment insurance—employment insurance, as it is now known—is available to Canadians who have paid into it and who need it.

I want to turn some attention, in the time I have today, to the luxury tax, and I am thankful that the Liberal Party's allocation of speeches has allowed me to speak to this bill.

I initially liked the sound of a luxury tax. It sounds like we are striking for equity and fairness against the notion that there is the 1% and then the 99%, who are, relatively speaking, less represented and do not use resources to the same extent, obviously, as the 1%. However, I have come to the conclusion, somewhat reluctantly, that the luxury tax is more about pandering in public relations than about really dealing with income inequality in this country.

This luxury tax would not deal with income inequality. What the luxury tax would do is apply a tax on any car or aircraft that costs more than $100,000 or boats that cost more than $250,000. It is an additional tax on the cost of buying the luxury items, at the point of sale.

In reflecting on this, I looked at the work the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done. When looking at the luxury tax, we find that it would bring in $170 million in 2024-25. That $170 million is a lot of money, but in the context of the federal budget, it is sort of spilled corn flakes at the morning breakfast table. It would not bring in substantial money. It would take a lot of Finance Canada's time, both in application and at the point of sale. It would also add to a lot of people's transactional costs to even establish this tax.

The PBO also found that while it would bring to the Government of Canada an additional $170 million, it would reduce the sales in those categories by $600 million. I do not think it adds up that applying this tax is worth the financial cost to the Government of Canada and the economy of Canada, given that we would lose $600 million in sales, particularly in the case of boats and airplanes, and luxury cars too if they were made in Canada. They provide Canadian jobs and a positive impact to the Canadian economy and the communities where those luxury items are made.

Far more important would be to adjust the personal income tax rate. At this point in Canada, once a person is making over $216,511, the personal income tax rate is the same. It is 33%. That is our highest tax bracket. We certainly would do more to address income inequality were we to create a higher personal income tax bracket for people making, say, over $500,000 a year. I remind colleagues in this place that when the United States experienced its highest levels of economic growth and economic activity post-war, its highest personal income tax bracket was well over 90%.

We should also be looking very immediately at excess corporate profits. A tax on excess corporate profits, as the PBO has found, could bring in $7.9 billion a year. I contrast that with this so-called luxury tax. It is $170 million going into our fiscal resources versus a tax on excess corporate profits that would bring in just under $8 billion. We should not be chasing the spilled corn flakes. We should be going after where the 1% hides their wealth and where the 1% earns so much more than the average working Canadian, who has to hold down several jobs to cover rent and food.

With those final thoughts, I close my remarks on Bill C-19.

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, these are the greatest hits from the Conservative choir: obstructing us at Bill C-8 and trying to delay the work on behalf of Canadians, while we are making sure that we get the work done on behalf of the people of Canada. Once again, the Conservatives proposed an amendment at second reading that would even prevent scrutiny of the bill, so I do not know which the member wants: scrutiny or no scrutiny. His own people said not to look at the bill.

We need Bill C-19 passed. That is why we are here today. We will get the work done on behalf of Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it mind-boggling and ironic that the minister talks about Conservatives bringing in U.S. problems, when the current government's whole modus operandi is to import U.S. culture wars.

I want to give an example of why it is so important that we continue debate. We heard the exact same response from the government over Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and the supplementary estimates (C), where there was $4 billion in Bill C-8 and Bill C-10 for rapid testing, and then a duplicate $4 billion in the supplementary estimates (C) for rapid testing.

We just found out today that the government is sitting on hundreds and hundreds, if not billions, of rapid tests unused, warehoused. This is the reason we need debate on this and other issues, so we do not have a repeat of this incompetence where the government is spending billions of dollars for items that are not even used.

Would the minister perhaps comment on why he wishes to stop any oversight of taxpayer spending and the government's incompetence?

Second Reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, being inspired, I would ask if there would be unanimous support to see this legislation go through, given the fact that all political parties supported the principle of the legislation and supporting the principle would only see it go to committee stage. I would encourage that sort of enthusiasm for support on Bill C-18.

The point I was trying to get at is that Bill C-18 is important legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact. The minister has done an incredible job, through the ministry, of gathering and sharing thoughts and ideas and getting the information necessary to bring forward legislation that would make a difference and would be a true reflection of what Canadians wanted back in September of last year.

We also need to recognize there is the expectation that the government will bring forward legislation and that opposition parties will participate and be engaged. We often see that, especially from members of the New Democratic Party, the Green Party and the Bloc. At times we will see it from the Conservatives. It is not too often, but maybe at times.

The bottom line is that what we have witnessed in recent months is a great filibuster on whatever the legislation might be. That is the reason we needed to bring in time allocation on this legislation. The best example I could probably give would be Bill C-8. Members might remember Bill C-8 as the fall economic statement legislation that was just recently passed. That is an excellent example of the manner in which the Conservative Party will go out of its way to stop legislation from passing.

Bill C-8 was all about supporting Canadians through the pandemic. Bill C-18 is all about protecting a critical industry here in Canada. It is an industry that needs legislation of this nature. Canada is not alone. There are other countries that have moved in this direction and recognized the need for national governments to bring forward legislation. In fact, the official opposition recognized and seemed to support what was taking place in Australia on this issue. It has made reference to that.

I believe Bill C-18 is—

Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, let us put things in context.

If we look at what has been actually happening in our country, we see that over 450 news outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 in the last two years. Does that have an impact? It has a huge impact on our democracy. Our democracy is not becoming stronger; it is becoming weaker because of that. Things are changing. Things are evolving extremely quickly, and what professional news media outlets are doing has value, and the web giants have to recognize that there is a value and that it is normal that they contribute.

I am very surprised that my Conservative friends have a problem with that, because they even said in the last campaign that this is what we should do. There is an agreement, almost a consensus, that we have to act and that we have to act now. The Conservatives have been stalling debate in this House. They did it with Bill C-8 and Bill C-11. They like to stall things. If they do not want to come here to work, then they should move aside and we will do the work.

Opposition Motion—Rules and Service Levels for Travel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

Online Streaming Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-11—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

Permanent Residency for Temporary Foreign Workers

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

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

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

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

Do members know what makes us famous the world over?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Quebec consulted before these targets were set?

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

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

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

Budget Implementation Act, 2022, No. 1

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, I will close and welcome questions.

Government Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C-19—Time Allocation Motion

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, over the last couple of months we have seen a total blocking of important legislation by the Conservatives.

Teachers and farmers were basically being stopped from getting the important measures that were in Bill C-8, and that continued on for months. Now we have the budget implementation bill, which does a number of things that the NDP has pushed the government to put into place, including the first stage of national dental care. Thousands of people in the official opposition House leader's riding, Barrie—Innisfil, would benefit from that, and yet the Conservatives do not want to let it go through.

We have not seen any real, substantive action by the federal government on affordable housing for decades, and now, finally, in the budget implementation bill and in the budget this year, because of the confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, we are seeing tens of thousands of affordable housing units that could be built, including in Barrie—Innisfil. Right across the country people could benefit.

Why does my colleague, the government House leader, feel the Conservatives have been blocking everything? Why have the Conservatives disrupted every single Routine Proceedings now for almost two weeks, and why are they being so stubborn about refusing to allow important legislation to get through the House, legislation that would help people?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what forces drove the member opposite to come to office and to be in this chamber. I know him well enough to know that he is a good and honourable individual who has good intentions for this place. However, I cannot imagine that his desire when he came here was to basically, day after day, obstruct the business of the House. If the member opposite and his party really wanted more debate, I would think they would not move concurrence motions every day.

The fact of the matter is that we tried, with Bill C-8, to engage the party opposite over more than four months, every day over four months asking how many more speakers the Conservatives wanted. What we ended up seeing was that they had no interest in debate. What they had interest in was obstruction.

In fact, if we take a look at what we are dealing with in front of us here today, in only two days of debate the Conservatives have proposed an amendment that would not even allow the budget implementation act to be scrutinized, which is an integral role of the parliamentary process. They used motions of concurrence for two House reports to delay and obstruct debate in the House. They put forward subamendments to create further delays. What they have done all through this process is show that they have no interest. They basically want to hijack, as one party, the entire Parliament and not allow it to function, and then they are surprised that we would object to this.

Justice

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I am very disappointed that we are at this juncture today. Bill C-5 is a very important piece of legislation, and I can walk the House through my perspective on this.

I want to confirm that I will be splitting my time with the member for Whitby.

When Bill C-5 was introduced back in December, we heard from a number of different organizations and people who had been directly impacted by systemic racism. I realize that not everybody in this House understands, and not every party in the House recognizes what systemic racism is, but it is a lived reality for many Canadians.

All I have to say is that if we look at what The Globe and Mail has reported over the last three days, we will find a very coherent set of news pieces that talk about systemic racism. For example, it included that 50% of women who are incarcerated within the criminal justice system are indigenous, whereas indigenous people only make up 4% of Canada's population. If we look at Black Canadians, we know they are disproportionately represented within the criminal justice system.

This is one of the reasons why we brought forward Bill C-5. It includes a number of mandatory minimum penalties that were struck down by the Supreme Court for their unconstitutionality. We have also brought forward very important amendments to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

After several days of debate, including at committee, we are at a stage now where Bill C-5 will be going through what is called clause-by-clause as of May 17 and May 20. We have three more meetings, the first of which is supposed to start in about 10 minutes, and we will have two subsequent meetings next Tuesday and Friday. As of two days ago, all parties represented, the Liberal Party, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives, agreed that we would have two more meetings as of this week to conclude the study on Bill C-8, so as of next Friday we will conclude the study.

We have had so many witnesses come and speak about the impacts of the criminal justice system, especially with respect to mandatory minimum penalties, on racialized and indigenous people. We had the president of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers speak about his personal experience: It was very powerful testimony of how he felt he was impacted by the criminal justice system.

At this stage of the game, to have the bill split into two parts is completely unacceptable. It is not a routine motion on a Friday afternoon. This warrants debate. This is a bill that is fundamental to who we are, as Canadians.

We may reject the notion of systemic racism, and I respect that because I am not here to educate people on what systemic racism is: It is a lived experience for many people in this country. Our legacy of colonialism, and what has happened with indigenous and many racialized people in Canada, will speak to systemic racism. It is a lived experience. It is not up for debate. I am not here to educate, but the reality is that people came to committee, they shared their lived experiences, they showed us and demonstrated why this has had a harmful impact on particular groups of people.

That is why it is so disingenuous for the Conservative Party to bring this forward today. This is after we had consensus. We were very particular not to have a vote on this, because the bill is so important and so fundamental. We did not vote on it, but we compromised. In fact, the Conservatives wanted eight meetings, we wanted six, so we compromised and said seven in the interest of getting consensus. That is how we are here today.

After today, we have two more meetings to conclude the study. We have very important witnesses who are going to speak about the bill in its totality. If we split the bill, we will essentially lose what we are trying to achieve here. It is not a frivolous PMB or a frivolous issue for us to dispose of on a Friday afternoon without any debate.

For us to be here at this juncture on a Friday is completely disappointing. We do have a budget implementation act, and I spoke to it just before we broke about an hour ago for question period, and I, in fact, have several minutes more to speak to C-19.

With respect to Bill C-5, the way that this has transpired, I believe, just speaks to the fact that the Conservative Party is absolutely not ready to deal with systemic racism. It is not ready to deal with smart criminal justice policies. If we look at places where they have implemented mandatory minimum penalties, such as the United States, which had, at the height of it, the largest number of mandatory minimum penalties, they are now rejecting this notion because it is something that impacts racialized people. It particularly affects Black communities in the United States.

Today, we have an opportunity in Canada to address this issue in a very meaningful way and in a balanced way. While I know that Bill C-5 may not have gone far enough for many, it is one that fundamentally will change the criminal justice system and make sure that we have smart policies, one that ensures that people are able, if they do not pose a danger to the public, to continue their sentence in a community with supervision. It also ensures that they are able to get the right supports in order to continue with their lives, so that their lives are not disrupted, and they are not in a maze of criminality among those who are in prison.

This is very smart and balanced criminal justice policy, one that I believe Canadians want us to embrace, and one that has, for far too long, impacted vulnerable communities.

I believe that the splitting of this bill will be fundamentally wrong, and it will be the wrong approach. I would say it would be a complete failure on the part of the House to address something that has been so pronounced in our country. All we have to do is look at the annualized reports from the office of the correctional investigator, who painstakingly, year after year, demonstrates that the numbers of those who are in penitentiaries in Canada are, increasingly, young Black men, indigenous men and indigenous women who, as of last December, surpassed 50% of the prison population.

What I ask today, and what I ask the House, is that we continue on pursuing Bill C-5 in its entirety as one bill, and that we continue to have our witnesses, who have been very thoughtful. While I may not agree with all of them, I think they have been very thoughtful in the way they presented this, and we look forward to ensuring that the matter comes back to the House. I welcome the opposition to have a robust debate on this and continue the debate on Bill C-5 that we had earlier this year and be able to come to, hopefully, a consensus, if not a vote, that can make sure the bill passes through the House and the Senate.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree often with my colleague for Winnipeg North, but I found many aspects of his speech today important. For a week and a half now, the Conservatives have blocked the ability of members of Parliament to present petitions every single day. For a week and a half, they have disrupted Routine Proceedings, and it is always for a different reason. Sometimes it is the same committee report they present for a second or third time, sometimes it is a different committee report, and sometimes it is a motion of instruction, but it all adds up to trying to block fundamental bills that would help people.

I think, particularly when we talk about the budget implementation act and the fact that the NDP pushed and forced the government to put in place the national dental care program for children at the same time as unprecedented investments in affordable housing, it is strange beyond belief that a Conservative member, who would be helping thousands of people in his or her own riding by supporting the BIA and allowing it to move forward, continues to try to block it.

My question to my colleague for Winnipeg North is very simple. What does he think the strategy of the Conservatives is, when they block Bill C-8 for months, block petitions for a week and half and now are blocking important legislation that would lead to dental care and affordable housing for Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc member, like the Conservatives, is saying, “Trust us. This is what would have happened.”

I would suggest that members of the Bloc and the Conservative Party review the past week, and take a look at the games they have played in this last week. While they do that, they should reflect on Bill C-8: the fall economic statement that should have passed months ago. However, because of the Bloc and the Conservative Party, that legislation, which was debated 12, 13 or more times inside the chamber for many hours and more than the budget itself, did not pass.

Why should we believe those members on a Friday afternoon, when they have been causing nothing but filibusters throughout the week?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members recall Bill C-8, the fall economic statement. We just passed that piece of legislation, even though it was introduced in 2021. The reason why we just passed it is the Conservative games. The Conservatives did not want to pass the legislation. That legislation was there to support small businesses and to support people directly in response to the pandemic, in a very real and tangible way. That is what Bill C-8 was all about.

What we are seeing now is that the Conservatives want to continue to play that game, but on the budget implementation bill. This whole week, the Conservative Party has been attempting to stop debate on legislation. This is not the first time during motions that the Conservatives have stood up to try to prevent a debate from occurring. We can just look at what has happened this week. There are many examples of it.

As the member tries to suggest that he is being generous, he might fool some within his Conservative caucus or some members, but he is not going to fool me or, I suspect, other government members.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I will get to my question. I am speaking to the member's comments about reasonable timelines.

The member for Durham was ousted as the leader after about four months, and the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle after about three months, yet it took the Conservatives over five months to bring us to a vote on Bill C-8, which helps teachers and farmers. Therefore, when the member said that the members of the Conservative Party are working hard, is it that they are just working hard to find themselves a leader who might win in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I like hearing the member, even when he gives the same speech three times in a row. All members are honourable, except that he said a number of things that are factually incorrect. He contradicted you on a number of rulings that you have already made. I think the official opposition House leader has a responsibility to respect the Speaker's rulings, which have been repeatedly contradicted by what Conservatives have been saying in the House.

For two months, we have had the Conservatives block everything in the House of Commons. When they are not putting up this committee report, and this is the third time the member has given the same speech on this one-paragraph report, they put up other reports. They have blocked Bill C-8. Teachers and farmers implored Conservatives to let it get through the House, yet for months they blocked it.

Now we have the budget implementation act, which puts into place two important things for the good people of Barrie—Innisfil. As colleagues well know, national dental care, which the NDP pushed for and forced the government to put into place, would actually help 29,000 people in Barrie and the immediate area. The national housing that the NDP has forced the government to finally invest in would also have significant positive impacts.

My question is very simple. The ethics committee has a responsibility, of course, to do its good work, but why are the Conservatives systematically blocking all pieces of legislation in the House of Commons? Why will they not allow good things to happen for Canadians?

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Conservatives want to spend time talking about things that happened six years ago, but I would ask them about this instead. Right now we have a Bill C-8, which has been debated for 12 days in the House. That was introduced in December, so that is five months of obstruction. I would say that, while they do not want to talk about the economy, while they do not want to talk about the environment and while they do not want to talk about the issues that are important to Canadians, will they at least let the other parties in this place do their work and get the business of this nation done?

Fisheries and Oceans

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, just in case the member was not listening to all of it, I said there were only two points.

The first point I emphasized was the issue of the IISD Experimental Lakes Area. The member was a parliamentary secretary under Stephen Harper, so I can understand why he might have selective hearing on that aspect of it. That definitely falls within the jurisdiction of the legislation.

I am also pointing out how the motion we have before us is meant to continue playing the ongoing game of avoiding the passage of Bill C-8, which is causing me to have to move the motion I am about to move. This way people will understand why I am feeling obligated to move the motion.

There is no disrespect for the issue being raised today. Unlike the Conservative Party, the government genuinely believes in taking action to deal with invasive species. We have shown that in budgetary measures, and I would even suggest in legislative measures, with some of the protection legislation we have brought in for our environment.

Having said that, I am feeling obligated to move the following motion because it is time to finish the debate so we can have a vote on Bill C-8. Remember that we have already passed budget 2022-23. All we are saying is that it is time we support our teachers, farmers and business people, along with the many people who are dependent on Bill C-8. Let us pass the legislation. Let us allow it to come for debate.

I move, seconded by the member for Halifax West:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address two quick points before I have something more solid to say on this.

The first point is that it takes a great deal of courage, as a Conservative, to stand and speak about invasive species in our lakes. It was Stephen Harper, and I want members to remember the Experimental Lakes Area, who actually cut that back. I remember standing in opposition criticizing the then prime minister.

We had over 50 pristine lakes. The science being administered in that area, and the research, was phenomenal. It was recognized around the world as dealing with substantial issues in order to protect freshwater lakes. The Conservatives now have the courage to move a concurrence motion on that issue, at least in part, on a government that is invested in protecting our oceans.

Just the other day, I talked about the importance of our fishing industry. It was a special focus on Atlantic Canada in particular. We have many members from Atlantic Canada and B.C. who are very passionate about conservation and protecting our waters. Regarding freshwater lakes, I made reference to Lake Winnipeg.

We understand the issue, and that is the reason we have put into place percentages of protected areas where we have invested tens of millions of dollars. It is definitely a lot more than the former prime minister and former administration put forward. The Conservatives then try to give the false impression that, as a government, we are not stepping up to the plate. I will leave it at that on that particular point.

The second point I want to raise is one of gamesmanship. The question I put forward to opposition members was in relation to Bill C-8. Members of the House, and those following the never-ending debate on Bill C-8, have witnessed an official opposition going out of its way to prevent that legislation from passing. It has brought in a number of concurrence reports in order to prevent the debate. The one I really like is when the Conservatives move to adjourn the House. They want to quit: to stop the House and go home in order to prevent debate on Bill C-8.

We saw the Conservatives' behaviour in the last couple of days in opposition to allowing for more debate. If we did not bring in the motion yesterday, we would not have had the two hours of debate we had late last night, even though the Conservatives were hollering, screaming and crying that they did not want to sit late in the evening.

I think the Conservatives need to come to the realization that there are members in the House, whether Liberals or New Democrats, who have seen the value in allowing for a legislative agenda and allowing not only debate to occur but the ultimate passage of legislation. The Conservative Party is determined to continue to play the game.

That is why I find myself in a position, as I have in the past, to try to get the Conservative Party to refocus on the issue of serving Canadians through passing some of the Liberal government's legislative agenda. Bill C-8 needs to be debated and it needs to be passed. Bill C-8 was brought in many months ago. It is a reflection of the fall economic statement of last year—

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague. I know that his interest comes from a sincere place; there is no doubt. I am glad that the Conservatives are coming around, because under the Harper government, we saw a gutting of environmental funding, including action to fight invasive species.

We have the Conservatives, I guess, doing a mea culpa today. My greater concern, of course, is that the NDP will be proposing a concurrence debate in the evening in the coming days. We hope that the Conservatives will support it on this important issue, but today we are supposed to be voting on Bill C-8, and Bill C-8 provides supports to teachers and farmers in his riding.

The Conservatives have blocked, systematically, any debate and any passage on Bill C-8, which just does not make sense, when all of us are getting our teachers and farmers saying, “Why is Bill C-8 being held up?”

My question is very simple. The Conservatives have now blocked three consecutive routine proceedings. They have blocked petitions from being presented.

Will the Conservatives agree to the NDP's proposal for an evening concurrence debate around this issue so that we can have this full discussion without blocking needed legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, we are supposed to be debating Bill C-8 at this time. Members will be familiar with it because it is the 2021 fall economic update that was to implement a number of measures such as rapid tests, supporting small businesses and supporting northern rural residents. We have passed the federal budget now and the Conservatives are still filibustering Bill C-8: the fall economic statement from last year.

Is there something in that legislation that the member or the Conservative Party can identify that is so fundamentally wrong that they want to continue to play the games they are playing, by introducing motions for concurrence on reports in order not to debate Bill C-8?

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

Madam Speaker, the member has not really responded to the question of the dismal decade of the Harper government and the massive cuts, including cuts in programs that would have combatted invasive species.

My broader concern is not with the member's speech but with the systematic obstruction of the Conservative Party. We have had three routine proceedings in a row in full sitting days when the Conservatives have blocked the ability of members of Parliament to present petitions on behalf of our constituents, and on two of those three days they presented the same report twice, even though they know that report will be discussed next week.

Why are the Conservatives blocking Bill C-8 so systematically when teachers and farmers need access to those tax credits?

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

Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition, we often raised the issue of the experimental lakes project, which was in the whole Manitoba and Ontario area, and this is an area in which Stephen Harper actually cut, much to our dismay, given the importance of the fresh water.

Why does the member believe the then prime minister cut support funding that would have dealt with the issues the member is talking about? I can remember producing petitions on the issue, and I am wondering if he can provide his thoughts on that. While he is doing that, could he explain why the Conservative Party continues to want to play games and prevent debate on Bill C-8?

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Again, Madam Speaker, I have lived through a number of minority governments and I have observed the sort of dynamic that characterizes these minority governments. One of the things that the opposition likes to do is to delay and delay to make it look like the government is not accomplishing what it wants to accomplish and in order to give the message to people that the government is not working, not functioning.

Yes, it is a problem that we are discussing Bill C-8 as we enter the summer, when there are important measures in Bill C-8 to help farmers and people who live in the north and have to travel to the south for medical reasons and so on. I do not understand what is so complicated about this bill that we have to have 51 speakers at report stage. I just do not get it. It is very straightforward. It is to help people in the middle of a pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate, which I have been following carefully for the past few hours.

Human memory is a curious thing. I am not a psychologist, but I have noticed that humans have a tendency to forget the most painful memories, the difficult and distressing moments of the past, and this can sometimes condemn us to repeat the same mistakes. I think others would agree with me.

At a certain point, people often decide to focus on the positive and forget the negative. When I say “the negative”, I am talking about the crisis we just went through, and are still going through, but it was worse in 2020-21. Life has been completely turned upside down since March 2020, including our personal, family and work lives, and our work in this Parliament, in the House of Commons.

If we go back a bit, we will recall that the House of Commons did not sit for weeks. At the very beginning of the pandemic, it was extremely important to practise social distancing. There were perhaps a few hours once every two weeks where a handful of MPs could come to the House of Commons to adopt measures for Canadians and businesses. Apart from that, we lost a tremendous amount of time before setting up the hybrid Parliament.

Some may say that it is true that we lost time, but they will also accuse us of calling an election and losing even more time. Those who say that are not providing the full picture of what happens in a Parliament with a minority government, which has a very specific dynamic.

If we look at the history of minority governments in Canada, they do not last much more than 18 months. After that, the opposition likes to spin a narrative that the government is not working very well, and it repeats that story out loud day after day during question period. The government then starts to drag its feet for real. The opposition points the finger at the government, claiming that it is not accomplishing anything, that it is getting nowhere and that a new government is needed. That is how it plays out; that is how it has always played out.

I have been an MP under several minority governments, more so than under majority governments. This is the dynamic that usually takes hold, especially after an opposition party elects a new leader and a minority government has been in place for 18 to 24 months. People start thinking about triggering an election.

Our government was operating in a crisis, and it had to go back to voters for a reset, if you will, and a renewed mandate. When the government was elected in 2019, there was no crisis. Later on, it had to implement health measures, and strengthening and extending those measures required a mandate from Canadians. We lost time because of the pandemic, and we were unable to move forward on certain files.

The House has spent a very long time on Bill C‑8, a major bill that is crucial to helping Canada recover from the pandemic crisis. The bill is supposed to implement the fall economic update, but we have not yet passed it, and summer is just around the corner.

Why is it important?

Bill C‑8 provides essential support to workers and businesses to fight COVID‑19 and will continue to support the provincial and territorial health care systems with supplies of vaccines and rapid tests. The more information Canadians have about their health, the easier it will be for them to make decisions that enable them to keep the most vulnerable people—such as seniors and immunocompromised people—healthy, to keep themselves healthy and to keep others safe in the face of this pandemic. Canadians need assurances that they will not get sick when they go to work and that they will not make their loved ones sick with COVID‑19.

Bill C‑8 will also protect children by ensuring that schools have adequate ventilation. We must do everything in our power to prevent outbreaks in schools. This bill would implement a number of tax measures, such as tax credits for businesses that purchase ventilation equipment and for teachers who buy school supplies to facilitate virtual learning.

The safe return to class fund originally provided $2 billion to the provinces and territories to help cover a variety of investments to protect students and staff. The addition of $100 million to the fund is intended to support projects with the primary objective of increasing outdoor air intake or increasing air cleaning to help reduce transmission of COVID‑19.

I would also like to take the time to recognize the great work being done by teachers across the country. They are doing the most important job: taking care of our next generation.

Bill C‑8 is very important for recovering from the pandemic and avoiding a setback. We do not need any setbacks at this point. Things are hard enough, and we are already facing enough challenges, so this is an important bill in that sense. However, it is also a bill that is dragging on. What the opposition does from time to time is drag its feet in an attempt to show that the government does not have the competence to achieve its objectives.

There are other very important bills to be passed as well. I am referring in particular to Bill C-13, which deals with official languages. I represent a community that is predominantly made up of a linguistic minority in Canada, and Bill C‑13 will help better support this linguistic minority. It will enshrine the court challenges program in law, in a way. This program helps official language minority groups defend themselves in court when they are faced with actions such as the Harris government's move to close the Montfort Hospital, or the Harper government's move to cancel the court challenges program. This is therefore a very important bill for the anglophone minority in Quebec, but also for the francophone minority outside Quebec, as well as for promoting the French language and francophone culture in Quebec and across the country.

Bill C-11 is just as vital to promoting Canadian culture, including Quebec culture and French-Canadian culture. Let us take a look back and think about Bill C-10 in the previous Parliament. That was another bill on which the opposition was dragging its feet and filibustering in committee and in the House. They seemed to support the bill initially, but once the Conservatives saw the winds changing, especially among certain segments of the voting public, they changed their tune. This example illustrates how the official opposition decided to drag its feet and create obstacles. Let us get rid of those obstacles and move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here this evening as we enter week two of the four weeks in this part of our sittings. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to the government's proposal to extend the proceedings in the House of Commons for the remainder of the session.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

This Parliament was elected to get things done. As we have seen over the previous months, our government has an ambitious legislative agenda and we have a lot to accomplish in the weeks ahead.

In the last election, the wonderful residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge elected me for the third time because I ran on a platform that promised to grow the economy, fight climate change, make housing more affordable and protect our country's most vulnerable. Now that we are here today, Canadians expect their parliamentarians to deliver on those promises. This means the House of Commons needs to find a way to continue its important work and drive legislation in a timely and judicious manner. That is what the proposal we are discussing today sets out to do.

Over the last few months, we have seen an ambitious legislative agenda put forward by our government, but we have also seen a concerted effort by the Conservatives to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have shown a pattern of obstruction of legislation, including on Bill C-8. They have debated it for 10 days in the House of Commons and continue to block it, denying Canadians the support they need as our economy continues to recover as we exit the COVID pandemic and as we continue to fight to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast, which we are doing. We need to get Bill C-8 across the finish line and get it done.

Bill C-8 implements critical components of the fall economic and fiscal update tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on December 14, 2021. The bill includes critical supports for workers and businesses needed to help tackle COVID-19, and support for territorial and provincial health care systems on vaccines, ventilation in schools and rapid tests. It also implements several tax measures, including tax credits for businesses purchasing ventilation supplies and for teachers who purchase school supplies to assist with virtual learning.

Since the start of the pandemic, our government has put in place unprecedented measures to support people and businesses across the country, to support our friends, our neighbours and our family members. Since day one, our government has had the backs of Canadians.

In Bill C-8, our government has outlined our plan to procure millions of rapid tests free to provinces, territories and indigenous communities. Bill C-8 includes support for workers and businesses, with changes to CEBA and El. We have proposed to create a host of tax credits, which would benefit Canadians, including a ventilation improvement tax credit for small businesses, tax deductions for residents of northern Canada, supporting our rural communities from coast to coast to coast, and support for farmers by returning fuel charges in involuntary backstop jurisdictions. Bill C-8 also proposes to implement a national tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential real estate in Canada that is considered to be vacant or underutilized.

Here is the thing: Our plan is working. We have now surpassed our target of creating a million jobs. By delivering significant fiscal support to the economy and avoiding the harmful Conservative austerity policies that followed 2008, our Liberal government has supported a rapid and resilient recovery. We know that there are challenges ahead and the future remains uncertain, but we also know that we need to reinforce the importance of passing this legislation so that we can focus our attention on the future.

As we finish the fight against COVID-19, we will turn our resolve toward fighting climate change, addressing housing affordability, advancing reconciliation with indigenous people and building an economy that is stronger, fairer, more competitive and more prosperous for all Canadians. If the Conservatives are opposed to those measures to support Canadians, that is their prerogative; that is their choice. However, one party should not get to obstruct the work of other MPs in the House of Commons.

That is not the only bill that I would like to see moved forward before the end of the session. We know that the budget implementation act will be debated soon. On April 7, 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced “Budget 2022: A Plan to Grow Our Economy and Make Life More Affordable”. It is a plan that invests in Canadians and a plan that will help build a Canada where no one is left behind. The BIA will put those priorities into action.

Budget 2022 invests in three main things: people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone. Through targeted and responsible investments, our government will help make life more affordable, create jobs and prosperity today, and build a stronger economic future for all Canadians tomorrow.

We know from the budget that we are making it easier for Canadians to buy a home. We are moving forward on dental care. We are investing to help businesses scale up and grow. In the budget, we are making wealthy corporations pay their fair share. We are investing in a clean future and helping Canada become a world leader in producing electric vehicles. I know that everyone in the House and all Canadians are very happy to see the $3.6-billion investment that was made by Stellantis, in partnership and collaboration with the federal government and the provincial government. It means, here in Ontario, thousands of direct jobs and tens of thousands of jobs indirectly. It is a great day for the auto sector, a great day for this province and a great day for hard-working middle-class Canadians.

We have all seen the recent statistics. Canada has the strongest jobs recovery in the G7, having recouped 112%, and I think up to 150%, of jobs lost since the peak of the pandemic. Our unemployment rate is down to just 5.5%, close to the 5.4% low in 2019, the lowest rate on record for five decades. Also, throughout the pandemic, we maintained a strong fiscal anchor and fiscal footprint, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio relative to our G7 peers.

Now, as we emerge from the pandemic, our government is focused on the priorities that Canadians expect us to deliver on: making life more affordable, creating jobs, growing the economy and ensuring a clean future for everyone. We need a healthy environment.

We will also need to move forward with Bill C-11, on online streaming. For decades, our system has guaranteed the creation of Canadian movies, TV shows and music that make us proud to be Canadian. Today, streaming platforms benefit from access to the Canadian market but have zero responsibility toward Canadian artists and creators. With our online streaming bill, we are asking online streamers to showcase and contribute to the creation of Canadian culture. Canadian broadcasters play by one set of rules and streaming platforms play by another. There should be one set of rules for everyone. We have been clear since the beginning: Those who benefit from the system should contribute to it. That is exactly what we need to see, so we need Bill C-11 to move forward.

To come back to our discussion about the motion for a moment, the motion would allow for extended time to debate bills, which is a good thing. We have heard from members of the opposition that they want more time to debate significant legislation. This motion allows for that to happen in the evenings when the government and one other party, which represent a majority in the House, request it. We believe that it is important for MPs to have the opportunity to debate legislation, and the motion facilitates this.

Let us think of the other pieces of legislation that could benefit from the additional time for debate.

I think of, for example, Bill C-18. We all know that a free and independent press is essential to Canadian democracy, and the work of our journalists has value. That is why we introduced Bill C-18, the online news act. It would require the tech giants to fairly compensate publishers and journalists for the content shared on their platforms. We are creating a framework to ensure that Canadian publishers, big and small, can negotiate fair deals on more equal terms with the tech giants, the most powerful companies in the world. The Europeans are doing it. We are going to do it as well. We will always support quality, fact-based and local Canadian journalism in a fair digital marketplace. I think all members of the House would agree with that, and that is why we should see this bill passed.

We also have Bill C-5, which deals with mandatory minimum sentences. A justice system that jails too many indigenous people, Black people and marginalized Canadians is not effective. That does not keep us safe and it must be changed.

With Bill C-5, we are turning the page on the failed policies of the Harper Conservatives. We are removing mandatory minimum penalties that target lower-risk and first-time offenders that have been shown to increase the over-incarceration of racialized and marginalized groups. We will also provide police and prosecutors with the tools and guidance they need to treat addiction and simple drug possession as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue. My brother is a first responder in the police force so I know he appreciates this.

Bill C-5 represents an important step forward. These changes will ensure that our criminal justice system is fair and effective and will keep Canadians from all communities safe.

To finish, these extended sittings will allow us to debate these bills and will provide more time for MPs to share their thoughts with constituents back home, be their strong local voice here in Ottawa and represent their constituents' views.

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

Madam Speaker, when the member talks about the political games that are played, what he does not make reference to is the number of days that Bill C-8, the fall economic statement, has been debated, and the number of times the government has attempted to bring it forward only to be frustrated because the opposition wants a concurrence motion on this or that. There is no doubt that there are important issues, but this is always done on government business days. When the Conservatives attempt to adjourn debate or stop the House for the day, it is for issues the opposition initiates in order to frustrate and prevent the government from passing legislation. Then they criticize the government for not being able to pass legislation. That is just plain stupid.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place and stand up for the people who sent me here.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, I take very seriously the fact that when I stand in this place, I am representing about 110,000 people spread out over approximately 53,000 square kilometres in east central Alberta. I am representing them here in this place. Whenever I stand, whenever I am engaged in committee, I make sure it is their best interests that are at heart.

As we debate Motion No. 11, the tragic irony is the fact that the government, supported by its coalition partners in the NDP, moved closure on a motion that would limit debate and limit the ability for MPs to fulfill their parliamentary, constitutional and societal duties.

There is tragedy after tragedy, but Motion No. 11 represents what I believe, and from what I have heard already from my constituents and many Canadians, is a terrible demonstration of democracy in decline in Canada. I do not say that lightly, because when it comes to the institutions of Parliament, of our country, we are seeing decline. We are seeing damage that is being done. I believe it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to ensure that we stand for the rights and freedoms, for the democratic values that built this country.

I first read Motion No. 11 shortly after it was put on the Order Paper last week. It is in typical Liberal strategic fashion. They are bringing something forward that, if it passes tonight, will contribute to further democratic decline in this country.

I am proud to be able to stand in this place to fight against that not just for the sake of Conservatives. It is a misnomer to suggest that the Conservatives are only fighting for themselves. No, the reality is that when one fights for democracy, one stands to fight for all voices. One stands to fight for all political opinions, all who have the honour, the privilege and the ability in this country, not just elected MPs, but all in this country who have the privilege to vote during an election, to be engaged in democratic discourse each and every day. It goes all the way up to our having the responsibility of representing Canadians in this place.

I want to systematically go through some of the significant challenges in Motion No. 11. The Liberals are quick to say that many of us in this place do not want to work. They throw around those allegations, but that is a very small part of what Motion No. 11 really is about.

Let us look at paragraph (b), which is the details related to paragraph (a) of Motion No. 11. The first part would allow there to be late-night sittings. Few Canadians would debate the fact that they expect their politicians to work. The problem is that the Liberals want control. It is clear that they themselves do not want to work, and this motion confirms that, but they also want control over exactly how Parliament functions. The opposition House leader has used a phrase that I think explains very well the attitude of this government when it comes to how it wants Canada to work. The government does not want an opposition. It simply wants an audience.

I find it really interesting that whenever the Liberals fail, they often say that it is in the name of being team Canada, that it is for team Canada's sake that we need to simply move forward, or skip due process or whatever the excuse of the day is. It is shameful that time and time again they have repeated those sorts of failures.

On the first part of Motion No. 11, many Canadians would look at it and say that for politicians to be able to work late to get things done is okay. However, I certainly hear from constituents, and the Liberals do not want to hear this, that they want us to actually debate bills. They want us to be engaged in this place in democratic discourse.

It goes on. In the next three parts of (b), items (ii), (iii) and (iv), it is truly an attack on democracy. It goes on further. It comes to (c), regarding changing some of the rules. We have heard a lot of discussion about quorum calls and how, again, the Liberals do not want further debate. They want to simply be able to control the debate to meet their ends.

There is no better example of that than Bill C-8. We hear many Liberals, especially, and New Democrats who are now complaining about the fact that it is still in Parliament. It is the government's job to manage its legislative agenda. Like so many things in Canada, the Liberals have done that poorly. However, I would point to the fact that the Liberals only introduced Bill C-8 just before Parliament rose for Christmas. They talked about it. We all knew it was coming. There was no surprise that it was coming, but they introduced it only a day or two before Parliament recessed for six weeks. Then Parliament came back and they had the audacity to suggest that somehow, when Conservatives want to fulsomely debate that bill, we are being obstructionist or whatever their key line of the day is. It is an absolute shame. Again, it is an attack on democracy. We are seeing a decline in democracy.

Of course, there is the ability for the Prime Minister or any minister of the Crown to prorogue Parliament, basically. It is a bit different because it would require a vote. However, this speaks to the fact that when the Prime Minister flip-flopped on his prorogation promise in order to cover up another one of his litany of scandals over the course of his time of being leader of this country, he suffered in the polls for it. Now the Liberals are using their partners in the NDP to avoid the shame and the political punishment that come with the fact that they break their promises. Now they are giving the chance for any minister of the Crown, as early as tomorrow or the next day, to be able to stand up. Worse, I would suggest, is to hold that over the heads of parliamentarians, knowing that they would be quick to use the entire infrastructure of government, which does not stop when Parliament adjourns, to keep repeating their same old tired talking points.

There is much to say in this debate in the fact that the government did limit debate on the motion that would limit debate. There is the tragic irony of that. I see how these Liberals, in their litany of scandals, want to see as little discussion and opposition on any aspect of their agenda as possible. We see that represented throughout Motion No. 11.

I would simply suggest something which is quite straightforward. I have in front of me a document that was put together by a constituent whose name is Neil. I thank Neil for this. There are 15 different scandals, promises that were made and broken. They were clear misrepresentations to Canadians that the government made over the course of leading up to the election that the Prime Minister promised he would not call but did anyway. Canadians know what that is. There are 15 very clear, different issues that speak to how the government cannot be trusted with power of any kind, let alone the ability to unilaterally control Parliament.

A Liberal majority government was bad. Hundreds of thousands of Albertans were pushed out of work by the Liberals' ideological games. There was the fact that we saw an agenda that diminished Canada's presence on the world stage, and on and on it goes.

What is worse, which I certainly have heard from many constituents, is a Liberal minority government with a bought-off majority by a socialist NDP, or “NP” maybe because the democratic part maybe is not as relevant. It is worse than a Liberal majority government because the New Democrats have been able to buy off the Liberals and then, of course, with a threat of a confidence motion within whatever their quasi-caucus circumstances might be.

I conclude by saying that Canadians are tired of having a government simply repeat for itself the same tired, in many cases, misrepresentations of the truth time and time again, claiming it is real when Canadians know better. Canadians did not vote for the circumstances we are debating here today. Certainly Conservatives are going to stand up for Canadians of all political affiliations to make sure that their rights can be respected within Canada's Parliament.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, may Gord rest in peace. We miss him here.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I rise to oppose government Motion No. 11. It is not because we do not want to have more debate here; it is just that my colleague, who just spoke across the way, does not understand what the contents of his own motion are. He could not even answer a simple question from the Green Party MP about why there was an extension for the medical assistance in dying committee. He does not understand his own motion here, either.

Conservatives are ready to debate, but the issue before us is the wording of the motion in several places. One of the most egregious things that is in the motion is the ability for the government, a minister or the Prime Minister, at any point in time after Motion No. 11 is passed, if it is passed unamended, to simply adjourn the House. That is something that is reserved for the Speaker only, as we saw on that one day when the Speaker adjourned the House during the convoy when the police had moved in. There was supposed to be a debate on the Emergencies Act that day, but the House was adjourned so we had a reason why the Speaker took that particular prerogative.

Normally, when a prime minister wants to adjourn the House, he or she has to go through the process of prorogation to reset the political agenda. That would be the only reason. We have already agreed, as political parties here, what days we are going to sit. We have the parliamentary sitting calendar, so it is simply not true that Conservatives do not want to have a debate. We already have the parliamentary calendar set up. What is actually true is that the government, which is blaming Conservatives for being obstructionist when we are simply doing our job debating legislation, has already been able to pass eight of the 18 bills that it has introduced in this particular Parliament. Yes, Bill C-8 is taking some time, but it is billions of dollars in spending. Here is what the Liberals are not saying about Bill C-8.

First of all, the Prime Minister called an unnecessary election in August of last year, which used all of the sitting days that would have been available in September and October all the way up to November 22, which by my calculation is at least seven sitting weeks. That is 35 days of Parliament that we otherwise would have sat and we could have debated and discussed this legislation. Even more cynically, the Liberals tabled Bill C-8 on the very last day of the fall sitting, which was December 16, which means that they basically had not one day. They tabled the bill one day before the House adjourned in the fall. That means that the fall economic statement had zero days of debate in the fall.

If we fast forward, after weeks of Parliament being adjourned over the Christmas break, the Liberals' mismanagement, and the name-calling of Canadian citizens that resulted in a protest that sidetracked this place, here we find ourselves. Lo and behold, the Conservatives have only been speaking to Bill C-8 for a handful of days, and the bill has gone through committee and passed at second reading. It is now at report stage and is moving its way through third reading. All the Liberals had to do was simply ask their coalition dance partners in the NDP if they wanted to move this along.

We have legitimate concerns about the legislation. There are some things we may agree with on this side of the House, but there are also some things in there that we disagree with. It is our job to bring those matters to debate before the House of Commons. As I said, they have a supply and confidence motion, otherwise known as a coalition with the NDP. They simply had to ask their dance partners for approval to do this. For whatever reason they did not get it, so I do not know how much confidence the Liberals could have in what the NDP is supplying them, but I will leave that for the dance partners to talk about.

My point is that the mismanagement of the time of the House by the Liberals is what is actually the problem. They have been able to get bills passed, but we have a right and a constitutional responsibility to oppose legislation that we do not agree with. Even if we agree with bits and pieces of it, our job is to challenge the legislation that is before the House. The whole notion of how a democracy is supposed to work is through the cut and thrust of debate, the to and fro of debate. It is to have the best ideas from all sides of the House and all sides of the chamber, and all the people who voted in the last election have their ideas come together and bubble to the top.

The problem with the motion is the tone of the motion. This is what the Liberal and NDP members are trying to do. If a citizen is at home watching this and wondering what is actually going on, let me spell it out for them.

In a normal sitting of the House, there is this thing called “quorum”. The House must have at least 20 MPs here. Normally, the governing party, the party that is responsible for the legislation that is being discussed, has to be present to carry the debate. That would require, in addition to the Speaker, at least 19 Liberal members of Parliament, or Liberal-NDP members of Parliament if they are working in cahoots together, to be present for the debate.

In Motion No. 11, there is a clause that says the government will remove any ability to call quorum or to move a dilatory motion. People at home might wonder what a dilatory motion is. That is a motion to adjourn the House and end the debate. It ends what we are talking about or stops what we are doing at a particular point in time. It adjourns a meeting of the House of Commons.

It is the quorum part that matters. As Conservatives, we are willing to be here and debate. That is not a problem. On behalf of the millions of people who voted for us, we would expect that at least 20 Liberals would be in the House to listen. With the motion worded the way it is, the government is basically saying, to Conservatives and Bloc Québécois MPs, “Talk to the hand.” The government is going to pass an autopilot motion in the House of Commons that is normally reserved for debates, such as take-note debates or emergency debates, where there is no question, no vote, at the end of those debates.

At the end of Bill C-8, and at the end of Motion No. 11, there is going to be a vote. That is different. To put the House in that type of scenario is completely unacceptable. For those who are watching at home, this is the part that the Liberals and the NDP are not telling people. They are not telling Canadians that they are getting rid of the actual processes and procedures in the House of Commons: the Standing Orders that we normally operate by. They are getting rid of those things because they do not necessarily want to be here.

I am pretty sure the member for Kingston and the Islands will be here and my friend for Winnipeg North, who is always here in the House, will probably be here. There will be one if not two of them. I might see some of the other MPs from the Liberal Party, but I do not expect to hear from them because, frankly, I never do.

Notwithstanding any of that, for people who are watching at home, it is not just Conservatives who are opposed to this: it is members of the Bloc as well. I am pretty sure there are some members in the NDP who are very uncomfortable with what is happening: people who used to stand up for the working-class Canadians in this country, and people who used to actually stand up for transparency and accountability in this country, are looking at this and wondering what is going on as well.

To Canadians who are watching at home and listening to the talking points from the Liberal MPs who are speaking, this is the part that is egregious. They would simply take away the ability for the Prime Minister or the government of the day to just adjourn the House, so that when things get a little hot around here, if the Prime Minister was under another investigation, they would just shut down the House but they would not have to go through the embarrassment of calling a prorogation to do it. That is the first thing.

The second is quorum. “Talk to the hand,” is basically what they are saying to Conservative members of Parliament and the Bloc Québécois. The government just wants us to talk. We could just have a joint caucus meeting with the Bloc, according to the motion. We do not actually need to be here. There is no point in us sitting here debating if the government is not interested in listening.

If the government is not interested in listening, why not? Does the government not care about the millions of Canadians who did not vote for its members in the last election? Are there no good ideas from the official opposition? Is there no role for the official opposition? Is there no role for the people who voted for the Bloc Québécois to bring up the issues that are important to them?

Where are we in this democracy? This is the problem. To Canadians who are watching, this is the problem. This is why Conservatives are so adamant that Motion No. 11 is fundamentally flawed. We are okay to come to work. We want to come to work. I have been here for 16 years, and the last two weeks in June is the time when extended sitting hours are automatically in the calendar. If MPs in the governing caucus want to have extended hours, they do it. I have done it. As a matter of fact, I was a member of the Harper caucus when Harper was the prime minister. We had motions like this, but we would never dream of putting in an autopilot motion on government legislation.

It is egregious. It is an abuse of the powers of the House. What is shocking to me is that the NDP is going along with this. Where is the party of Tommy Douglas and Jack Layton?

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

Madam Speaker, at stake immediately in Bill C-8 are the teachers, who have supports in the bill that should have been passed months ago so they could realize those supports. They cannot because the Conservatives are literally holding up this piece of legislation as long as they possibly can. They will go on and on.

What is at stake are some of the other pieces of legislation that we need to move forward on, such as modernizing the criminal justice system to remove mandatory minimums. I realize that is something the Conservatives are against, but the point is that this government has an interest in debating that. They will have their time to do that. Other pieces would be on modernizing the Broadcasting Act and the Official Languages Act. These are all very important pieces of legislation that we know we want to discuss and get passed in some form or another by the end of this session in June.

Now we are just saying that this is fine. If the Conservatives want to talk endlessly, we will give them more opportunity to do that. That is what this is all about.

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

Madam Speaker, he asked about the government not being able to bring forward the important pieces of legislation. Why can we not bring them forward? It is because we have been debating Bill C-8 for 12 days. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to it, along with five Bloc members, two Greens, two NDP members and three Liberals. The Conservatives are clearly stopping at nothing to make sure that legislation cannot get through. That is why this is important.

I would encourage that member, who shares an opposition lobby with the Conservatives, to walk over to his colleagues and ask why those guys are holding up the fall economic statement. It is May of 2022, and this is the economic statement that was to provide support for Canadians from the fall of last year.

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

Madam Speaker, if I am saying something that is unparliamentary or inappropriate, I would expect the Speaker to call me out on that and tell me to discontinue. I did not hear that in what you said. I understood that you are personally concerned about some of the things I was saying, but I do not think I did that.

Nonetheless, I think I am only feeding back what I get. This is the Conservative Party, whose members have called the Prime Minister a trust fund baby in the House. It causes me to be critical, and if they cannot take it, I am sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. They had better learn how to do that.

I will get back to the motion. This motion is about making sure that we have the proper tools in place for legislation to get through. We are talking about the budget. We are also talking about Bill C-11, the modernizing of the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-13, an update to the Official Languages Act; Bill C-14, on electoral representatives; and Bill C-18, enhancing fairness in the Canadian online news marketplace. These are the pieces of legislation this government has deemed to be the priority moving forward. What we are seeing from the other side are Conservatives not wanting to let the legislation go through.

I am sorry if my saying that is offensive to anybody, but the reality is that on Bill C-8 alone, there have been 12 days of debate since report stage was introduced. Two Green Party members have spoken to it. Two NDP members have spoken to it. Three Liberals have spoken to it, and five Bloc members have spoken to it. Does anyone know how many Conservatives have spoken to it?

It is more than four or five. Do members think it is ten? No, it is more. Do members think it is twenty, thirty, or forty? No, it is more. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to Bill C-8 since the report stage of that bill was introduced. They cannot tell me that this is not a political game for the Conservatives to be obstructionist. That is exactly what they are doing, and they do it day in and day out.

The NDP has finally seen beyond it. New Democrats do not want anything to do with it, and they want to actually work on behalf of Canadians. Then they get criticized for not following along with the games the Conservatives are playing. That is literally what happens.

When the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about closure being put on this motion, he said something very interesting, and I would like to read it from the blues. He said, “We [already] just voted on the closure motion to ensure that there is a vote on Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is going to be coming into force whether we like it or not. The government, with [their] unholy alliance with the NDP, will get its Motion No. 11 through and we do not feel like it is necessary to sit there and debate this...long, drawn-out process.” Then why are they going to put us through this? They will make every single second of debate go on. They will not let this collapse.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just said himself that he knows this is going to pass and that debating it is absolutely pointless, yet he wants it to go on. Why is that? It is because he wants to push this on as long as possible, along with the rest of the Conservatives and the Bloc, so that we cannot get legislation debated and ultimately passed. That is not our job here. Our job here is to work on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives' job is to criticize the legislation, to try to improve the legislation, not to put up roadblock after roadblock at every single opportunity they have, which is what they are doing.

I find it interesting that the Conservatives have on a number of occasions talked about how this government does not want to work. This is not a new motion. The timing of it is slightly earlier than normal, but we always have a motion like this to extend sitting hours. I would like to read some quotes.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, on May 28, 2019, to a similar motion, “We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.” In a similar debate two years earlier, on May 30, he said, “We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government”.

The member for Lethbridge on May 1, 2017, said, “The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek.... The Liberals want Fridays off. They [want to have] a four-day workweek [and that] is more than enough.”

The then leader of the opposition on May 29, 2017, said, “We know they want Fridays off and we know [that this] is a big deal to them. They do not want to be working Fridays. They do not realize that Canadians work five days a week, and many times [they work] more than five days a week.”

We are asking to work more than five days a week, which is exactly what the then leader of the opposition said in May 2017. That is the interesting part about all of this. One cannot help but wonder why, if they want to speak to all of this legislation at great length, and if they want to put up 51-plus speakers on every piece of legislation, they would not be interested in sitting into the evenings to do that. We certainly are. They accused us of not wanting to do it.

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

Madam Speaker, we know in particular when it comes to bills like Bill C-8 that members of the Conservative Party want to talk a lot, that they have a lot to say.

Can the member possibly understand why the Conservative Party would be against this, when this would just give those members even more opportunity to speak to very important pieces of legislation? Would he not think, given the number of speeches the Conservatives have given and the interest and passion they have in debating in this place, that they would not welcome with open arms the opportunity to debate even longer?

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

Madam Speaker, when we look at Bill C-8, what I will say is that it is disappointing in some regards, and I am on the record in terms of the ways in which I think it is disappointing. Despite it being disappointing, however, there are some things. For instance, there is the foreign homebuyers tax, but it has a lot of loopholes. I can say it is a step in the right direction, but it is certainly not going to solve the housing crisis that we see in Canada. We actually need to take some action on domestic investors who are helping pump up prices in the housing market. Unless we do that, a lot of the other things the government has been contemplating simply are not going to be effective. I certainly have my criticisms of the bill. I am happy to talk about those and I have talked about those in other places.

What I would say is that we have not seen a burgeoning kind of civil movement against Bill C-8. I do not think anyone is particularly animated about it outside of this place, but we would not know that by looking at the proportion of time that this place has spent on that bill. We have people calling for real climate action who are really upset at a government that has not done enough and is not doing enough and is not even planning to do enough in order to fight the climate crisis.

We are hearing from people about health funding and the state of health care in Canada and the need for more money to be transferred from the federal government to the provinces for health funding. We are also hearing about the absurdly high cost of prescription drugs and the ways in which a national pharmacare plan could help with that. We have heard from people who have never, in their family, been able to access dental services. They want to be able to access dental services and are excited at the prospect of finally having a mechanism to be able to go to the dentist and have that visit paid for.

These are the issues we are hearing about. However, in this place, despite none of those issues really being addressed in Bill C-8, we have spent already over 28 hours on debate on the bill. When we compare that to other bills and other business, that is a lot of time on a particular bill that does not seem to be at the centre of what Canadians are worried about and what they are thinking about. I do not get a lot of mail on Bill C-8. I get mail on many issues, but not on Bill C-8.

I do think there is a legitimate question as to why it is that certain opposition parties are spending that much time on that particular bill and that we cannot seem to find a way to move it along. Even those who do not particularly like it would say, and I would certainly say, that the issue is it just does not have the right solutions for the problems, but it is not that any of those solutions are particularly offensive.

It is true that time allocation is a tool that can be used and has been used. Many parties in this place have supported time allocation at one time or another.

People have asked why we are talking about extended sittings in May as opposed to June, as is the custom. Part of that is because we do not have a majority government that can just use time allocation on its own. We have a government that has to work with an opposition party that has said that if other opposition parties want more time to debate things, we endorse that. Therefore, let us create more opportunities to speak to bills while recognizing that we still have an obligation to pass bills in this place or, at the very least, to vote on them. Maybe they will not pass, but by literally calling the question, we will only get the answer to the question if members in this place allow us to proceed to the vote. Therefore, yes, we are supporting a motion that involves more midnight sittings than ever.

It also has a mechanism where we do not necessarily have to sit until midnight, partly to try to introduce some discretion to recognize that we normally go to midnight only in June. However, because we do not have a majority government that is just going to time allocate and time allocate, we are going to try to create more time for debate in the hopes that opposition politicians who say they want more time to debate government bills are being sincere and that it is a desire that could be satisfied. We may know in advance that the desire cannot be satisfied because opposition parties are committed in principle simply to talking out bills and creating dysfunction so that they can accuse the government of being incompetent when it comes to its legislative agenda. There may be some independent reasons for making that accusation that I am very sympathetic with, but it conflates the issue when we see opposition parties systematically trying to obstruct government business and it gets harder to tell where the blame lies.

Here we are trying to propose a path forward that allows for more opportunity for debate and discussion. That is exactly in the spirit of taking other opposition members at their word in saying that what they want is more time to debate these things, but we need to get to some decisions.

The situation of teachers in respect of Bill C-8 is an excellent example as to why in this place we cannot just talk and talk, but we do need to decide matters. There are teachers who have filed their tax returns and are being told that the reason those tax returns are not being processed is that there is a pending change to their tax entitlements in Bill C-8. It is a bill the CRA expected would have been decided upon one way or the other well in advance of the tax year, because Bill C-8 is the bill to implement the announcements that came in the fall economic statement some time ago, as implied by its name.

As such, here we are. We have not begun debate on the budget implementation act, which is the budget that was tabled about four weeks ago. We have done over 28 hours of debate on the act to implement the fall economic statement. We have teachers who are waiting on the CRA, which is waiting on this place to make a decision so that it knows what teachers are actually entitled to. If Bill C-8 passes, then those teachers who have spent money to buy supplies for the children in their class would get more back on their taxes than they otherwise would. We need to reach a decision.

This actually is a motion unlike other motions we have seen for June, when we have had majority governments that have unilaterally extended midnight sittings in June only and otherwise used the hammer of time allocation on its own. There is an attempt at compromise here. I think it would be more helpful to get some good-faith input from opposition parties about how we find that right balance between advancing government business and doing the proper job of an opposition party.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and to have the occasion to address this motion.

I have always taken an interest, and do today, in parliamentary procedure. Whenever we are talking about the rules of debate, I think that members rightly have an interest on what exactly is going on and what those details are and there is a legitimate tension. That is why in parliaments these kinds of debates tend to happen frequently between a government that needs to get its business done, not just for its own sake, but presumably for the sake of the nation and the people who elected them, and those in opposition who have a job to do in terms of scrutinizing the government's work in trying to make it better where they can and oppose it when they can. I have often said that.

I think there are reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the rights of parliamentarians. However, there are also reasons for supporting the rights of the opposition within Parliament that have to do with the time it takes for word to get out about what government intends to do, to have a civil society response and to organize around initiatives by the government that they may not like. I think one of our responsibilities as parliamentarians always is to look at the need for things to get done in the nation's capital, in Parliament and in government, as well as the obligations that we have to foster a healthy culture of opposition.

These are certainly the issues that are at stake. I think sometimes in this place it is hard to get at the particular circumstances, because we often tend to address these issues with a hyperbolic tone. Sometimes that is warranted. I have seen occasions in this House where I felt that it was warranted and have participated in that spirit. I think that is especially true when we have majority governments that are not forced to negotiate with other parties in Parliament in order to advance their agenda.

When we see members of all the same party getting up and dictating the rules of debate and there has been no meaningful interplay between parties in the House, that is one thing. I do think it is another thing when the government has to negotiate with another party in order to get its business done. What we are seeing is a government that has undertaken a number of initiatives in order to get support from the NDP to move a budget forward, for instance. That is okay. That is actually how this place is supposed to work, and I think that is how it works when it is working at its best. Then the question is this. In order to be able to get some of those things done, how do we conduct the business of the chamber?

I want to use Bill C-8 as an example of a case of opposition that does bleed into obstructionism.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to explain.

I find it unbelievable that the Bloc Québécois is not helping Quebeckers and that it refuses to say that Quebec's teachers and farmers are affected by the fact that Bill C‑8 has not been passed. Dental care and affordable housing are issues that also affect Quebeckers. I find it unbelievable that the Bloc refuses to do whatever it can to get this bill adopted and ensure that these people—

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

Madam Speaker, I know there has been a lot of discussion on Bill C-8 and the accusations of obstruction and obfuscation of the bill.

On April 4, the government put a notice of time allocation on Bill C-8. When I asked the government House leader why he did not move that notice of time allocation, he said it was because the NDP House leader said no and that they were waiting to see what was in the budget. The budget, of course, happened April 7, and then we all went home two weeks later.

Can the NDP House leader explain to Canadians why he decided not to use time allocation, or agree with the government at the time when they wanted to use it, when they could have moved this bill much further and much faster down the line? Maybe he can explain to Canadians why he said no to the government House leader in a telephone conversation, and maybe he can explain to teachers and farmers why they delayed this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier on in his speech about Bill C-8 in particular. We know there are a lot of measures in Bill C-8 that were literally stalled on getting out to people. I can think of teachers specifically. There are various measures related to the supports that we are delivering for Canadians right now. We really want to get those out to Canadians because, quite frankly, they have been waiting long enough.

Can he comment on how important this is for constituents in his riding?

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent and eloquent member for Elmwood—Transcona.

I am truly saddened by what I just heard from the Bloc Québécois. For months, the Bloc Québécois have watched the Conservatives block everything. Instead of intervening to help the people of Quebec, who need these bills to be passed, the Bloc decided to just stay on the sidelines and let things slide. The Bloc wants to let things keep sliding for the next few months. That saddens me because the Bloc was not elected in Quebec simply to let Parliament go around in circles and to allow one party to block everything. I think the Bloc is really here to make things happens, but it decided not to. That is sad, but I am happy to hear that it will be voting in favour of some aspects of Motion No. 11. That is a positive thing.

Personally, I will be voting in favour of the motion. I will explain why I am voting in favour of the motion by recapping the history of this Parliament.

When we came out of the unnecessary election last fall that Canadians did not want, Canadians rightfully said they were going to have the same Parliament that they had in 2019. They basically adopted the same numbers, but the message that they were sending to all of us was to work together.

We had a shining moment in Parliamentary history when every single member working together unanimously adopted the ban on conversion therapy. That point is worth applauding. That was a shining moment in this Parliament. Conservatives actually proposed the adoption unanimously of that important bill, and members from all parties voted together.

We know what happened after that. The leader of the Conservatives at the time was deposed. The Conservatives broke into various factions. Subsequent to that, we have seen a rogue element within the Conservative Party decide that it was going to block every piece of legislation coming forward: every single piece. “Nothing will pass” is the motto of the Conservative Party today.

I know that there are Conservative members who are uncomfortable and in fact do not believe that this is appropriate, particularly in a time of pandemic and particularly at a time when we need to get legislation through the House, but that is not where the interim leadership has decided to go. They have decided to block absolutely everything, and that is why we have this motion before us.

Bill C-8 was put forward last year and has provisions that every single member of Parliament is aware have a profound impact on teachers and farmers. It has an impact on how we, as Canadians, can respond to the continuing pandemic. For no other reason than this radicalization of the Conservative leadership, Bill C-8 has been blocked systematically now for months. I am saddened by this.

There are good members of Parliament in the Conservative Party who understand that this is the wrong thing to do, but the leadership that is in place in the Conservative Party wants to block everything, come hell or high water. It does not matter if teachers or farmers, or Canadians generally, are suffering as a result. Conservatives simply refuse any legislation, and that is why we have to take extraordinary measures. What the NDP has proposed and pushed the government on, and what the government has accepted, is the condition that we now increase our working time in order to get legislation through. We will be sitting until midnight when it is appropriate to do so. That is extremely important because it allows us to move legislation through the House.

The official opposition House leader has raised the point, and so has the House leader for the Bloc Québécois, that we need to ensure and enhance our translation services over this period. I certainly agree, and the NDP agrees. We have been pushing for more resources to be provided to translation. Our interpreters have not had the resources allocated to them that need to be allocated. I sincerely hope that we will have all parties coming together in order to achieve that.

We sit longer. We will be sitting evenings, and that is important. The question then is what the results of that are, if we can eliminate this impasse and start getting legislation through the House.

Immediately, of course, there is Bill C-8 and those provisions. I know that will make a difference to the teachers, farmers and health care professionals I have mentioned who have been waiting now for months to get a simple bill through that comes out of the fall economic update.

I know that my colleague for Elmwood—Transcona is going to speak to the issue of what many people are calling the NDP budget. The budget implementation act would put in place, for the first time in Canadian history, national dental care. It would start first for children and would move, over the course of the next year, to people with disabilities, seniors and teenagers. Canadians right across this country who have never had access to dental care would finally have access to it.

Also, there is the most significant investment in housing that we have seen in decades. The NDP has been very critical of the former Liberal government under Paul Martin that destroyed, gutted and ended the national housing program, and we have seen how housing has been in a crisis ever since. We need supply. We need to have affordable housing built, and that is co-operative housing, social housing and indigenous-led housing projects.

These components of what is coming forward need to be adopted swiftly, with the appropriate scrutiny, of course, and not held up, as we have seen with the legislation coming out of the fall economic statement, for months and months purely at the whim of a Conservative Party that is fractured now into so many different factions that none of them knows which way they are going. Their only reaction is: “Well, let us hold up everything”. That is simply not appropriate in a time of pandemic when so many Canadians are suffering.

We need to have these extended hours so that we can get through the important components of what the NDP, and the member for Burnaby South, our national leader, pushed the government to put into place for this budget. It is the first time under this Liberal government that I can actually see a budget that Canadians can have some hope for, with national dental care and a national housing investment that seeks to meet the gravity of the affordable housing crisis that we are seeing right across the length and breadth of this country, including in my communities of New Westminster and Burnaby.

To do the scrutiny, it means that all parties should be working together, but that has not been the case. We have seen, over the past few months, that the Conservatives have blocked everything they can at all times without explanation, and without really trying to even justify their actions. We saw it today when they presented the same motion that they presented last week, even though the Standing Orders require that discussion next week. They just wanted to hold up the House for the purpose of holding up the House.

Who suffers? It is Canadian families who suffer. It is Canadians who are waiting for those affordable housing investments that the NDP has pushed for who will suffer. It is Canadians who cannot afford dental care for their children who will suffer if we continue to allow the Conservatives to block everything in the House at all times.

What this is, is a common-sense approach when it is obviously not working, and when everything is being blocked by the Conservative opposition for internal reasons, I guess, that only they can explain. They have not really attempted to explain it either. We need to put in place extended hours, work harder and longer, but make sure that we get those tax credits in the hands of teachers and in the hands of farmers immediately. We need to make sure that we actually provide the health care professionals with those COVID supports. We need to make sure that we start to put in place that national dental program that the member for Burnaby South has been such a strong advocate for, and put in place that national housing strategy that will finally produce affordable housing from coast to to coast to coast. That is why I am voting yes.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member speak at length about his accusations that the government is unable to fulfill its responsibilities in delivering on its agenda, but I am wondering if the member has ever taken the opportunity to talk to some of the folks in the Conservative Party. They share a lobby together. Did he perhaps go to them and say that maybe they are going a little overboard with respect to the way they are trying to stall pieces of legislation, such as Bill C-8? The Conservatives have had 51 members speak to it at report stage alone.

I am wondering if the member could comment on whether or not he has taken his criticism to members of the party that he shares a lobby with to share his frustration over how slow things are moving given their tactics.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

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

Madam Speaker, I like the member. He is very experienced in the House, and I get along with him well, but I do not understand the Conservatives' strategy.

The official opposition House leader, just a few hours ago, was saying that the Conservatives do not want to delay things. They said that they understood the fact that teachers and farmers are trying desperately to get access to the tax credits, which the Conservatives have held up by refusing, in any way, to allow consideration of Bill C-8.

It is also the disinformation from Conservatives that concerns me. I mean, our Standing Orders are very clear. Standing Order 66 means that the concurrence debate that the Conservatives brought up last week, as the member well knows, is subject to a debate next week. That is in the Standing Orders. It is obligatory. The fact that they are doing their summer reruns by reintroducing a motion, reintroducing the same amendment that they did last week, does not allow the House time to actually get the legislation through that teachers and farmers and so many others are looking for.

I just do not understand the Conservatives' strategy. They seem to be blocking all legislation of all types at all times, and then they introduce a rerun when they know, and the member knows, that next week all of this will be considered, because the Standing Orders require it.

Why are they taking time from the House now when they know very well that this debate will be held next week and they can reintroduce, for a third time, the same amendment?

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

Madam Speaker, those are huge words that are being hurled around in the House by the Conservatives yet again. Many Conservative MPs, not all, fortunately, were very supportive of the so-called “freedom convoy”, which sought the overthrow of democratic government in this country. It sought the ripping away of all democratic values and traditions that we know in Canada.

The member says this is an important issue, but he has to answer a very simple question. The Conservatives are now presenting the same concurrence report this week that they presented last week. The House dealt with it last week. They are coming right back and presenting the same motion this week. They talk about the time that needs to be spent in the House to ensure that we actually get in place legislation that would help teachers, that would help farmers. I know the member, like everyone else in the House, has been hearing from teachers in his riding because of the delays that the Conservatives have caused around Bill C-8. I know that he has heard from farmers in his riding who have said the same thing, that the Conservatives are blocking all pieces of legislation. Now they are doing it by running a rerun, running a redebate of what was already debated last week and will be debated in an evening session once all parties come to an agreement.

Why is the member presenting exactly the same thing, exactly the same debate, when the House already considered that last week?

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

Madam Speaker, to say that I am disappointed, I would say yes. To say I am surprised, I would say no. It is unfortunate that the Conservative Party continues to demonstrate to Canadians its willingness to play games. We are actually supposed to be debating Motion No. 11 to ultimately see parliamentarians be able to sit longer for a debate, in order to accommodate more debate. Now the Conservatives take yet another tactical report, something that focuses on their interests, not the interests of Canadians, and that is what they want to debate, as opposed to debating other, more substantive issues, such as Motion No. 11, Bill C-8 and so forth.

Does the member not see the hypocrisy that is oozing from the Conservative caucus on the whole issue of credibility in standing and addressing the issues that Canadians are facing today? It is shameful.

Motion No. 11

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, it gives me pleasure to rise and speak to government Motion No. 11.

However, before I get into the specifics of it, let me just address a couple of issues that came up during the closure debate earlier. It was a very vigorous debate. I want to address one issue. There were several claims, both from the government side and the NDP side, which is the same side, about members of the opposition not wanting or being willing to work. Let me state unequivocally that Conservatives are here to do the business of the nation. We want to work. I have no problem with extending the hours. I really do not.

My profound concern, and I stated this in my interaction on Friday, is about the staff. We have seen, over the course of the last couple of years, that staff have been tested. The measure of the staff has been certainly tested around this place. We have heard about the interpreters, about the health challenges that have gone on. We have seen an increase in occupational injury risk for the interpreters. We are concerned about that work-life balance.

For two parties that espouse and say they are for the working class, they are not showing any empathy or compassion for what families are going to have to deal with, with respect to this motion, specifically the timeline for the extension of those sitting hours. It is causing me, as I said the other day, tremendous concern that with just one minute's notice, the government can come, with the NDP's help, and say they want to extend the hours. What is that going to mean for the staffing around this place? What is that going to mean to committees, when we start transferring resources to deal with some of these late-night sittings?

My staff in the House leader's office just informed me before I got up to speak that two committees already today are going to be cancelled: the Afghanistan committee and the medical assistance in dying committee. The meetings that were scheduled for today are going to be cancelled because they are going to have to allocate or transfer resources from those committees to the extension of the House sitting hours.

The government has said, and I heard the justice minister say, that this happens all the time. This happens, actually, once the agreed schedule is applied. All of the House leaders get together and we discuss. In fact, we are in the process of discussing the schedule for next year. Within the last two weeks, there are asterisks in the schedule. Those asterisks indicate there will be an extension of hours. It is agreed to. It is understood. However, what this does is basically give the government last-minute appeal. It can impose late sittings when it wants to.

We saw some news coverage over the weekend of the government saying that this was not what it was going to do and that it was going to give enough notice. If it is going to give enough notice, why would it put it specifically in this motion that it could do it up until 6:30 p.m. of any given day? I would suggest that this is the intent of what the government is going to do.

Cynically, I can think of only one reason this would happen: to keep the opposition parties, both the Conservatives and the Bloc, on their toes. This means that every day and every night, we are going to have to carry debate. We are prepared to do that. This is not a rubber stamp factory where multiple billions of dollars and pieces of legislation are debated and proposed, and where amendments are proposed at committee. We are already seeing the committee work being affected, but this is not a rubber stamp factory. There is a constitutional obligation on the part of the opposition to hold the government to account. That is our constitutional obligation.

With this motion, the Liberal Party and its Prime Minister are getting exactly what they have always wanted, with the help of the NDP. I will talk about the NDP in a second. With the help of the NDP, the government and the Prime Minister are going to get an audience, not an opposition. That is what he has been hoping for over the past six and a half years, and now with the NDP in the government's hip pocket, they have it.

Going back to the debate before, I just cannot believe the hypocrisy of the House leader of the NDP. For six and a half years, I have sat in this place and we have all sat in this place, those members who were elected in 2015, and how many times did the opposition House leader of the NDP talk about the fact that the Prime Minister was worse than Stephen Harper when it came to time allocation? He said it many times, and yet, the hypocrisy is that he stands here today and blames Conservatives for obstructing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

They talk about Bill C-8 as their benchmark piece of legislation that they look at. Bill C-8 was introduced on December 15. The House rose shortly thereafter. We sat in our constituencies and worked there for six weeks. We did not come back until January 29. It received second reading on March 1, went to committee and came back on April 1. There was a time allocation motion that was put in on April 4, and the NDP refused to support the government on time allocation. For them to sit here and blame Conservatives for obstructing that bill is disingenuous and, I would suggest, misleading the House, because maybe someone should hold the NDP House leader to account as to why he did not agree to that.

Here is the problem. When we look at the motion and we look at all the things that are in the motion, as I said earlier, it gives the Prime Minister exactly what he wants: an audience, not an opposition.

I appreciate the ruling of the Speaker this morning, but the reality is that, in previous circumstances, the issue of quorum was let go for non-votable matters. It was agreed to by the House leaders. Anything to do with take-note debates or emergency debates, we would allow quorum not to be called as part of an agreement. What the government is doing with this is basically imposing a sledgehammer to say that the Liberals are not even required to show up. The NDP is not even required to show up. In theory, what we could have is opposition-side members debating themselves on pieces of legislation that the government is proposing, asking ourselves questions and comments when the Liberals are not even required to be here.

As I said the other day in question period, they can effectively be sitting at home in their PJs and their fuzzy slippers watching reruns of This Is Us and those socialist documentaries that they covet so much. That is what they could effectively be doing without the constitutional obligation of having a quorum call in the House.

Who does not want to show up to work? Why are they putting that in this motion? Conservatives will be here; I can guarantee that. With this motion and no quorum call, it means that the government and the NDP do not even have to show up to debate their own legislation. How ridiculous is that?

I talked about the “without notice...to adjourn the House”. This is egregious, in the sense that what the government is proposing with this particular part of this motion is that it can prorogue Parliament without proroguing.

I will take us back, as I said earlier, to the WE Charity scandal. When the heat got really hot on the Prime Minister, he did the very thing he said he was not going to do in 2015, and that was to prorogue Parliament.

Let us picture this scenario. There is a situation where we have a scandal brewing. We have the RCMP potentially deciding to investigate the Prime Minister on whether he granted himself permission for that vacation to that luxurious island that cost over $200,000. What if, with regard to the Winnipeg lab document scandal, we were able, through committee or some other means, to have those documents produced and they show that the government did something? What if we had another SNC-Lavalin scandal or any other scandal that gets too hot for the Prime Minister to handle? One minister of the Crown, just one, can decide to shut this place down. Can members imagine that?

It is stunts like these that cause further erosion in Canadians' respect for our democratic institutions and the faith they have in our democratic institutions.

When a government of the day, with a fourth party in its hip pocket, can decide that it is going to seize control of this place and do whatever it wants, how can Canadians not be cynical of the institution? How can they not be cynical of our Parliament? How can they not be cynical when they are witnessing right in front of them, as we all are, a decline in our democracy? There are measurements used that determine that decline. We have seen that over the course of the last six and a half years, and we are further seeing an erosion in the decline of our democracy as a result of stunts like this by the government. It can shut it down with one minister of the Crown proposing it. Yes, it will come to a vote. Surprise, surprise: I wonder what that vote will be when it has the NDP in its hip pocket. There is a lot to be concerned about in this.

What we are seeing, and perhaps Motion No. 11 is further evidence of this, is the shady, backroom deals that are going on here. The government House leader does not even give me the courtesy, nor does he give the Bloc Québécois House leader the courtesy, of saying what is going on. What do the Liberals do now? They do not go to the official opposition or the third party in this place. They do an end-around to the fourth party, say what they are going to do and ask if it will support them. There are shady, backroom deals: exactly the thing that further diminishes the confidence that Canadians have in our democracy.

As far as the standing order changes, I am really appreciative of the ruling that the Speaker made earlier in having a separate vote for that. What the government was doing, with the help of its NDP partner, again led to this cynicism and further erosion. The Liberals were putting a poison pill in the motion to force the opposition to vote against it. I stood here the other day and said very clearly that Conservatives unequivocally supported call to action 80 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to make sure that we had a stand-alone day for truth and reconciliation. I was very glad for the Speaker's wisdom in that decision. The Speaker saw right through what the government was trying to do: putting in this poison pill, probably under the suggestion of its partner in the NDP, to force the Conservative Party to vote against it as an omnibus procedural motion. I am glad the Speaker did that, because we will be supporting that particular part of the motion when it is carved out of this omnibus motion and will vote in favour of national day for truth and reconciliation.

Of course we all know the history of the Prime Minister on this one. Last year, what did he do? He did not get involved. He went surfing in Tofino. The schedule for the Prime Minister even said he was having private meetings. It did not give a true indication of what was happening. What was happening was that, on the most important day in this nation, he went surfing in Tofino. How dare the Liberals use this poison pill for political purposes to further wedge, further stigmatize and further divide Canadians, especially those who supported the Conservative Party in the last election and who understand the importance of truth and reconciliation, because it was Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper who started that commission from which those recommendations came.

I am obviously profoundly disappointed. I am really concerned about where this place goes from here. I really am. The government was elected with a minority. The NDP was the fourth party in the last election and now, between the two of them, they are going to be able to control every aspect of this place. What about those voices who elected a minority government? What about those people who said they wanted the government to be held in check? They wanted the government to be held to account, they wanted transparency from the government, they wanted to make sure that multi-billion dollar bills that the government proposes, these big-money appropriation bills, deserve the level of scrutiny that they should. What about those voices? That is not going to happen anymore because of this alliance, this coalition, between the NDP and the Liberals.

I said earlier the impact this was going to have on committees. What about the finance committee? What about the ethics committee?

What about other committees, such as important committees on Afghanistan and the invocation of the Emergency Measures Act? How are they going to be impacted? The resources of the House will now go towards evening sessions, further putting in jeopardy the ability not just of those committees but of parliamentarians on the opposition side and Canadians in general to get to the bottom of what they are looking for. When I go back to the invocation of the Emergencies Act, we have already seen that the government is not going to allow cabinet confidentiality. What other documents are not going to be available to the committee because the committee is not going to be able to sit?

This is a government that ran in 2015 on the principle of being accountable and transparent by default. How times have fallen. The hypocrisy of those words is being shown by the government. This is a government that is anything but transparent and accountable. This is a government that has undermined the very role of this institution of Parliament: the constitutional obligation of the opposition parties to hold the government to account, not to basically ram legislation through when it sees fit.

This is not a rubber stamp factory. This is a place for vigorous debate. It is a place where the government is held to account. It is not a place where, as much as the Prime Minister wants it to be, he gets an audience. This is a place where he gets an opposition. Conservatives will work as long and as tirelessly as we need to in order to hold the government to account. We are going to expose this coalition unholy alliance, and these backroom shady deals that are being made by the NDP-Liberal government.

We are going to work as hard as we can to make sure it is held to account, that there is transparency and there is accountability on behalf of every single Canadian who did not vote for them, but voted for a minority government in this Parliament.

With the little time I have left, the opposition party is proposing what we consider to be reasonable amendments. Again, I thank you, Mr. Speaker for your judicious, intelligent ruling this morning to carve out those pieces that are poison pills meant to obstruct the opposition and in fact make the opposition vote against something that none of us would ever consider voting for. I do appreciate that. I am going to move the following amendments.

I move:

That the motion be amended

(a) in paragraph (a),

(i) by replacing the words “a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party” with the words “a House leader of a recognized party may, with the agreement of the House leaders of two other recognized parties”,

(ii) by replacing the words “but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or” with the words “request, with at least two sitting days' notice, that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for”,

(iii) by adding, after the words “a subsequent sitting”, the words “, other than a Friday,”, and

(iv) by adding, after the words “a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place”, the words “or a day appointed for the consideration of business under Standing Order 81(4)(a)”;

(b) in paragraph (b),

(i) by deleting subparagraph (i),

(ii) by deleting, in subparagraph (ii), the words “quorum calls or”, and

(iii) by deleting, in subparagraph (iii), all the words after the word “Crown”; and

(c) in paragraph (c),

(i) by replacing, in subparagraph (ii), the word “35th” with the word “15th”, and

(ii) by deleting subparagraph (iv).

He said: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful for these reasonable amendments I am proposing, which take into account not just how this place functions and how properly it should function but also take into account, as I said at the onset, the concern that we have for the lives of the people who work here, and how they are going to be impacted.

I am not specifically referring to members of Parliament, but to the work-life balance of the staff who make this place operate, whether it is the clerks, the administration, the bus drivers, the security officers, the food services branch or any others, and not least the translators, who have seen tremendous injury and impact. I do not understand why the government would want to expose them to that.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his long view of these various kinds of questions. I would add that, as he has mentioned, there are 24,000 farmers potentially waiting for a credit on the price on pollution they have had to pay, and there are 45,000 teachers waiting for that improvement of the supply credit they are going to get, as well as other very proactive measures that are contained in Bill C-8 and other pieces of legislation that are meant—

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

Madam Speaker, I find the Conservatives' comments on this unbelievable, because I can remember back in 2014 when the Harper government, during its dismal decade in power, put in place similar measures without any agreement from any other party, and Conservatives systematically, night after night, did not show up when it was their turn to speak. We had a chalkboard in the lobby. There were 200 times when Conservatives did not show up to work. There were 200 times when Conservative MPs were out doing I do not know what, but they were not in the House standing up as members of Parliament for their constituents. It was 200 times, so when a Conservative MP asks if New Democrats are going to show up to work, of course the answer is yes, because we always do.

We have the track record to prove it; the Conservatives do not. They have failed their constituents so many times in the past, and now they are objecting to having us work harder, having us work longer and having us move around their systematic blocking of the House of Commons, so that teachers can get their tax credits, farmers can get the supports they need and all Canadians can get the supports that are in Bill C-8. The Conservatives say they support it, but are blocking it now, as the official opposition House leader has admitted, for two months and running.

Why are the Conservatives doing this, and why do they not recognize the hypocrisy of trying to condemn the behaviour they participated in so willingly in the past?

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member indeed reminds me that Conservatives, whether inside or outside the House, seem to have fallen in love with blocking and blockades.

We are here because we have many other pieces of legislation, including a budget. There is not just Bill C-8, which, as we have mentioned, has had 12 days of debate and obstruction and concurrence motions and everything else that the Conservatives can throw up in order to delay it, but also Bill C-7, which we have not debated yet, and Bill C-9, which we have not debated yet. There is Bill C-18 and there is Bill C-19.

There are all kinds of things that we have yet to debate, as well as the budget, and that is because the official opposition simply wants to run out the clock; delay, delay, delay; and use every tactic at its disposal to throw this government off its agenda. Canadians do not want that. They want us to work together.

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

Madam Speaker, we just had the opposition House leader admit to the Conservatives' blocking these bills for two months. He just stood up, went through the timeline and admitted to everybody that for two months, Conservatives blocked the bills, despite the fact that Canadian teachers have been writing to them wanting to get the tax credit that is in Bill C-8 and Canadian farmers have been writing to them.

The Conservatives have thrown aside any kind of public input. They are just running rogue. They are renegades, yet they reference democracy. This is the same party that had members of its caucus endorsing the so-called “freedom convoy”, whose vowed objective was the overthrow of constitutional government. We then have Conservatives standing up in this House and trying to say that somehow they actually support democracy, with that as their track record. What a joke.

What happened to the Conservative Party that in December endorsed the ban on conversion therapy, that was productive and working well in this minority Parliament? What has happened to the Conservatives over the last few months that they will even refuse to sit late and refuse to pass legislation that Canadians are asking for? What is it about the Conservative Party that has turned?

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

Madam Speaker, what is baffling is having the justice minister actually stand in this place and talk in the way he is. Bill C-8 was not introduced until December 15, so he is playing around a bit with the facts here. It went to committee February 1 and came back from committee on March 1. After December 16, the House was not sitting for six weeks, so there was no obstruction going on.

Nobody on this side of the House is afraid to work. These are multi-billion dollar bills that the government for some reason expects the official opposition and the third party just to simply rubber-stamp without questioning, without proposing and without amending.

How can the Liberals contribute to the further decline in our democracy? People in this country are looking at this place as its symbol, yet the government continues to contribute to the decline in democracy. I do not understand how the justice minister can stand here and defend this action by his government.

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

Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the Conservatives' attitude. They have been blocking bills that would actually provide supports, talking about Bill C-8, to teachers and farmers, and around COVID. The Conservatives have been blocking these bills for months without any explanation, except that they want to block everything that comes through the House.

The solution that is being offered is that we extend debate and sit until midnight. Past Conservative governments did the same thing, with one notable exception: The Conservatives never showed up. We remember that during the dismal decade of the Harper government, we saw these kinds of motions brought forward, and over 200 times, Conservatives who were scheduled to speak did not show up to work. It is unbelievable that they would let down Canadians in the way that they have.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why Conservatives object so strenuously to sitting until midnight, because that is the solution. Let us sit longer. Let us work harder. Let us get bills passed to help Canadians.

My question for my colleague is simply this: Why do Conservatives object so strenuously to sitting until midnight?

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

Madam Speaker, I, too, am disappointed. However, I am disappointed in the behaviour that is being shown by the Conservative Party in this House, obstructing, at every single turn, every single piece of legislation. We are doing this in order to facilitate debate, in order to allow the hon. members the time in which to speak.

We spent 12 days debating Bill C-8. Among the things the bill would do is to help farmers get their tax credit on the carbon tax, the price on pollution. There would be billions of dollars for rapid tests. There would be ventilation for our schools. We all know a lot of parents who are concerned because their kids are going to school in the pandemic context and they want better ventilation for their schools. We had 12 days of debating a fall economic statement that includes measures to aid the lives of human beings. Can they imagine what will happen when we get to the budget? We are doing this to facilitate debate because of the obstructionist tactics of the Conservative Party.

Bill C‑8—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 is one of a number of pieces of both legislative and budgetary measures with which the Government of Canada has been supporting Canadians and small businesses going through the pandemic.

Could my colleague and friend, the Minister of Finance, explain from her perspective why it was so important, as a government, that we be there to support small businesses, whether it is within this legislation or other legislation and budgetary initiatives that the government has taken?

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

Madam Speaker, in part 5 of Bill C-8, the government has earmarked $300 million to continue to fund proof of vaccination requirements by the provinces.

All the provinces that I am aware of have actually gotten rid of the proof of vaccination requirements. I am just wondering why the federal government is bothering to earmark and spend $300 million on something that the provinces are not asking for, and quite frankly are not even using right now.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect, I have to disagree with the hon. member. The reality is that Bill C-8 and our most recent budget include a number of measures to help Canadians with the cost of living. They include dental care; they include doubling the support provided through the first-time homebuyers' tax credit; they include a multi-generational home renovation tax credit, which recognizes that many Canadians want to live together with an extended family; and they include, crucially, a $500 payment to those facing housing affordability challenges.

Of course, the budget does also include some significant tax-raising measures targeted precisely for those who are at the very top.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that I already spoke about this issue when I gave my speech on Bill C‑8. I spoke at length about it with my colleague from Joliette, and we came to the conclusion that this interferes in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction over property tax.

We are accused of picking fights, but why is the Liberal government constantly encroaching on the responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces? My colleague from Joliette may have an amendment to propose wherein the tax on secondary residences would apply only in the provinces that want it so that they, and Quebec of course, can choose for themselves.

Why is the government taking a centralist approach yet again and trying to interfere in a jurisdiction belonging to Quebec and the provinces?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, all of us here in this House seek to serve our constituents and be connected with our communities, but I know of no one here who is better connected and who more fiercely and more effectively represents her constituents than the member for Waterloo.

I am also very aware of the hard work the member for Waterloo has done for young Canadians, for the people who are our future. That is why one of the measures that are so important in Bill C-8 is the tax credit for teachers, the tax credit for those very, very dedicated and self-sacrificing teachers who reached into their own pockets and bought school supplies for their students.

I really think everyone in this House will agree with me, and I am sure the member for Waterloo and her constituents will agree with me, that those teachers deserve our support. They deserve a tax credit. That is why I would urge everyone in this House to set aside the partisan posturing and help Canadians.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight that the government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has been conscious about being there for Canadians. It has been a very challenging time, and disproportionately for certain segments of the population. What is clear is that supports are still needed, and many of those measures are available in Bill C-8. Though it is unfortunate we are having to use a tool to get this legislation voted on, I am glad to see that we might have a vote sooner rather than later, because many people in my riding of Waterloo and the surrounding areas will benefit.

I would like to ask the minister to comment on some of the Canadians who would benefit from these measures. People have been waiting for way too long to ensure these measures and investments will start to flow.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me say this. Our government has provided significant support to travel and tourism. We recognize that sector has been particularly hard hit by COVID. That is why the support has been there and will be there until May 7.

I will also say that I think every single member of the House would agree with me that it is absolutely essential that our country and economy continue to function and come roaring back, even in the face of the continued presence of COVID and a sixth wave among us. That is why it is so important to get Bill C-8 passed. The ventilation, the rapid tests and the support for vaccination credentials are all key to getting through this sixth wave.

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

Madam Speaker, I am well aware we are debating time allocation. I will not comment on the substance of Bill C-8, but on the question of the use of time allocation.

The hon. minister will know that, for as long as we have both served in the House together, I have opposed time allocation as a sign that we are disrespecting the parliamentary process by pushing legislation through. On the other hand, I am also aware of what this debate on Bill C-8 has canvassed in the past few moments and for a long time in this place. I want to put forward on the record the best way to handle it. I am not going to get into House leader discussions. It is not a failure of the government or of the opposition, but collectively a failure of the management of the legislative agenda. I point to a failure to uphold our rules, which makes it possible for opposition party leaders to tell the government that they do not know how many members they want to put up for debate and will let it know later.

Although I am not in the room, or a fly on the wall, our rules still say that members cannot deliver a prepared written speech. If we were held to that, it would be like the Parliament of Westminster in the U.K. None of the members here would be able to stand up and deliver a speech on a subject they did not know well enough to speak to off the cuff with the knowledge they had in their heads. That would significantly expedite the process of passing good legislation.

I would put that to the member for her comments.

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

Madam Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance is a simple one.

It is now the end of April. Bill C‑8 was introduced in December. Is it essentially the sum total of all the government's foot-dragging since that totally pointless election?

It took some time to get back to work, appoint ministers and open Parliament. This is a budget statement from last fall. The budget has since been tabled, and we are debating it, but we are still beating around the bush with Bill C‑8.

It is the minister maybe a little embarrassed about that?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me just say it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to be talking about action on housing, particularly action on foreign buyers, when they have blocked our historic efforts in this space at every turn. The member is quite right: One of the essential elements in Bill C-8 is the historic underused housing tax act. This is an important step. It is an important step for affordability for Canadians, yet this legislation has been repeatedly blocked by the Conservatives.

When it comes to foreign buyers, I was very glad that in the budget we presented earlier this month we were able, again historically, to introduce a two-year ban on foreign purchases. I would say that if the Conservatives actually support this measure, which I think they should, let us see them support Bill C-8. Let them move it through quickly and support the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 talks about an underused housing tax act. The recent budget, in conjunction with Bill C-8, talked about implementation of the underused housing tax act. Indeed, this is something we have in British Columbia already, but I would be remiss if I did not point out the obvious gaps included in the act, including the fact that under this new law, foreign students would still be able to purchase real estate in British Columbia. Anyone in the House who has followed the news in British Columbia knows that many students with wealthy offshore parents have used that to get massive gains when Canadians have been priced out of the market.

Why did the Liberals provide an exemption for foreign students to continue purchasing real estate when so many British Columbians cannot do so themselves?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the items in this bill that is of particular interest is the educator school supply tax credit. I heard from a teacher in the riding I represent. Jessica is a teacher in a small village in northwest B.C. She filed her taxes, and apparently CRA is sitting on the tax returns of a whole bunch of teachers who have claimed this tax credit because it has not yet been passed into law.

I share some of the concern about the fact that this place has not managed to pass Bill C-8 in a timely way. If we are able to get this bill through, can the minister assure teachers, particularly in British Columbia, who have spent thousands of dollars of their own money on school supplies, which is another issue we need to deal with, that CRA will prioritize getting their returns in their hands as quickly as possible?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, what Canadians want from all of us, Canadians across the country and who vote for all of the different parties represented in the House, is for us to get down to work and do the work of the country. That is what the measures in Bill C-8 do. These measures, frankly, should be receiving unanimous support in the House.

These measures include a tax credit for businesses to improve their ventilation to keep COVID at bay. Is that not a good idea right now, as we are facing a sixth wave? They include an expansion of the school supplies tax credit for teachers, who bought additional supplies during COVID and are now working so hard to get our kids back up to speed. Bill C-8 includes $1.7 billion for rapid tests, which again are so essential as we get down to living with COVID. They include a tax on underused housing, which is such an important part of our housing strategy.

I would urge everyone to set aside partisan games and partisan posturing and pass this essential legislation.

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

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and at the end of the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and tomorrow we will deal with Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update. On Monday, we will resume debate on Government Business No. 11 concerning the extension of sitting hours and commence third-reading debate on Bill C-8. It is also our intention to begin consideration at second reading of the budget bill on Tuesday and continue with this debate on Wednesday and Thursday.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

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

Mr. Speaker, you are doing good work in the chair today. Thanks again.

Here we go again. I honestly do not know what to say after hearing the parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government in this chamber. As I said in my question to him, what I heard was a lot of justification with little accountability on why the Liberals are introducing what I would deem a draconian motion, Motion No. 11, today, when there really is no need to do so. There is nothing under this coalition with the NDP, even up to the point and in advance of the coalition being announced, that the Liberals have not been able to put forward as part of their legislative agenda.

So far, of the 18 bills that have been introduced, eight have received royal assent. There is no question that there may be some other outstanding pieces of legislation that the government wants to put forward, but there is no reason why it cannot do that in the time specified in the Standing Orders and the schedule that was agreed to by my predecessor and the other House leaders last year.

The Standing Orders talk about the possibility of extending hours. We have seen that. I have been here for six and a half years, certainly not as long as my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who has been here for 21 years and I believe is the dean of our caucus. She has seen it all, through government and now through opposition. There has never been an example like this, at least in the history of this Parliament, and I suspect in the history of legislatures across the country in all of the provinces and territories, where on April 28 we are debating a motion that gives the government ultimate power to extend hours at this particular point of this parliamentary session.

I am going to talk later on about the consequences of that, because I think there are significant consequences to the administration of this place, to the lives and the health, mental and physical health, of those who work in this place, but what I want to focus on initially is why we are at this point, a point that I believe we certainly do not need to be at.

I have heard from the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary that they are focusing on Bill C-8 as one of the reasons why they are proposing this ham-fisted Motion No. 11. The reality on Bill C-8 is that, as I said earlier, it was only introduced on December 15. It received second reading in February, went to committee in March and came back to the House at report stage. There were some other issues of debate that were required as a result of its coming out of committee. In fact, I recall having a conversation with you, Mr. Speaker, about Bill C-8 at report stage and that you expressed some concerns, not in your current role as Speaker, but in your role as a member of the Bloc Québécois. Those concerns were certainly moving through the process.

Within that timeline specifically on Bill C-8, there are some important measures, measures that have already been implemented, such as purchasing rapid tests. The government has the authorities, when it issues a ways and means motion, to accelerate the spending within the piece of legislation. When we look back, we have had four weeks where we have been off. I am sure we all agree to that timeline. This is effectively a mismanagement of the legislative agenda as to why Bill C-8 has not been put forward.

As I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary, and this is important to understand because Liberals have been accusing us, the opposition, of obstructing this piece of legislation, it was on April 4 that the government put a notice of time allocation on the Notice Paper. That was the week of the budget. The budget was introduced on April 7. The motion was not moved.

When I asked the government House leader why he did not move the motion, the reason he gave me was that the NDP did not want to move that motion. How are we obstructing that? If the Liberals' coalition partners did not want to move a notice of time allocation, then their issue on Bill C-8 is not with the opposition but with their coalition partners, because they did not want to move the motion. If the parliamentary secretary wants to, he can confirm that with the government House leader. Hopefully he gets the truth, but that was the basis of the conversation that we had. In fact, it was brought up at the House leaders' meeting the next day.

The government suggests, specifically on Bill C-8, that somehow we are obstructing the passage of that piece of legislation. Yes, we had some people who wanted to speak to it when it came out of committee, because there were important issues. However, I would suggest, respectfully, that it was the Liberals' coalition partners who prevented the notice of time allocation from being moved, which, as I said, was introduced on April 4. We could have been dealing with this at third stage even back before the budget in that first week.

We certainly share those concerns, particularly from an agriculture standpoint as it relates to the carbon tax rebate and taxes. I know there are teachers who are waiting for that bill. It is not lost on me, and it should not be lost on anybody in the House, that it is the Liberals and their NDP coalition partners who are stopping this.

The other thing that is concerning, and I know the member brought this up as well, is the issue of medical assistance in dying and the extension within this motion on medical assistance in dying, which would push it to October 17. There was a requirement for a legislative review to be held on this bill. We went to an election in September. We were reconvened around November. However, it was not until the end of March, in the timeline that is required for this legislative review, that the government even started talking about the Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and the requirement for this legislative review. In fact, this review was required to be done legislatively by May, so we had discussions.

I understand my colleague from the Bloc and I understand as well that there are very serious issues with medical assistance in dying that are required to be looked at, but with regard to the legislative review that was to be done in May, we actually agreed, as the opposition, to extend the timeline by another six weeks. It was not our fault that the government delayed the legislative review. It pushed it off until March, and then we agreed to go beyond the extension. Initially, I was a little concerned about it, but we do not control the legislative agenda in this place. It is not the opposition's job to sit here and determine what is going to happen in this place. It is the government's job. When we were in government, we determined the legislative agenda that was to occur in this place.

The Liberals' failure, not just on Bill C-8 but on medical assistance in dying and the required legislative review and the timeline related to that, is their fault. It is completely on them, and that is why we agreed. I respected the concern of the Bloc House leader, and I know there are very deep and personal issues within the Bloc caucus on the issue of medical assistance in dying. That is why we agreed to extend the timeline by another six weeks and to provide the committee with what we believe was an appropriate amount of time, six weeks extra, to deal with this.

We actually also committed to having the committee sit more than what was regularly scheduled. That would have required moving resources from other committees to this committee, but we were committed to allowing that extended timeline to June 23, which all of us, including me and our party, agreed to.

Again, that is the government's prerogative. We do not control the administration of this place. We do not control committees. We do not control virtual sittings. We do not control translation. We do not control the administrative staff, nor do we control the clerks. It is all the government. We committed, in extending that deadline, to work and to be available during that timeline if extra sittings of the committee on medical assistance in dying were required. We committed to get the job done, yet here we are.

We are seeing now in this motion an extension to October 17. There had been discussions among the parties to extend it, and on behalf of our party, I said “no”. There had to have been unanimous consent, because we had already agreed to extend it by six weeks to June 23. Again, the government wasted time putting the committee in place. It took from the time we started sitting in November to the time it finally got around to talking about it in March, which it did so it would meet the requirements of the legislative timeline.

The other thing the government did was call an election last September. The House could have still been sitting. We were only 18 months into that session of Parliament. We could have still kept going. The Liberals could have dealt with medical assistance in dying, or they could have dealt with other bills, such as Bill C-8, within that timeline, but they chose not to. How is that our fault? How are we obstructing Parliament? How are we stepping in the way of the government's legislative agenda, when its members, time and time again, fail to implement whatever is on their legislative agenda and fail to use the time and resources of the House in a manner that would allow them to get their job done?

That was the issue with medical assistance in dying. That is what happened, in case anyone is wondering why we are seeing that timeline in this motion. I understand, as I said earlier, that it was important to my colleague, the House leader of the Bloc, and to those within the Bloc, to see the October 17 deadline extended beyond what we had all agreed to. Although I am disappointed by that, I certainly understand, based on my discussions with my colleague in the Bloc, why that is important to them.

I do not think we have to put it in an omnibus motion in order to do that. We could have had further discussions, but I guess this was a way of handing some sort of opportunity to the Bloc to understand this motion, and that is okay. I get that those things happen, because as I said, I realize how important this issue is to the Bloc. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wanted an explanation, and I just gave him one. We had all agreed to extend that deadline, and we did not see the reason, especially given the fact that we were willing to work with the committee to extend the hours.

There was some talk that, during the break in May, that week after Victoria Day, we would have eight-hour sittings. I spoke to our shadow minister about that, and it was an impossibility. It would have been eight hours a day sitting in committee dealing with medical assistance in dying when many of those resources could have been moved from other sources to deal with the medical assistance dying committee while the House is sitting. That could have been done, but we thought that eight hours a day of sitting in that break week in May was an unreasonable request, and I think it was, because there were members on our side who had made plans with their families during that week, and because it is Victoria Day weekend here in Ontario, so some plans were already made.

We certainly could have worked together, but we are actually seeing a pattern of this type of activity happen. Members will recall Motion No. 6, which the government introduced at one point. This is very different than that, because at the time there was strong consensus, agreement and alignment among the opposition parties. The Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP were in opposition to Motion No. 6, and we fought that vigorously.

However, because there was that alignment, the government eventually did back down from that motion, at least some of the more destructive pieces of that motion. This is different.

Motion No. 11 is different because I suspect the Liberals have the support of the NDP. Of course, the government has thrown a few nuggets to the NDP. We have seen that all that is required for NDP's support in this unholy alliance and collusion, is just need to be thrown a few little nuggets and they will leap, because the Liberal Party effectively has the NDP in its hip pocket, to implement these types of motions. It is quite concerning.

There are extremely concerning aspects of this that really play into a pattern of what I would call a democratic decline in this country. We have seen this pattern over and over. We saw it with Motion No. 6, as I said earlier. In fact, one of the first pieces of legislation introduced after the COVID crisis hit in March 2020 was an absolutely draconian piece of legislation from the government, and I am glad all oppositions fought it. Even the NDP fought it at that time because they had not yet formed this unholy alliance, but it fought this draconian piece of legislation, which would have given the government massive powers and massive overreach to suspend the activities of Parliament and tax Canadians without the approval of Parliament.

Can members imagine a government thinking it could take that on and actually affect that within a democracy like Canada. When I speak about this democratic decline, there are numerous examples over the course of not just during COVID but also prior to that, even with Motion No. 6, where we have seen the government really overreach and overextend its powers and controls over this place, diminishing not just democracy but also our institutions. It is diminishing faith in our institutions and the respect that people have for our institutions, separating our institutions in a way that keeps them away from government politicization and government influence, yet the government continues to do that. The government is certainly doing this with Motion No. 11.

I want to go through and talk about some of the more concerning parts of the motion. It does not just concern me as a parliamentarian seeing this diminishing of democracy happen in this country. There are examples, much like in some of the countries in eastern Europe where we are seeing it on a scale that is being measured, of the decline of democracy in this country. There are measurements, and I will speak about that in a few minutes.

I would suggest that Motion No. 11 adds to that decline in democracy. When we go through the motion, we see some of the things that the government has proposed. The motion reads:

On the day of the adoption of this order, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be 12 a.m., that until Thursday, June 23, 2022, a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, rise from his or her seat at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., and request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the current sitting or a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m....

Now let us think about what that means. A minister of the Crown, and it does not have to be the House leader, although the House leader is classified as a minister, but a minister could go to another party at 6:29 p.m. and say, “We want to extend the hours, will you agree with us?”

They need just one party, one recognized House leader, to agree. I wonder who that would be. I know that the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that I could agree to that, but there are certain provisions in this motion that I could never agree to, so why would I agree at 6:29 p.m. to extend the sitting of the House.

The government House leader or a minister of the Crown will walk over to his coalition buddy in the NDP and say, “Look, we are not moving forward on things quick enough.” It would not be up for open, vigorous debate, or for oversight or scrutiny, which is what this place is designed to do. Instead, we can sit here, and they can walk over and talk to their NDP buddy to say “Look, we want to extend the hours until midnight.” I will tell members what is most concerning about that, but the least of it is the impact the lack of planning would have on families in this place.

Here is the scenario: The House is set to adjourn at 6:30 p.m. At 6:29 p.m., the two of them are in cahoots, and they say that they want to extend the sitting until midnight. What does that do to families? What does that do to MPs who perhaps have plans? It is one thing to do it during the normal, set schedule in the Standing Orders, but it is another thing to start doing it on April 28, which is today, because this would take effect if this motion passes.

What does it do to the administration of this place? What does it do to the clerks? They work hard, and they know they have to work hard, but one minute before the House is set to rise, the government and its buddies in the NDP can say that they want to keep everybody here. They would want to keep the clerks here, the administration here and the pages here.

Have people not been through enough throughout the course of this crisis? We have had to go through the extensions of the long hours in this place, the uncertainty and the impact on mental health, on families and on people's lives, yet one minute before the House is scheduled to rise, they can suddenly extend it until midnight, and they can do that every single night if they want to.

How is that fair? How is that fair to a mom who works here who has kids at home who she needs to get home to, or to a father who works here who has kids at home who he needs to get home to? How about a husband and wife who work together, the partners and spouses who work in this place, having to work those long hours because the government is mismanaging its agenda and is not using its time effectively in this House?

What about the mental health impacts this would have? What about the drivers? What about the security guards? They will effectively be given a one-minute notice that they have to stick around this place. Come on. How ridiculous is that? The government can do it, as I said earlier, from the point this motion passes right through until June 23, or earlier if they decide that they are going to adjourn the House.

Of course, another part of the motion is talking about proceedings on any opposition motion. So, when it is government business, it is okay, we will extend the House, but not on opposition motion days. These are very valuable supply days that we get. The official opposition gets five days in the supply period, the Bloc Québécois gets one and the NDP, I believe, gets one as well.

However, on those days, we would rise at the appropriate time. There would not be any opportunity for us to extend beyond the normal sitting time, but there would be for government legislation. Perhaps we have an issue that is important to Canadians. Perhaps it is a geopolitical issue, financial issue or an issue affecting the health of Canadians that we want to bring forward and get consensus on in the House. We would not have an opportunity to extend beyond the normal sitting time, but the government, with a one-minute notice and the help of its coalition buddies in the NDP, could extend the sitting time of the House every single day, including Friday.

On Friday, we do the business of this place for this country and the House adjourns at 2:30 p.m. However, at 2:29 p.m., the two parties can get together and say that we will be extending until midnight.

We can talk about the impact that this can have on families and the family unit, and the impact on the mental health and physical health of those who work to support this place. This includes MPs, many of whom make travel plans on Fridays so they can go home to their constituencies. When they go home to their constituencies, they are going out to events on Saturday and sometimes on Sunday, then working their way back here to Parliament by getting back on an airplane. Now the Liberals are suggesting that members of Parliament have to cancel their travel plans on a whim because they are not good at dealing with their legislative agenda and the schedule of the House, and they are going to keep us here until midnight on Friday.

I have sat here for six and a half years and have heard the NDP talk about a family-friendly environment in this place, about attracting more women to Parliament and about making sure that the lives of the people who work here and the lives of MPs are balanced so they can spend time with their families and can spend time in their constituencies. However, if this motion passes today, the Liberals will push to extend the timelines to midnight every single day that the House is sitting with a one-minute notice, just one minute, including on Fridays. I have no problem working Fridays. It is part of my job as the opposition House leader to be here on Fridays. However, I think it is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to expect, with one-minute notice, all of the administration, all of the support staff and the interpreters who work in this place to be here until midnight every single day, when the House starts at 10 o'clock in the morning, because the government mismanages its legislative agenda.

I have not even touched on the interpreters. At the Board of Internal Economy, we have been hearing about the impact that these virtual or hybrid sittings are having on our interpreters. We have seen an increase in injuries. Reports have been published that note a marked increase in the physical injury impact that this hybrid setting has been having on our interpreters. I have also talked about some of the other people who are going to be impacted by this. If the government is that concerned about the health and wellness of the people who work here, including the interpreters, why would it even suggest extending until midnight every single day? It is because of its failure to impose its legislative agenda within the timelines that have been prescribed in the Standing Orders.

This is also going to have an impact on committees, which I am going to touch on a bit later. This will have an impact on the ability of the committees to do their work because of the shuffling of resources that will be required. It stands to reason that if we are going to go to midnight, we will have to take something away from somewhere, and the important work that is being done by committees will suffer. Maybe that is the intent. Maybe that is what the government wants. Maybe it wants to take that work away from committees so it can further avoid accountability and transparency and we can further see the democratic decline that is happening in this country.

This is a beauty. As I said earlier, after 6:30 p.m., with one minute to spare because the House normally adjourns at 6:30 p.m., a member or minister of the government can go to the NDP and say, “We are going to extend.” Here is the impact of that, and it is a joke. It has to be a joke; there is no other way to explain it. The motion states:

the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties

That is just on unanimous consent. At least they have included the House leaders of recognized parties on some sort of unanimous consent motion that can be passed. However, what is interesting here is the constitutional obligation to have quorum in this place. What Liberals are saying in this motion is that after 6:30 p.m. there will not be a requirement for quorum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a space where people are either accountable or they justify. I heard very little in the way of accountability with the member's speech, and a lot of justification.

I want to make a couple of points. He spoke specifically about Bill C-8. The bill was first introduced on December 15, 2021. It got approval at second reading on February 10, went to committee and got committee approval on March 1, and now it is at report stage. We have had four weeks off in that time, yet the government suggests that somehow the opposition is obstructing.

The other thing is that on April 4, the government put on notice a motion of time allocation. It was the NDP that refused to support that notice of time allocation. In fact, the government has mismanaged its legislative agenda, and that is why we are seeing the hammer fall as it is with Motion No. 11.

The member spoke about specific examples of other governments. The Standing Orders are very clear that there is a specific timeline in which we can extend debate. Those are in the Standing Orders, and the schedule was agreed to by all of the parties.

Can the member give examples, specifically, of where other levels of government, as he says, actually did this: extending hours at this point in time? I would be very curious and interested to hear about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one never knows. It might be the member who just stood. He is right.

Often, when someone rises on a point of order, it interrupts our train of thought. Here, we are talking about the Conservatives wanting to be able to have that additional debate on bills. Motion No. 11 would do just that.

The House would normally adjourn today at 6:30. Once this motion passes, all it would take is any opposition House leader, even the Conservative opposition House leader, and a government minister to come to an agreement before 6:30 to say that we would like to be able to continue on until midnight. What is wrong with that?

The legislation is there. When I look at some of the legislation, on some of it I suspect there is going to be a great deal of interest. The one that comes to my mind is the budget implementation act. I suspect that there will be a good number of people who want to be able to speak to the budget implementation act. If members want to contribute to that debate, I would like to see them contribute to that debate, if it is possible, on that piece of legislation.

The House is now saying that, if there is an agreement between any opposition House leader and a minister, they could then bring it forward so we can sit until midnight, but we have to do that before 6:30 of that day. Let us think in terms of the time opportunities and the splitting of speeches. For example, more often than not we see members split a speech, so it is then a 10-minute speech with five minutes for questions and answers. That gives the opportunity for four other people to speak to a bill or, in the case as I mentioned, to the budget implementation act.

In extending from 6:30 until midnight, one can quickly do the math, and we are talking about 20-plus additional speakers. Those are the individuals who have the full 10 minutes. That does not include the individuals who will stand up and have the opportunity, indirectly, to ask those questions on issues they might have about a piece of legislation or a budget. That is what Motion No. 11 is all about. It is about enabling those 20-plus other members of Parliament to be able to contribute if the need or the desire is there. As I say, if we factor in those three questions per speech on four speeches, there are 12 per hour. We are looking at over five hours. That is a lot of opportunity for members on all sides of the House, if they choose, to get up and provide comments, ask questions and do whatever else they might have to do. That is why I believe it is important.

Bill C-8 is the legislation that has been debated now on 10 separate occasions in the House. If we applied that same principle to the rest of the government legislation, it would not be possible. We would not be able to get it done. We would have to bring in a time allocation motion that is very wholesome in its approach. We would have to look at ways to try to pass the legislative agenda in a very, very tight timeframe.

We know, and we can anticipate, that the official opposition will bring in concurrence reports. It has demonstrated this and shown it. We know the Conservatives will bring in adjournment motions and other activities to frustrate the legislative process. That does not serve Canadians well.

The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday. The message he gave yesterday is something I would like to emphasize today. My take on the message the Prime Minister gave yesterday is that the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, has its own agenda, whatever that agenda might be. More often than not, it is one of personal attack. We saw that yesterday in question period. We saw today before this motion. That is the issue it wants to talk about.

On character assassination, one of the colleagues from across the way stood up and talked about Bill Morneau. He was talking about the French villa the then minister of finance had, trying to make it impressive by saying it was in located in France and highlighting this morning that he did not declare it to the commission. The first thing that came across my mind as the member was talking about that was that, a few days after the election, when the minister of finance was elected, the cottage in France was reported in the newspaper. I do not believe the minister of finance was trying to hide anything from his constituents, let alone Canadians. It was actually in the newspaper days after he was elected.

However, it does not prevent the Conservatives from focusing their attention on character assassinations. Yesterday the Prime Minister gave a very clear message. The message was very simple. Opposition parties will do what they do, but from the Government of Canada's perspective, the Prime Minister, cabinet and Liberal caucus, at times with the support of the New Democratic Party and, even at times, members from the Bloc, the focus is on Canadians first and foremost.

We have seen that in the many different budgetary actions that have been brought forward, whether it is actions to support seniors, which there are many of, or whether it is actions that have been ongoing to support small businesses in Canada. For example, there is Bill C-8, which is the one we have not been able to pass. These are the types of things Canadians want us to get through the House of Commons.

Canadians want to see a House of Commons that is much more productive on the issues of the day. That is what I believe we, as a government, will continue to focus on. I am concerned about the cost of housing, inflation, health care and long-term care. I am concerned about the dental plan and making sure we can put that into place. I am concerned about pharmacare and the cost of pharmaceuticals.

I am concerned about our environment, and I am looking at initiatives such as the greener home build program and zero-emissions incentives, such as the incentives for electric cars and purchasing. The other day, one of the Speaker's colleagues raised that the Province of Quebec is providing an incentive for people to buy electric vehicles.

Now, Ottawa is doing the same, which is an additional incentive. Back then, I had put forward that this was the type of debate that I would love to see all members participate in. We all come from provinces and territories, and can all contribute to that. I take what the province of Quebec is doing as a very strong positive. My challenge to Heather Stefanson, the Premier of Manitoba, would be to do something of a likewise nature. Those are the types of debates that we could be having.

At times, we see that debate taking place. That is all a part of allowing for the extension that we are requesting through this particular motion. How many speeches have been given here in this place where we talk a great deal about Ukraine and the war that is taking place in Europe? We have already had take-note debates on it this year. I believe we have also had an emergency debate, but it could have been two take-note debates. The point is that those were debates about a matter that Canadians are generally concerned about, as they are about a multitude of different economic issues.

Canadians want to know what the government is actually doing going forward. If there is a silver lining, in terms of the line of questioning that the Conservatives have been putting forward to the government, I would suggest it is that they do not really have much to say about the budget itself, which tells me—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition House leader says he is glad that I mentioned it, so let me share some thoughts.

We are talking about the fall budgetary measures. Bill C-8, the fall economic statement follow-up, is there to support Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is hard to believe this, but it is true: That bill is still before the House. The number of days we have debated that bill is more days than we have debated the budget of 2022-23.

The content of Bill C-8 is of a substantial nature. We are talking about legislation that directly supports Canadians in a very real and tangible way. I could talk about, for example, the enhancement of school ventilation. If we think about the pandemic, that is very much needed and there is support for that. There was the first go-round of the rapid tests. We will remember that back in December and January, when people were saying they needed rapid tests, we were able to get record numbers of these rapid tests so that the provinces and territories would have them for distribution. Well over $1 billion was allocated for those rapid tests. There are also direct supports for small businesses in Bill C-8, supports that small businesses are very much depending on.

Bill C-8 is a piece of legislation that should have been passed long ago, but when the government brings it up for debate, the Conservatives look at ways to prevent it from being debated. I made reference to what happened today when the opposition brought forward a concurrence motion. It has brought forward other concurrence motions, even to prevent debate on Bill C-8. The Conservatives will go out of their way to prevent members from debating. The opposition party will often put up roadblocks, no matter what the legislation is. We have even seen that on legislation that it supports. We have an official opposition that has an agenda that says it does not want the government to pass anything, period.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that it is called democracy. That is what this bill is doing: providing additional time so that members opposite will be able to debate.

We can think of the arguments they have put forward over the last number of weeks and months, saying that they want more debate on government legislation. Well, what the heck? This is the motion they should be voting for. This is the motion they should be supporting so that it passes quickly, because it is going to enable us to have additional hours and hours of debate. Is it because they do not want to put in the effort? I can assure members that every member of the Liberal caucus, due to the support from the New Democratic caucus, will give a commitment to do the work that is necessary to pass the type of legislation that Canadians expect the House of Commons to pass.

At the end of the day, the member across the way is wrong in his assertion because of what we have seen from the Conservative Party. We saw it earlier today, just an hour ago. We were supposed to be talking about the issue of how we can accommodate additional hours so that members of the opposition and government would be able to contribute to debate on important legislation. However, the Conservatives brought forward a concurrence motion, as they continue to do to try to frustrate the legislative agenda. It was difficult for me not to speak when that motion came before us, and I can assure members of that, because I did have a number of thoughts with regard to the behaviour of the Conservative Party by bringing forward such a motion.

As we have seen, the Conservatives have somewhat of a hidden agenda here. They try to tell the public that they want to co-operate, want to do things with the government and want to assist the government in doing the types of things that need to be done, but when the tire hits the road, what ends up happening is that the Conservative Party continues to look at ways to prevent things from happening.

Let me give members a good example of that. The one that comes to my mind is Bill C-8.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I did give my colleague opposite a beautiful bottle of Nova Scotia wine. I am glad he enjoyed it.

I want to talk about a couple of initiatives that I did not have the chance to address. Our government is tripling the agriculture clean tech program. This is going to be extremely important for farmers across the country. We are also working on the on-farm climate solutions. I believe there is close to $400 million. In total, that is almost $1 billion for the agriculture sector. That is going to matter in Kings—Hants. It is going to matter across the country.

On the wine industry, in budget 2021, we had $101 million. I would like to work with this government and with the Minister of Finance to extend that timeline a little further in the days ahead so that we can continue to produce top-quality Canadian wine.

As it relates to grain drying, Bill C-8 has important initiatives. There is almost $100 million for farmers in backstop provinces. I hope this member will work with his Conservative colleagues for us to get this through so we can make a difference for Canadian farmers across the country.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to assure my colleague that we are working very closely with the industry and the various agricultural sectors to ensure that they have the resources they need to have a good season here in Canada, but also to contribute to global food security.

We have improved the advance payments program. I hope that my colleagues across the way will vote to pass Bill C‑8 very quickly so that our farmers can get their tax refunds.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to assure my colleague that we are working very closely with all sectors of the agriculture industry and that we are here to support them. We just enhanced the advance payment program to ensure that farmers have the cash they need to have a good season.

If my colleague wants to help us ensure that our farmers get their pollution credits, he should vote in favour of Bill C-8 as soon as possible.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, since the fall, we have invested over $12 billion in tourism, the hardest-hit sector, so that every single tourism operator in this country can have a chance to get back on their feet. We have reduced the border restrictions. Tourism is now on the rise.

If the opposition, which is opportunistic and obstructionist, wants to help Canadians and focus on affordability, they can do the right thing, bring Bill C-8 to a vote, get us past 40 hours of debate and actually get affordability back on the table for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we will find out what is in the budget in less than two hours.

I would, however, like to talk about Bill C‑8, which is being studied by the House. This bill would allocate $1.7 billion for rapid COVID‑19 tests and $100 million to improve ventilation in our schools, and it would also provide tax breaks for businesses and for teachers.

Why are the Conservatives playing politics instead of helping Canadians? What do they have against teachers? What do they have against small businesses?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are showing once again that their main role in this chamber is to delay important legislation and distract from important issues.

They obstructed getting COVID supports to Canadians and Canadian businesses and they obstructed legislation to get us to climate goals. Now they are delaying and trying to gut Bill C-8, a bill that would help farmers and teachers and Canadians and people to access rapid tests. When will they bring Bill C-8 to a vote, support Canadians and focus on affordability?

Finance

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

Madam Speaker, what did we just witness there? We just witnessed a filibuster within a filibuster. They were already filibustering by bringing in this concurrence motion, and then the member stood on a point of order to try to filibuster the filibuster. It is absolutely remarkable what we are seeing, but I will have that member know that I take this as a compliment. I take this as the people in the back room over there saying, “Oh God, there goes Gerretsen again. Somebody get in there and go shut him up. Hey, get in there and read this,” and they handed him something to read so he could filibuster the filibuster. That is what we just witnessed there, but it is perfectly in line with what we see coming from the Conservative Party, day after day, to avoid having to deal with Bill C-8. That is where we are right now, and that is what we are seeing right now.

As I was saying to the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, before he interrupted me with the filibuster to the filibuster, he should really take a trip to somewhere like Home Depot and walk around inside for a second and see if he can buy a gas lawnmower. It is not easy to find them anymore. The electrification of everything is literally happening before our eyes. Everything is being converted to battery-operated. It is very difficult nowadays to find products, particularly power tools, that are not battery-operated, especially industrial or larger power tools such as lawnmowers, for example.

The same can be said about the vehicles throughout the country. They are moving in a direction. Whether or not Conservatives want to get on board, it is happening. It is happening right before their eyes and it is not something they can control. It has gone past the tipping point. We have gone past the point of no return, so we are either going to get on board with it or we are going to be caught behind.

Will we need oil? We are going to need oil for a long time. There is no doubt about that, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan can clap to that, too. We will, but that does not mean that we cannot at the same time look for a way to transition away from oil, and that is what the recommendations in this report that I referenced are doing specifically, by calling on the government to look for those opportunities.

I brought one up that speaks to ensuring that there are charging stations for electric vehicle readiness as part of the efficiency program to help Canadians who live in older houses. This is one of the problems that we have. A lot of older houses will have to be retrofitted to put in the proper infrastructure.

The one I really liked was recommendation 191. This specifically looked at establishing a greater focus on charging infrastructure investment needs by setting up and funding higher one- and five-year targets for electric vehicle charging stations. This is basically calling on the government to move faster than the already prescribed date of 2035 of being all net-zero emitting vehicles. It asks to set a goal to make one million existing apartment and condominium parking stalls electric-ready by 2030, which is incredibly important.

The apartment that I stay in here in Ottawa was only built in 2015, but for some reason the infrastructure was not already put in place for electric vehicles. That is going to have to be retrofitted. To that point, one of the recommendations that I really liked, recommendation 193, was to incorporate zero-emission vehicle requirements into the national building code and energy building code. Why is that so important? It is because most provinces look to the national building code. If we look at the Ontario building code, it is almost a carbon copy of the national building code. It is the same with Quebec's building code. We need national standards because those will then inform the other provincial standards that are out there.

Indeed, there are provinces that just look to the national building code. By encouraging this kind of stuff, which does not cost the government any money, and by putting these into the building code and encouraging that kind of infrastructure to be built now, we are going to be preparing ourselves for the future. That is one of the other recommendations that I really liked seeing in there.

I just want to say how disappointed I am that we got to the point today that we had to have this discussion. It is going to be unanimously approved by the House.

I imagine that will happen when the deferred recorded division takes place, but I find it very troubling that we even had to have this discussion, just as an opportunity for the Conservatives to once again stall the debate and filibuster what was going on so that we cannot deal with Bill C-8. For some reason, they are hung up on the fall economic statement and not letting it pass. At every step of the way, they are literally dragging their feet. They are the only ones still speaking to it. Every other party has given up on it, and 90% of the members from the Conservative Party who stand to talk about it do not even talk about Bill C-8. They talk about every grievance that they might happen to have at that time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to change focus a little, I would recognize that we are here today because the Conservatives continue to want to play a destructive force in the processing of legislation through the House of Commons. They do that by bringing forward, as they have done today, a concurrence report on something that is, quite frankly, just not warranted. We again started the debate on Bill C-8 earlier today, and the Conservatives are using this concurrence motion as a tool to frustrate the legislative process. We have seen that.

One of the answers that was provided earlier today said a great deal. A Conservative member said Conservatives were expecting the government to bring in time allocation on Bill C-8, with the full expectation that if we did not bring in time allocation, they had no intention to pass the legislation, and if we do bring in time allocation, they will criticize us for bringing in time allocation.

Go figure. It is Conservative logic, I guess.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to ask what we are doing here. Honest to God, what are we doing here? Yes, today we are debating a concurrence motion on a report from the finance committee. In three days, we are going to table a budget, and there will be a whole host of debates on the different elements in it..

Every time I have come into the House in the last two weeks and tried to figure out what is going on, it is a repeat of Bill C-8 continuously. We have debated this bill, and then the Conservatives bring this forward. They then stand and talk about measures that matter to their constituents, measures that the member rightly points out are in the legislation that they keep delaying.

I love hearing from the member for Winnipeg North, but I do not need to hear him again talking about the government's good work. I do not. I want to hear something else. Can the member opposite at least talk about the delay? We need to get on with the legislative agenda of the government and this Parliament, and Conservatives need to stop delaying it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, allow me to help my friend across the way. Bill C-8 takes a number of initiatives that the member is talking about. When he talks about helping small businesses, Bill C-8 does that.

In talking about helping his constituents and again in the spirit of consultation, the member should take a look at what Bill C-8 does before he is obligated to vote against it. If he were to consult with his constituents, he would hear that there are a lot of positive measures in there, and I would encourage the member, not only on the concurrence motion but also on Bill C-8, to vote in favour. Better yet, let us pass the fall economic update report.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is not. He is standing up on a point of order to say it is not relevant to a concurrence motion that is dealing with the budget, when Bill C-8 is all about the budget. It is all about the fall budget. I just cannot quite understand why the Conservatives, for whatever reason, have chosen to vote against that bill.

When we think about a report from the finance committee on budget ideas, we can take a look at Bill C-8. In listening to the consultations, I can assure the member opposite that Canadians are very much concerned about the pandemic. The very bill the Conservatives do not want to debate today, for whatever weird reason, deals with the priorities Canadians have today.

I concur, they are priorities. The issue is why the Conservative Party does not recognize that providing things such as rapid tests is important. All one has to do is look at what provinces and territories have been saying. They want to have rapid tests. This provides literally hundreds of millions of dollars for the acquisition of rapid tests for Canadians, which are in high demand.

It provides supports today. The concurrence motion is referencing the importance of consultation, and if the members opposite consulted, they would understand that we need to support small businesses. That is in fact what Bill C-8 does. If they continued to look at consultations, they would see that many people are concerned about the air they breathe and ventilation in our schools, in particular. They would find that, if they were in fact consulting with Canadians. Once again, that is what is in Bill C-8. If the Conservative Party of Canada really understood the importance of consultation and actually reflected what they were hearing from their constituents back inside this chamber, Bill C-8 would have passed long ago.

Now, it is as if the Conservatives have turned a leaf and know how to consult. They are saying that they want to concur in this report because of all the things that they heard in regard to this particular report. However, let us listen to some of the speeches they have given. There were only two Conservative speakers, so far. I sure hope it gets better. What did the members talk about? I made notes of some of the things they were talking about. They talked about cutting back on borrowing and stopping any form of tax increases. That is the message from the Conservative Party. Some members opposite might applaud while others are saying that it is a good start.

However, there are expenditures. This is the question I put earlier. The expenditures the government makes do cost money. “Expenditure” means that it costs money, but just because the government is spending money does not necessarily mean that it is not bringing in money. The example I would give is the Canada child care program. For the first time in the history of Canada, we now have a government that has instituted a national child care program. Let us talk about that program. I am sure that if the Conservatives did their homework, and they did not, they would find that there is a broad spectrum of support for a national child care program. There are even some Conservatives, albeit somewhat shy Conservatives, who actually support child care programs and what the national government is doing.

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

Madam Speaker, here we are again today where the official opposition here in Canada has made the determination that it wants to have a continuation of what I would suggest, and my colleague from Kingston, no doubt, would vouch, is a filibuster because the Conservative Party just does not want to see Bill C-8 pass.

The Conservatives have made it very clear that they do not support Bill C-8. What they are doing today is to prevent the bill from being debated once again. I am not too sure exactly how many days this bill has been up for debate, but I suspect that if one were to do a bit of research one would find that it has been a good number of days. It would have been nice to see the bill actually pass. After all, Bill C-8 is the fall economic update and here we are now in the spring.

My colleague from Kingston had a question for one of the many Conservative members on Bill C-8 this morning, in essence asking when this bill will be passed or why they have not passed it. The response was that it was because the government has not brought in time allocation—

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is raising the issue of affordability, so let us go to the facts.

Our government lowered taxes on the middle class and raised them on the wealthiest 1%. Conservatives voted against that. We created the Canada child benefit and indexed it to inflation. The Conservatives voted against that too. We provided seniors 75 years of age and over a $500 payment last summer. The Conservatives voted against that. They voted against Bill C-2, and they are on track to vote against Bill C-8. Why do they not just double down on affordability and vote with us on Bill C-8?

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, after campaigning on a deficit of $168 billion, the Conservative opposition continues to flip-flop. On Mondays it wants do more for seniors. On Tuesdays it wants to cut the CPP. On Wednesdays it wants to do more for small business. On Thursdays it wants to block Bill C-8.

If the Conservatives want to help small business, farmers, teachers and Canadians, they can do the right thing and support Bill C-8.

Bill C‑8—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, with regard to fertilizer availability, this is something that our government takes very seriously. It is working with our partners and industry leaders to ensure that we have fertilizer available in Canada. I know some farmers were able to book early in December and January, but there are some impacts on farmers today, and we will be continuing to work with the industry to ensure that we have a solution.

The other thing the hon. member can do is pass Bill C-8 right away, because that would give a rebate to farmers today, if Conservatives would work with us on Bill C-8.

Carbon Pricing

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, agriculture and rural communities are vital in my home province of Manitoba. We recognize we are in a transition period, and that is why we introduced Bill C-8 to put more money in farmers' pockets. Bill C-8, currently before this House, contains a measure to return part of the proceeds of the price of pollution directly to farmers. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has tried to remove this measure and has delayed progress on this important legislation.

Taxation

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

Madam Speaker, the saddest April Fool's joke on Canadians today is the Conservatives' inability to pick a lane.

On Mondays it is “do more for seniors”. On Tuesdays it is “cut CPP”. On Wednesdays it is “do more for small businesses”. On Thursdays it is “block Bill C-8”.

While the Conservatives struggle to pick a lane, we are focused on investing in Canadians and on sound fiscal management. While we are investing in Canadians on this side, they are simply making jokes on that side.

Finance

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

Madam Speaker, the saddest April Fool's joke on Canadians today is the inability of the Conservatives to simply pick a lane. On Mondays it is “do more for seniors”. On Tuesdays it is “cut CPP”. On Wednesdays it is “do more for small businesses”. On Thursdays it is “block Bill C-8”.

While the Conservatives struggle to pick a lane, we are focused on investing in Canadians and managing the nation's finances responsibly.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-13, which would amend the Official Languages Act and enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. On Monday we will have the fifth day of debate at report stage of Bill C-8, which is an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update that was tabled in Parliament on December 14. Tuesday shall be an opposition day. Further, Wednesday we plan to start debate on Bill C-14, which concerns electoral representation in Quebec. We will continue debate on Bill C-13 and official languages on Thursday until 4 p.m., at which time the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be presenting the budget. Friday will be the first day of the budget debate.

Opposition Motion—Federal Budget

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

Mr. Speaker, likewise, I always enjoy the interventions from the member for Kenora and his insight.

This government recognizes that for certain industries and certain individuals, depending on where they live in the country, there are fewer options. Being in a rural area myself in Nova Scotia, I know that my constituents may not have the same access to public transit and different elements as others, so there is a lot I could address.

On agriculture, the government has recognized that the price some farmers are paying exceeds what they may be returned under the current model. That is why we introduced Bill C-8, which has monies designated specifically to go back to farmers to continue to keep the price signal there and continue to encourage innovation, not necessarily to harm farmers in any way. I hope the member opposite will have conversations with his colleagues so we can advance that bill and make sure support is given to his farmers and many others across the country.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

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

It is a great pleasure, as always, to rise in the House on behalf of my riding of Davenport to speak to the opposition day motion put forward by the Conservatives, which calls on our government to present a “federal budget rooted in fiscal responsibility with no new taxes, a path to balance and a meaningful fiscal anchor”. We are well aware that elevated inflation and the rise of gas prices are leading Canadians to worry about the cost of living and how this is affecting their everyday lives. Let me remind everyone in this venerable House today, and all those listening, of a few things.

Inflation is a global issue. Initially, it was due to global oil prices, pandemic supply chain problems and the way the virus changed our spending habits. We also know that inflation is being exacerbated by Russia's illegal war in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our federal government has been tireless in our efforts to protect Canadians, to support them through ongoing challenges and to bridge them through the postpandemic recovery. This significant fiscal policy support has contributed to a rapid and resilient recovery so far. I would add that we have provided if not the most generous, then among the most generous emergency supports in the world.

The motion we are speaking to today asks the federal government to present a federal budget that is rooted in fiscal responsibility and also to provide meaningful fiscal anchors. We have been fiscally responsible every step of the way during the pandemic, as well as since we were first elected in late 2015. Indeed, throughout the entire pandemic we have been in strong fiscal shape with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio of the G7.

Our GDP returned to nearly prepandemic levels in the third quarter of 2021, and it grew by an annual rate of 6.7% in the fourth quarter of 2021. On top of that, Moody's and S&P have reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating. In addition, the Stats Canada labour force survey showed that the labour market gained 337,000 jobs in February of this year, and we have recovered overall 112% of the jobs that we lost at the peak of the pandemic. Therefore, we have been fiscally responsible, we continue to be fiscally responsible, and we will be fiscally responsible moving forward.

We have also had meaningful fiscal anchors. Those anchors have been net GDP-to-debt ratios that, as was mentioned earlier, are the best in the G7, as well as an outstanding jobs growth number in addition to our overall GDP growth. The result is that our economy is growing back as it continues to try to come out of this pandemic into the postpandemic world and economy. I just want to point out that it is because of the generous emergency supports provided throughout the pandemic by our federal government that the economic foundation is strong and that companies can pivot back quickly as we are trying to come out of this pandemic.

Saying all that, I want to highlight some elements of the federal government's recovery plan that we have announced so far.

Our current recovery plan is targeted toward growth-enhancing and job-creating initiatives such as investment to support child care and the adoption of new technologies that will help boost supply. Increasing supply will help the economy to grow without the risk of higher inflation. As the situation across the country has improved, our federal government has moved from very broad-based support to more targeted measures that will provide help where it is needed and when it is needed.

When the new variants and major outbreaks occurred, lockdowns and capacity restrictions were painful but necessary last resorts to break the chain of transmission and to save lives. That is why, this past December, we announced that we were temporarily expanding the Canada worker lockdown benefit as well as the local lockdown program to support workers and businesses that were affected by capacity restrictions of 50% or more. We also temporarily lowered the current month revenue decline threshold requirement, from 40% to 25%, for employers to access the local lockdown program. This means that eligible employers could receive wage and rent subsidy support of from 25% to 75%, depending on how much revenue they had lost.

For workers who work in a region that introduces capacity restrictions by 50% or more, this means they can qualify for the Canada worker lockdown benefit. This enables Canadians to put $300 a week in their pockets to supplement lost wages.

Like all Canadians, we hope that lockdowns and capacity restrictions will be a thing of the past. We know Canadians are tired of COVID-19, but the unfortunate reality is that COVID-19 is not quite tired of us. We put these supports in place so that public health authorities could make the right, albeit difficult, decisions knowing that the federal government could be there to continue to support workers, small businesses and other employers in their communities when needed. We extended these key, enhanced lockdown support programs to ensure that Canadians were protected and workers and businesses had access to the help they needed to sustain them during the omicron wave.

There are a number of additional measures we have taken to support Canadians and address top issues affecting Canada's economic growth and prosperity. 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 federal 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 and housing, pay their fair share of Canadian taxes 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 the products and supplies they need, and that in many cases are contributing to rising prices. To help strengthen supply chains and address bottlenecks, the federal government has launched a new targeted call for proposals under the national trade corridors fund to assist Canadian ports with the acquisition of cargo storage capacity and other measures to relieve supply chain congestion. The fund will dedicate up to $50 million to support eligible priority projects.

Today, we are on strong economic footing. Our federal government has also prioritized putting the lives of Canadians first. This has meant that we have had one of the lowest mortality rates in the G7 due to COVID-19. In addition, we are making vaccines free and a priority. As of March 25, over 85% of Canadians five and older were fully vaccinated, and the Canadian economy has seen the benefits of prioritizing our health.

Given all of the aforementioned emergency and economic supports, the Canadian labour market rebounded strongly from the omicron wave in February. I would add that the recovery and economic growth have been broad-based and supported by solid underlying fundamentals, with ongoing rebounds in sectors hardest hit by the pandemic.

In conclusion, our federal government is determined to continue to do what is necessary to sustain the recovery, to provide help where it is still needed, to create jobs and to set the stage for strong growth for years to come. From the start of the pandemic, we understood that having a job was essential to Canadians' economic well-being. That is why our investments have been so singularly focused on employment and why Canada has experienced one of the fastest job recoveries in the G7. Canadians can remain confident that they have a strong hand at the wheel of the federal government in safeguarding and growing our economy.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear the other side of the House talk about taxation after their terrible record over their 10 years in government.

On this side of the House, we are focused on supporting Canadians. We are on the verge of voting on Bill C‑8 and we have introduced day care benefits to help Canadian families, increased the additional support for seniors and increased the Canada child benefit.

On this side of the House we are focused on affordability. Who knows what is going on across the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has made historic investments in the lives of Canadians and Quebeckers, in all communities and in all provinces, to prevent the worst depression since the 1930s.

The other side of the House can vote for Bill C‑8, for $1.8 billion for rapid COVID‑19 tests, for $100 million to improve ventilation in our schools and to help businesses and teachers.

When will the other side of the House vote in favour of Bill C‑8?

Citizenship and Immigration

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to rise to address this issue, and to a certain extent it is, but I am somewhat disappointed with the Conservative Party because I believe it is using this issue as a way to frustrate the legislative process, and I do not say that lightly.

All members of the House have been very supportive of the people of Ukraine. They understand the situation and want to do what Canadians as a whole want us to do, and that is to support the Ukrainian people in this time of need. We have seen that in the form of take-note debates. I believe we have had two take-note debates, although maybe one was an emergency debate. I am not 100% clear on that. Members from all sides of the House recognized what is taking place in Ukraine.

It does not take very much to get an appreciation of what is happening. We can go to YouTube or check news channels and see the horrors of war taking place today in Ukraine. Cities are being completely demolished, and people are dying every day by the thousands. In Putin, we see a dictator who has seen fit to destroy the infrastructure of a country, but the people of Ukraine are resisting. That resistance and love for Ukrainian heritage are what are ultimately going to prevail. We know that and we see that.

It was inspiring when President Zelenskyy addressed this chamber virtually and spoke to Canadians through the House of Commons. I believe, as I know my colleagues believe, that the Government of Canada needs to do whatever it can to support Ukraine and the people of Ukraine, and not use the political manoeuvres that I believe we are witnessing today to fit another agenda that is, really and truly, meant to frustrate the government.

If the Conservative Party really wants to have a debate about what is happening in Ukraine today and wants to talk about visitor visas or visa requirements, there are other opportunities. The Conservatives could have approached the government about having another take-note debate. They could have had their own opposition day and a very specific motion to deal with the topic they want to talk about today. They could have done that. There are other ways that the official opposition could have raised this very important issue. There is not one member of the Liberal caucus who would deny the fact that the issue being debated is, indeed, of critical importance. It is the timing of it.

Yesterday, for example, we were looking forward to Bill C-8 passing, but Conservative after Conservative stood and spoke. Bill C-8 is the fall economic statement that would provide pandemic relief and support for Canadians in all regions, but the Conservatives have made the determination that they do not want to see that bill pass.

Today we all know we are supposed to be debating Bill C-11: the modernization of the Broadcasting Act.

A great deal of effort has gone into that bill through input from Canadians, the work of the ministry and its department, and the work of the minister himself. It has been debated quite extensively thus far, and it was supposed to continue to be debated.

Again, we see the Conservatives bringing forward a concurrence motion. To the best of my knowledge, they did not approach the government House leader and ask for a take-note debate. To the best of my knowledge, we did not get to the rest of the orders of the day. Conservatives could have brought in an emergency debate on the issue. If they had waited an extra two minutes during House proceedings, we could have had an emergency debate.

I am sure members in the Conservative Party know that the type of debate they are encouraging right now is, in fact, limited to three hours. An emergency debate would have allowed more people to participate. A take-note debate would have allowed more people to participate. An opposition day motion would have not only allowed more people to participate, but it would have allowed the Conservative Party to frame a question to ultimately be put to the House and see whether that could have been supported.

That is the reason I say to the Conservative Party, and those who might be following this debate, that it is shameful of the official opposition to try to take an issue that is important to all Canadians and politicize it. I say shame on the Conservative Party of Canada for doing what it is doing: using manipulation to try to twist something so it can score some political points, or limit or cause more frustration on another piece of legislation.

For Conservatives to try to give the impression that Liberals do not want to contribute to the issue of refugees in Ukraine is absolutely ridiculous. As a government, we want to do whatever we can to support the people of Ukraine. Almost 3.9 million people have fled Ukraine to date. That is the most recent estimate I have heard. Almost four million people have fled Ukraine.

I talked at the beginning about those horrors. Let us take a look at the track record of this government. I will compare it with the record of Stephen Harper. In 2015, we had the election along with what was taking place in Syria. We had about 25,000 refugees to settle, and the Conservative Party was balking back then and asking how we were going to do that.

The Conservatives seemed to be in opposition to it, because I think their number was around 10,000. Do not quote me on it, but it was substantially less than what we said. Not only did we achieve 25,000, but from what I understand, we actually exceeded 50,000. That does not happen overnight. There is a process. To my friends across the way, I ask them to tell me another country, on a per capita basis in the western world, that had more refugees from Syria than Canada did.

Then we have Afghanistan, where the former foreign affairs minister said we would resettle 20,000 refugees, but then that doubled to 40,000. The Conservatives are already critical of some of the processes regarding processing those refugees. We will eventually get there. We understand the important role that Canada has to play when it comes to refugees.

When I was the critic for the Liberal Party of Canada dealing with immigration matters, we had Stephen Harper and the Conservative minister of immigration cutting back refugee settlement programs.

We do not need to take lessons from the Conservative Party on providing humanitarian support to refugees. I saw it first-hand when I was sitting in opposition and the Conservative Party had no respect for refugees or had minimal respect for providing the supports they required in order to settle in a healthier way here in Canada. Now the Conservative Party members have the tenacity to say that we could be doing better from a government perspective.

Taxation

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

Mr. Speaker, the tourism sector is critical to this country. The Canadian economy will not fully recover until the tourism sector does. I understand the importance of the wine economy to the tourism economy.

Let me say I had the pleasure and the opportunity to attend dozens of pre-budget consultations, and the good news is that we will have an announcement of the budget in the coming days. If Conservatives want to support Canadians, they should support and vote for Bill C-8 today or at the latest tomorrow.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle continues to obstruct and delay important legislation that would benefit Canadians and make life more affordable. On Bill C-8 alone, which is up for debate right now, the Conservatives could stop blocking and gutting the bill so that $1.7 billion could flow for COVID rapid tests, along with $100 million for ventilation systems in our schools, tax relief for teachers and real action to help with the cost of housing. While they are obstructing, we are constructing. We are going to work every day for Canadians.

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly thankful for this opportunity to speak up for Canadian farmers. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, for carrying this private member's bill, Bill C-234, which I am hoping we all will support today and moving forward. I want to build on what my colleague was speaking about in his presentation, but I want to change it a bit and focus my intervention on what the agriculture sector is already doing, what is has accomplished and how this bill can help.

It is simply a fact that our farmers and ranchers have demonstrated a proud history of environmental stewardship as innovators. This has all be done on the farm of their own volition without government intervention or someone telling them what to do. Canadian farmers have adopted practices, including conservation tillage, that have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than half a million tonnes per year. They have done that because it is the right thing to do. They have done that because it is more efficient.

Other sectors, such as the laying hen industry, have also reduced their energy usage by more than 40%, their water consumption by 70% and their land footprint by 80%. Our country was one of the first in the world to have an outcome-based, certified sustainable beef program. Again, it is not because the government instructed this to be done or because of government oversight and regulation. Canadian cattlemen did this because it was the right thing to do.

In the service of our land and environment, as a result of this program, our cattle ranchers now provide more than 68% of the wildlife habitat in Canada. This represents the protection of a key part of Canada's biodiversity. In fact, our Canadian grasslands are the most endangered ecosystem on the planet. I know that very few Canadians would really understand that or think it is the case, but our ranch families across the country are the ones protecting this very delicate ecosystem.

If members have not seen it, I would encourage everyone in the House to see the documentary Guardians of the Grasslands, which is a partnership between the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada. It highlights how endangered our grasslands are when it comes to protecting biodiversity. I am very proud of the fact that the documentary was filmed in my riding of Foothills on the world-renowned Waldron ranching co-op in southern Alberta.

What does this all mean? What this means is that Canadian farmers have long understood that sustainability and sound science are good for farming. They are good for their families, but they are also good for their bottom line. However, we need to have their backs as well. We need to be there to support them, especially when there are no other alternatives available.

By moving forward with Bill C-234, we can enable our farmers to remain competitive in a global marketplace. It would provide them with the tools they need to further their investments in sustainability and new innovation. It would also exempt natural gas and propane from the carbon tax, which would allow them to heat their barns and dry their grain at an affordable price to remain competitive.

This bill is supported by all aspects of the agriculture sector, and I believe we need to recognize just how important that is. For example, the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, a coalition of 14 national farm organizations that represents more than 190,000 farm businesses and $70 billion in farm cash receipts, is telling us this makes sense, and we should listen.

I want to provide a few quotes from some of the stakeholders who are supporting Bill C-234.

Dave Carey, co-chair of the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, said:

As a national coalition of industry-wide farm organizations, we are focused on prioritising practical solutions to ensure our farmers and ranchers can remain competitive and utilize the tools available to them where no alternative fuel sources exist. [Bill C-234] will provide economic relief for our members, freeing up the working capital they need to implement environmental innovations on farm.

Bob Lowe, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, said:

Beef farmers and ranchers are continuously looking at ways to environmentally improve operations and further contribute positively to Canada’s climate change objectives. Bill C-234 will provide the much needed exemptions for critical farming practices including heating and cooling of livestock barns and steam flaking.

There are very real consequences to the Liberals' carbon tax. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business verified ran the numbers, and they are troubling. On average, in the first year of the Liberals' carbon tax, the average Canadian farmer was paying $14,000 a year in carbon tax. Last year that went to $45,000 for the average Canadian farmer. On April 1, this tax will go up yet again by another 25%. As a result of that, Canadian farmers will be paying, on average, $70,000 per operation. As many of my colleagues have said this afternoon, the margins are very tight in this industry. These taxes, as they go up, are taxing Canadian farmers out of business, which is nonsensical when we understand what a critical role they play in not only feeding Canadians but in carrying the burden of helping to feed the world.

I want to give members a couple of examples from my riding. I put the word out and asked some of my farmers and producers to provide me with their carbon tax bills if they were willing to do so. From Hilltop Dairy in Fort MacLeod, the Van Hierden family shared its carbon tax bills with me, and in 2021 the bills were more than $7,000 for one farm. By comparison, Mountain View Poultry near Okotoks, the Kielstra farm, paid more than $12,000 in carbon taxes in January alone. That is one month.

My colleague and the Liberal Party have talked about supporting Bill C-8, which would have a carbon tax rebate program in it for agriculture. That rebate would be $1.70 per $1,000 of expenditures. That is a fraction of what Canadian farmers are now paying for the carbon tax, so it would be nowhere near carbon neutral. In contrast, Bill C-234 would ensure that farmers do not have to pay that carbon tax in the first place, which would be more efficient when it comes to the bureaucracy and the cost of administering a carbon tax rebate, which does not at all do what it is intended to do. Bill C-234 would certainly allow Canadian farmers to be able to do what they do best and be able to continue on with their operations.

To dig down a little deeper and show how unsustainable this program would be, the cost of production per acre in Alberta is about $400. The carbon tax will add more than $3 in costs next year, but in 2030 that will increase to $11, to $18 per acre in Saskatchewan and to $13 per acre in Manitoba. That would eat up whatever profits were there for the farmers to be able to continue on with their livelihoods.

As well, the cost of food will continue to increase. The farmers have nowhere to pass on these expenses, so as a result we are already seeing the cost of living skyrocket. As Canadians across this country are concerned about their ability to put food on the table for their families, this increasing carbon tax will even exacerbate the cost of living crisis we are now facing.

What we have talked about in the House many times is the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It is going to further cause global food crises. Canadian farmers want to be there to help, but they will not be able to do that, because a farm-killing carbon tax that is being brought in by the Liberal government will make it impossible for our Canadian farmers to do what they do best, which is provide high-quality and sustainable food to feed not only Canadians but the world.

I know that is what Canadian farmers want to do. They are more than willing to carry that burden and that responsibility. They want to do it, but if they are going to do it, we have to give them everything they need to be able to compete on global markets and also to be able to compete here at home.

Now more than ever we need to ensure that Canadian farmers have the support and the structure in place for them to be successful, and by exempting farm fuels like natural gas and propane from the carbon tax, we would ensure that they are able to stay in business. I am asking all of my colleagues in the House to support my colleague from Huron—Bruce and Bill C-234 to help Canadian farmers across this country.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

moved that Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on this bill. Through the years I have had the honour and privilege of presenting private member's bills and motions. I had one pass many years ago, and I had one or two that did not pass.

First of all, I would like to thank the member of Parliament for Foothills and the member of Parliament for Northumberland—Peterborough South who presented Bill C-206 in the last Parliament. I would also thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and all of the other members of Parliament in my party and caucus who have a deep love and admiration for agriculture and the farm families that do the work each and every day.

The issue that I am trying to fix with this private member's bill is the application of the carbon tax on natural gas and propane. It is for on-farm agriculture uses to dry grain and heat livestock barns where there may be a variety of livestock, but mainly poultry and pork in these cases. The problem is with the current carbon tax on these areas. I will give one example of a pork farmer in my riding who sent me his December usage of natural gas. The natural gas bill for his hog barn was $11,391 in total. The carbon tax was $2,918, which is 25% of the base bill. When we throw the HST on, which is almost $1,500, 34% of the bill is in carbon tax and HST. That is really the problem.

There are tight margins in agriculture and, when we get into the drying of grains in the fall, these are foods that we eat. Farmers are price-takers; they are not price-makers. They do not set the price; they take the price. Anybody in the House or those listening today well understand the issue with that. On the flip side, when it is time to pay for inputs, machinery, etc., we obviously know the price. There are a lot of improvements we could make.

One of my other issues with the carbon tax specifically on farmers, which I have said in the House of Commons before, is that farm producers and farmers do not get credit for any of the environmental good that they do on their farms up and down the country roads. If we look at what farmers are able to do on their farms, first of all, they get no credit for any of the carbon sequestration of their crops. They get no credit for their grasslands or woodlots. There is no credit for that.

We are trying to right an environmental wrong and a taxation wrong to make it fair for farmers. It is very difficult to recognize all of the different ways in which farmers do good. Putting a carbon tax on their efforts does not really recognize the environmental benefit they have. Many members of Parliament in the House today have had the opportunity to tour many farms, conservation areas and livestock barns, and they see the good work that they do.

Another issue that is recognized in this bill is that farmers are always asked to be the government's line of credit. People may ask what that means. What I mean by this is that, if we look at the business risk management programs available to farmers, AgriStability being one of them, if they were able to trigger a payment with AgriStability, their expenses are incurred so much earlier. Farmers carry the cost and at the end they receive. It is the same with HST. There have been issues through the years with certain producers where their HST was hung up, so that they are the line of credit in some cases. It was three months, four months, six months, maybe even a year before they would get their HST rebate.

Now we have another program that is going to create a level of bureaucracy. We have a program that is once again going to ask the farmer to be the line of credit. To give an example, farmers could pay a propane or natural gas bill on their poultry or hog barn in January and February of 2022 and that almost $3,000 in carbon tax they paid on their bill could be carried all the way through the year. They could dry their grains in September, October or November, depending on how the harvest went, and then carry all of those costs all through the entire year and file their taxes, depending on when their fiscal year end is, in June of 2023. When do members think those farmers would receive their rebate?

That is a long time to be once again asking farm producers or farm families to carry these expenses. Then we also calculate the increasing costs of all the inputs, whether feed for livestock or fertilizer. We have seen the crazy prices. Their lines of credit are continually edging up and now they are faced with doing this.

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.

For the farm I spoke about a second ago, one bill was almost $3,000, so it is not neutral. It will not be neutral. If there are statistics to show otherwise, I would like to see them, but based on page 83 of this statement, it does not look like it. A month or two ago, the member for Foothills showed me a bill for a farmer in his province, and it might have been in his riding, I cannot remember, that was twice that amount. Can members imagine $5,500 being paid in carbon tax for one month? Therefore, $1,700 is not going to cut it.

We have talked about carbon sequestration through their crops, grasslands and woodlots. Farmers plant trees on their farms. They have windrows. In Ontario, and I am sure in many other provinces, we have nutrient management plans for how and when manure is spread across their fields. With technology we have precision spraying of herbicides and pesticides, and even precision fertilizing. This is not our great-grandfather's farms. These are very progressive farms across this country today with a high degree of professionalism and a love for agriculture and the environment.

If we take a woodlot in Huron County or Bruce County, we will see some of the best-managed woodlots in all the land. That is over the last 10 years when we have been dealing with the emerald ash borer on our ash trees. Most of those have been cleared out of woodlots and maple and other trees have come up in their place, but these are well-maintained woodlots that sequester carbon.

The other thing I would like to mention is crop rotation. I know the member for Foothills brought it up in question period today and the agriculture minister made a comment the other day in question period about it, as if it was some sort of new idea. I am sure she misspoke in question period, but we can go back to textbooks from probably the twenties and thirties talking about crop rotation and crop cover. Most of the farmers in my area plant late summer and early fall crops as well for cover crops. There is quite a bit that goes on.

The other thing I would like to recognize is all the conservation authorities and environmental groups in our communities. One that is not too far from where I live is the Pine River Watershed Initiative Network, which plants trees and manages water on farms. There are also crop and soil groups in Huron County, Bruce County and Grey County, all the way through the area, doing some amazing research on drainage and being able to hold some of those spring rains and thaws, hold some of that water, back in the drain itself. It is a very exciting technology.

Another thing I would like to talk about is our food sovereignty. We have seen a lot of this in the last number of years, maybe perhaps most recently in the past little while. In Ontario, we ship hogs, for example, to Burlington and other places like Conestoga. We also ship hogs to Quebec. We actually ship hogs to Manitoba as well, to Brandon. Although it is good for them to have those hogs in the production line, it makes no sense at all for farmers in southwestern Ontario to ship hogs in transport trucks across the provinces to their destination. We should be able to process them in our own regions. For that, I would say that I do think the government needs to take a real long look at food sovereignty in each province and, of course, in our country, as well as identifying strategic mines or opportunities.

Phosphates are a great example, with the latest embargo and tariffs from Russia, of where there are opportunities in our own country to speed up environmental assessments. Do it right but make sure they are streamlined so that we can mine our own goods and raw materials in our own country to support the entire cycle of agriculture in our country. Today we do not have that and I do think that should be a priority.

How much money does it take to make one dollar on a farm? It takes millions, and the margins are tight. People may drive up and down the road if they are going to their cottage or wherever else they are going on a weekend and the might look at how nice the farm looks from the truck they are driving. The reality is that it took multiple generations working seven days a week, 365 days a year, for margins that would put fear into most people. If they knew how much capital investment, debt and line of credit was at risk each and every day to earn a few dollars on $100, they would be so impressed.

The reason I am saying this is that the carbon tax is punitive even for the existence of a farm operation. I have numerous calls in a week from different farmers commenting on the cost of doing business in 2022. Yes, if one were to look at the spot prices or futures prices for soybeans, corn, wheat or any of those, it does look pretty amazing. Unfortunately, for farmers, costs have gone in lockstep. In some cases, they have actually increased at a higher rate.

Where can we help them? We can help them with the carbon tax. We can help them by cutting the carbon tax and eliminating the carbon tax on farms. It does not get recycled. The carbon tax that they collect on farmers does not all go back to farmers. It does not go back into some environmental farm plan. It does not. They may say that it goes in dollar for dollar, but it does not.

The quickest and most efficient way to help agriculture and to recognize the environmental benefit the industry provides the country, without creating a bureaucracy and without hiring consultants to walk the farm, go through the woodlot and come up with an idea of how much was actually sequestered, is to cut it off right at the source. Do not make the farmer be the line of credit for the government on one more program. Do not tell them it is going to be neutral when we know it is $1.73 per thousand dollars. Let us not do that.

There are certain industries, I am sure, in Canada that do not provide a whole lot of environmental benefit to the country. Farming is not one of them. It is an organization with the most grassroots, environmental preservation organizations someone will ever see. If one were to go to a Ducks Unlimited auction or a conservation authority fundraiser, who would be there? It is the townspeople, for sure, but it is also the farmers. The farmers come out. In some cases, it is the conservation authority that gives them a hard time, but they are still out there to support the cause because they understand the relationship between productive land and the environment.

I really enjoyed the debate today. It is an honour to do this. I look forward to having discussions, hearing what the other parties have to say and what their thoughts are, and hopefully, with their good will, seeing it in committee.

I am thankful for the opportunity today and I look forward to the questions.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. There is one issue where the hon. member could support us, and that is passing Bill C-8. In Bill C-8, there is a rebate program for farmers to get a rebate on the price on pollution, and that is an action his party could do right away.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish a very happy birthday to Mitch. I hope he has the time to celebrate with his family over the weekend.

Tomorrow we will call Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update, for the third day of debate at report stage, and we will continue on Monday, if that is necessary. Tuesday we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-11, the online streaming act. Wednesday we will continue with debate on Bill C-5, which is mandatory minimum legislation, at second reading.

I would also inform the House that Thursday, March 31, will be an allotted day and next Friday, a week tomorrow, it is our intention to begin consideration of the second reading of Bill C-13, the official languages bill.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians are seeing higher prices at the pump.

The Conservative Party wants Canadians to think that this has something to do with the Canadian economy. However, the Conservatives seem to be ignoring the fact that global energy prices are high, in part because of the serious situation in Ukraine. It is highly likely that oil companies will not lower the price at the pump.

On this side of the House, we are focused on affordability. We encourage the Conservatives to join us and vote in favour of Bill C-8.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to this platform initiative.

As it pertains to affordability, it is disappointing that the NDP chose to vote against providing more pandemic supports for Canadians and businesses in Bill C-2.

On raising taxes on the wealthiest 1% and lowering them for the middle class, increasing investments for the Canada Revenue Agency to combat tax evasion and increasing investments to combat international tax avoidance, we invite the opposition NDP to vote with us on Bill C-8.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope all members have a productive two weeks working in their constituencies and being with their families over the March break period.

This afternoon, we are going to continue with the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion. Tomorrow, we begin the report stage of Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update. On the week we return, March 21, 22 and 24 shall all be allotted days.

Online Streaming Act

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

Madam Speaker, as a number of members have chosen to do, I also want to start my comments by reflecting on what is happening in Europe today.

The constituents I represent, and their heritage and families, are one of the reasons Winnipeg North has such great diversity. From beautiful cathedrals to communities and from industrial areas to commercial developments in Winnipeg's north end, the contributions in general that the 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage have made to our country are immeasurable.

What is taking place in Ukraine today strikes into the hearts of over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage and millions of others. As I stood in my place previously, I indicated to the people of Ukraine and the Ukrainian community worldwide that Canada is a friend that will continue to be there in every way possible.

I appreciate the patience of members in allowing me to say that at the beginning of my comments.

In regard to Bill C-11, a lot of thoughts came through my mind as I listened to the opposition members talk about the bill. I cannot help but think about what my colleague from Kingston and the Islands was saying we could anticipate. It is almost as if he was prophesying. Already, just a couple of hours into it, we are starting to see it come true. I did not think it would be as extreme as I have seen it. In fact, I actually made a couple of quick notes on some of the things we heard from the last two Conservative speakers.

We heard that the government would tell us what to watch. These are the types of lines they were saying. According to some members of the Conservative Party, there is absolutely no need for oversight. We heard that Bill C-11 would enable censorship, that the government wants to start censoring what Canadians are watching and that members need to vote against it to protect Canadians from the government. We heard that it would be Communist-type policy if the legislation were to pass.

These were the types of things I made note of as I was listening to Conservative members. In fairness, I suspect that they were getting those speaking points from the Conservative backroom. If we go behind the curtains, behind the doors there, we will find some speaking notes. That is the Conservative spin.

Really, let us think about it. At the end of the day, what we are really talking about is modernizing the Broadcasting Act. The last time it was done in any substantial way was in 1991. I was a parliamentarian back in 1991. In fact, I can recall when I first bought a computer to use in my parliamentary capacity back in 1988, it was a Compaq and it had a 5.5” floppy disk. Imagine being in the Manitoba legislature building and wanting to get access to the Internet. First the computer had to be hooked up to a phone line, and the first noise heard was the dial tone kicking in, then a number going out. If we want to talk about speed, computers back then were really slow.

The Broadcasting Act was last changed in 1991. Just imagine what we have seen evolve in technology and in the advancements in computers since then. One has to wonder what world the Conservative Party of Canada is living in. The Conservative members' minds must still be on the protests. Where did they come up with the idea that the legislation is some sort of government conspiracy that has offended the extreme right into believing that the Government of Canada is going to be watching what they are doing on the Internet so that we can feed in our government agenda? Do they really believe that?

It has been three speakers already, and these are the types of conspiracies that they are talking about. It is completely irresponsible to try to give false information to Canadians when we are debating such an important matter.

The essence of the legislation is actually fairly straightforward and fairly simple. It is recognizing the fact that 1991 was the last time we had any significant change to the Broadcasting Act, and we are modernizing it. In other words, we are taking into particular consideration everything that has been happening with respect to the Internet. There have been massive changes, and I would like to get into a few of those.

However, before I do that, I want to encourage members of the official opposition. Although they have an interim leader, they are starting to veer fairly hard to the right, and I do not say that lightly. When we listen to their comments, we have to wonder who they are trying to appeal to. I believe that the legislation being brought forward is in general fairly well supported by industry, other stakeholders and our constituents, but instead of trying to state the facts about the legislation, the Conservatives are digging deep so that they can send out these weird emails in order to give misinformation and try to raise money. I would suggest that this is a huge disservice to the House. There is no conspiracy on this side of the House. All the Government of Canada is trying to do is modernize the Broadcasting Act by recognizing that the Internet matters and that it has really changed the lives of Canadians.

What types of things would this bill actually do?

Well, if we go back to the sixties, seventies and eighties, most people understood the importance of television and watched it considerably. Given our proximity to the United States, they recognized that there was a need to ensure that Canadian content would be there and that we would be investing in Canadian content and supporting that industry. Today, if we look around Canada, we will find in all regions of our country, no matter how remote, examples of our heritage and the arts programs that are there. We can see it in our schools, and I would suggest that all schools, either directly or indirectly, provide some form of heritage and arts programming.

When we talk about who we are as a people, it is important to recognize the francophone language, indigenous people and the very multicultural fabric of our society and how it has evolved. We have some amazingly talented people, and I often make reference, for example, to the Folklorama in the city of Winnipeg. Every summer for two weeks, we get pavilions from all around the world. It is made up primarily of local talent from the city of Winnipeg, but it goes beyond that to include rural Manitoba. Although we often get guests from outside of Canada, it is primarily local talent.

Many of those local talents are dependent on cultural funding, and they ultimately hope to maybe be on a TV sitcom or become a professional singer. That is why we brought in Canada's Broadcasting Act many years ago. Back then, we saw the value of it.

Today, we still see debate from the Conservative Party regarding CBC. One of things CBC was charged with was ensuring that Canadian content was there, real and tangible, and that it was moved forward and promoted. The programs it brought go far beyond Hockey Night in Canada. At the end of the day, we still get some Conservatives who want to see the demise of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

At the end of the day, I can appreciate that we have seen the Broadcasting Act's impact on ensuring we have developed a healthy arts community in Canada. It is a significant impact. I do not know offhand the number of millions of dollars. What I do know is that we have a powerful Quebec caucus that often talks about the importance of the cultural and arts community in the province of Quebec. I know it is there, and that it is healthy and strong, because of the many comments I have heard from my colleagues.

In the province of Ontario a couple of weeks back, I was watching a show I think was called Kim's Convenience. It was nice to see, watching that TV program, that it is set in Toronto, a city that I like a great deal. Corner Gas is set in Saskatchewan, and I know there is an immense amount of pride from the people living in Saskatchewan. It is almost as much as the Rider pride for the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

Those are all a part of our arts industry. When we think about these programs, it is not just the actors and actresses who are being employed. We are talking about an industry. When I am in downtown Winnipeg and I see these huge semis and a house being lit up or a block being lit up, I know there is a production taking place. I have been inside the Manitoba legislature, and when the legislature is out, the movie cameras will come in. They are not coming in because of the politicians. They are coming in to reflect and hopefully produce a hit, so people around the world will have the opportunity to see some of the structures in the province of Manitoba.

It takes people to make those productions possible. I know the Province of British Columbia has set up a huge industry, but it does not matter which province or territory we look at. We will find an industry there and it is an industry that people want to see grow, because, as an industry, it provides a lot of jobs and helps us identify who we are as a nation. We are different than the United States.

This is not legislation about freedom. Members could listen to the speeches from the Conservative Party and think this is all about freedom of speech, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is not one Liberal member of Parliament who does not believe in the importance of freedom of speech. In fact, it was the Liberal Party that brought in the Charter of Rights, which guarantees freedom of speech and individual rights, and we are very proud of that fact.

We are the party that created the Charter of Rights. When the Conservatives talk about freedom of speech, they are really trying to justify voting no to this legislation. There is really no reason for the Conservative Party to vote no. I have listened to them. There are those who stay away from the freedom of speech argument, and there has been no real articulation as to why this is bad legislation or why, at the very least, it could not go to committee.

If we were to ask each and every one of them, I would like to think that most recognize that, yes, Canada does have an arts community and that is a good thing. I would think the majority believe that. I would think a majority of Conservatives at least believe there is a difference between the Internet today and that back in 1991. At the end of the day, when legislation passes here at second reading, it goes to the committee stage. If there are some concerns, which I too have, there would be an opportunity to go over those concerns.

With regard to commercial social media and what it means, I am very much interested in what the CRTC has to say. The Minister of Canadian Heritage made it clear that he would like the CRTC to provide a better and clearer definition from its perspective as to what commercial social media would look like. There are some legitimate concerns.

I am not saying it is absolutely perfect. If there are ways to improve the legislation, given the response from the department and the minister, the government is open to ideas and thoughts to do that. However, if the only real argument as to why members will vote no is strictly about freedom, I really think this has more to do with the Conservative far right behaviour that we have witnessed in the last three weeks.

One would think Conservatives have all taken out memberships to support the Trump re-election campaign or something. It is amazing that the Conservative Party of Canada, at the national level, feels it has to use the word “freedom” in order to justify voting against this legislation.

Then they criticize the NDP for agreeing to send this bill to committee. Go figure. They say it is a coalition. Without the support of other opposition parties, we would not have passed Bill C-2 or Bill C-8, which were supports and relief for Canadians during the pandemic with lockdowns and purchasing masks. The Conservatives voted against that too.

They vote against everything and then tie in the word “freedom”. They need to regroup. How far right are they going to go? It is a resurgence of the Reform Party. That is what we are starting to see. It is being routed from a certain area and a certain number, and all Canadians should be concerned about that.

Members should not worry about freedom. The legislation is good. They should do the right thing, support their constituents and vote for this legislation.

Emergencies Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be sharing my time because I am selfish.

How should we tackle this matter? Yesterday, I asked myself how I would start my speech, and I thought that the best way would be to examine the issue of this law's legitimacy. In my opinion, this entails establishing how a free society works. All too often, when we speak of free societies, we make the mistake of believing that a democratic society, a free society, is a society that lives consensually. That is not the case.

I recommend that everyone read Disagreement: Politics and Philosophy by Jacques Rancière, who is probably one of the foremost figures in French political philosophy. In this work, Jacques Rancière says that politics exist as soon as the “sans-part“, those who are excluded, want to have a part in society. That is what we see in class conflict, the feminist movement and the movement of homosexuals who want to be recognized. They are the “sans-part” who want to have a part in society. That is the only way the democratic process functions.

I was looking for a quote this week because the notion of freedom has been the focus of our debates. I was looking for a quote that would give a positive definition of freedom, and I thought of my loyal listener, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, who got into a little tiff with the member for Carleton on Bill C-8, a bill to implement certain budgetary measures.

During this exchange, the member for Carleton started preaching about freedom. Since he aspires to become the leader of the Conservative Party, his motivations might be different from others'. He finished his speech talking about the protesters and said “Freedom is on the march.” Since my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean is a clever guy, he quickly pointed out that the member was off topic and his speech had absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-8. The member for Carleton replied that freedom is never pertinent to the Bloc, which I thought was a little harsh.

I thought it would be appropriate to teach the member for Carleton the definition of freedom and the type of freedom he is talking about. I think this is relevant to today's debate.

I am going to share a quote from Jan Patocka, a modern Socratic philosopher. Jan Patocka died in 1977 following an intense interrogation that went wrong. He was an old man, a philosopher and spiritual advisor to Vaclav Havel, the first president of the Czech Republic.

In a book entitled Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History, Jan Patocka wrote:

“[P]olitics is always of another order than economic management or the projection of humans in work...politics is nothing other than life for the sake of freedom, not life for the sake of survival or even for well being”.

What does Jan Patocka mean by “life for the sake of freedom”?

For me, it is quite simple, and this goes back to Rancière. Life for the sake of freedom means that people are willing to challenge the established rules in order to be recognized. Patocka even died challenging the Iron Curtain regime to see the Czech regime recognized. These are people willing to pay a very heavy price. I am not sure if my colleague from Carleton would be willing to pay such a price, but at the very least, if we now follow this line of thought, we should distinguish between two types of freedom.

There is the freedom that people seek to win, the kind that people are willing to fight for.

However, there is another very basic freedom, as Isaiah Berlin presents in Liberty. It is the best illustration possible.

In Liberty, Isaiah Berlin refers to two types of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. According to Isaiah Berlin, positive liberty is the freedom that allows individuals to live their lives the way they choose.

It is possible for individuals in a society to feel that they are being treated unjustly. This has happened in history, especially to women in patriarchal societies. It has happened to ethnic minorities, and it has happened to a national minority, Quebeckers. We believe that we have suffered an offence, we want to change the course of society, we engage in a struggle, and we undertake social actions in an attempt to define ourselves. This is what Isaiah Berlin called positive liberty. But Isaiah Berlin also discussed negative liberty.

Perhaps the best way to understand negative liberty is to look at a sentence by Dostoevsky in The Possessed. In this novel, Dostoevski, through the voice of Stavrogin, said, “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Let us leave God aside. What Dostoevsky meant is that if there are no institutions, then everything is permitted. If there is no legitimate and well-established authority, then everything is permitted.

Negative liberty therefore means that not everything is permitted. Governments are in place for that. We have principles of political associations, a Constitution that tells us that not everything is permitted. I may not do everything that I want; I may not limit the freedom of others. Therefore, this “everything” is not permitted. Ultimately, negative liberty is a bit like government action.

How are men to be made free? The one who came up with the best answer was certainly Camus. He said that it was through rebellion.

I will read a quote from Camus’s novel The Rebel. Afterwards, we will try to unpack it

What is a rebel? A man who says no, but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes, from the moment he makes his first gesture of rebellion. A slave who has taken orders all his life suddenly decides that he cannot obey some new command. What does he mean by saying “no”?

He means, for example, that “this has been going on too long,” [perhaps that was what we were seeing outside, but we will come back to that later] “up to this point yes, beyond it no,” “you are going too far,” or, again, “there is a limit beyond which you shall not go.” In other words, his no affirms the existence of a borderline.

Camus goes on to say:

Thus the movement of rebellion is founded simultaneously on the categorical rejection of an intrusion that is considered intolerable and on the confused conviction of an absolute right which, in the rebel's mind, is more precisely the impression that he “has the right to...” He demonstrates, with obstinacy, that there is something in him which “is worth while...”

We have heard this outside, but we will get back to it. Camus says this about someone who uses that positive power on himself and the society that revolts him.

I wonder if the protesters are rebelling in the sense understood by Camus.

I will come back to another concept we have not yet discussed, the concept of “freedumb”; the “freedumb” the protesters were demanding. That reminds me of the platonic concept of double ignorance, that is to say, a person who does not realize that he does not know things.

That goes hand in hand with the rise in far-right populist politics. In recent weeks, we heard of an American elected official who did not know the difference between the Gestapo and gazpacho. That is a good start. I hope that never happens here.

We heard people talking about alternative facts. Supposedly they exist. We heard talk of 5G, a chip being injected in people. I will not get into the issue of vaccination again, but I have even heard some questionable ideas from some members.

The most recent thing is the protester who was yelling “It's very not false”. According to him, the woman who was knocked down by a horse died, but the media was not telling people. When he was told that that had been proven to be false, he yelled, “It's very not false”. That is a new expression.

What really bothers me is that invoking a law like the one the government is proposing to use means that perhaps, one day, the government that is in power will use the somewhat controversial principles of the growing populist far right. Right now, this government could decide to do what the NDP does not want it to, namely, put a stop to the legitimate pursuit of freedom by certain movements.

Like my NDP colleagues, I see myself as a progressive. A progressive is someone who works tirelessly in an effort to support people who are seeking to free themselves from a situation they are trapped in.

In 10 or 20 years, when indigenous, environmental or anti-globalist movements try to protest to get out of a situation that seems unfair to them, perhaps someone on the other side will invoke the Emergencies Act, because once we use it the first time, it sets a precedent.

Unlike what happened 50 years ago, when the NPD leader at the time said no to the War Measures Act, my NDP colleagues will have to live with what happens in this moment in history.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be here this evening. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague and friend from Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

I have been in this House now over six years, and I have spoken with pleasure many times in this House on various topics, such as BIA legislation this week, Bill C-12, Bill C-8 or Bill C-2, but this evening I am speaking on something I think merits much pause, thought and importance for our country. We have reached a stage where the government needs to act.

I fundamentally believe in the rule of law, enforcing the rule of law and making sure all Canadians follow the rule of law. Sadly, events in recent weeks have added a significant layer of hardship to the lives of many Canadians who have already endured two years of a global pandemic.

All of us here went through an election last September. I canvassed extensively in my riding, and I know the feedback I received. I was privileged enough to return here to the House of Commons to represent the wonderful resident of Vaughan—Woodbridge, and I represent all my residents, much like we all do. However, I note that at that time there was much feedback and much frustration with what we were going through. The comments I heard were sometimes really disappointing, and that frustration has carried through. We have been in a global pandemic, but we are coming out of it.

When I think about tonight's debate and what will happen over the coming days, invoking the Emergencies Act will help authorities in getting our country back on track. Disruptions and illegal blockades at Canada's border crossings have halted international trade and supply chains, at a time when Canadian businesses are striving to take part in the ongoing global economic recovery.

On that point, I think about where we are as we come out of the pandemic and where the world is going, with increased global competition; increased economic nationalism; the rise of what I would call economic and regional blocs; the United States, its competition with China, and what is happening there; a reinvigorated Europe; and a post-Brexit U.K. We know we need to stand up for Canadian businesses, and we know we need to stand up for Canada's reputation globally to ensure we always implement and follow the rule of law. Those thoughts are in my mind.

We also know that during this time, here in Ottawa and across the country, municipal and provincial resources have been strained. The City of Ottawa, the City of Windsor and the Province of Ontario have all declared states of emergency. The situation has evolved over two weeks in Ottawa and almost a week at the Ambassador Bridge. There has been a substantial impact on our economy, and there are those who are unable to work due to the blockades and the occupation here in our nation's capital.

Many businesses in our nation's capital have been forced to close due to safety concerns. I have been here these last three weeks in Ottawa, and I have seen all the businesses along Sparks Street that are run by families and are unable to open. There are individuals who work at the Rideau Centre who are at home right now, not earning a paycheque to cover their bills and expenses for their families. This, frankly, must stop. This must come to an end, and invoking the Emergencies Act is the right thing to do.

About a week and a half ago, I was able to do a panel on CTV's Power Play, and that panel has received approximately 200,000 views on my Facebook page. I went and saw the feedback I was receiving, and I realized just how nasty and unbecoming some of those comments were. They were from the United States, Canada and different parts of the world, and I thought to myself just how frustrated people were and how the right-wing in parts of this country, and in other parts of the world, were distorting the truth, putting forward mistruths and misleading Canadians.

In my comments during those interviews, I said, very frankly, that the individuals outside have a right to peacefully protest. The individuals who are outside have a right for their voices to be heard, like all Canadians do, whether it is at the ballot box or whether it is assembling to peacefully protest.

However, what they do not have a right to do, for now 21 days, is to disrupt the lives of the citizens of this wonderful city that many of us here get to visit. That is not right. That needed to come to an end and I called for it that evening. I called for it in the subsequent opportunities I had, and I call for it again tonight. I truly hope the individuals outside hear what is being said in Parliament and decide to go home and back to their families.

They have many messages: anti-vax, anti-mandates, anti-Prime Minister, overthrowing a democratically elected government. Everyone is entitled to their views and I respect that, but they are not entitled to disrupt the lives of the citizens of this city or the lives of the citizens of any city across Canada. We are all under the rule of law and the invocation of the Emergencies Act is, in my view, justifiable.

Ottawa residents have been harassed and in some cases physically assaulted by protesters for practising basic public health measures during the pandemic, such as wearing a mask. Citizens have been targeted and called disgusting insults simply for the colour of their skin. Other alleged crimes have been even more egregious. Ottawa police are investigating the attempted arson of a downtown apartment building.

The situation persists fuelled, in part, by foreign funding. Ottawa residents are rightly frustrated by the ongoing illegal activity occurring in their city. Recently, some even took to the streets to counterprotest, physically preventing more vehicles from joining the disruptions. The chief of the Ottawa Police Service, Peter Sloly, publicly announced his resignation on February 15 in the midst of this unprecedented situation. The mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, publicly announced he had negotiated with members of the convoy to allow for certain residential streets to be vacated of trucks.

How would we feel if we went home to our individual ridings and to our homes, and there were vehicles parked in front of our homes with people honking at any time during the day? I do not believe that any members of the 338 of us who have the privilege of sitting in this House, who were sent here by residents, would think that would be cool. I do not think anyone would accept that. That is not acceptable in our country. That is not following the rule of law.

An integrated command centre has been established to consolidate response efforts between the Ottawa Police Service, Ontario Provincial Police and the RCMP. The Government of Canada continues to support the City of Ottawa, the Province of Ontario and all the law enforcement agencies involved as needed. RCMP resources have already been deployed. Invoking the Emergencies Act will help authorities clear downtown Ottawa streets of illegally parked trucks and help restore order and peace in affected communities.

Law enforcement agencies in Coutts, Alberta, are also facing very real and worsening threats. A tractor and semi-trailer truck attempted to ram a police vehicle. As my colleagues have noted, the Alberta RCMP also identified a criminal organization operating among protesters and arrested 13 individuals, seizing firearms, tactical vests, high-capacity magazines and ammunition in the process.

Yes, that actually happened in Canada. They had stored their weapons in trailers and were reportedly prepared to use force against the police if the police attempted to disrupt the blockade. The CBSA port of entry remains open and the supply lines continue to flow at this border crossing in Alberta.

Throughout the evolution of these protests, the Government of Canada has been closely monitoring and engaging with partners as needed. This is a clear threat that is national in scope and not just impacting one or two provinces. We recognize and sympathize with the challenges that many Canadians face as result of the situation, along with the sacrifices made by all Canadians, including the residents of my riding, Vaughan—Woodbridge, through the pandemic, which is nearly two years in. Thankfully, due to vaccinations, we are, I would say, exiting and on to sunnier days.

The federal government continues to call on everyone involved not to jeopardize public peace or endanger anyone, and not to participate purposefully in illegal events such as what we are seeing outside the House of Commons.

While the right of everyone to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly is an important part of our democracy—

Government Business No. 7—Proceedings on Bill C-12

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address a few points that the member across the way has raised and, at the same time, share some thoughts that not only I have, but all members of the House have, in regard to seniors in general. This is a very important and hot topic among my Liberal colleagues as we continue to strive and improve the lifestyle of our seniors and be there for them in a very real and tangible way. I am going to highlight a number of things we have been able to do for seniors over the last six years.

First, I will address the issue of how the Conservative Party wants to twist this issue of process and why the government is where we are today with what is a very important piece of legislation.

The legislation we have before us today is here because of the pandemic. During the pandemic, the Government of Canada, with support and encouragement from different levels of government, from Canadians in general and from MPs who were advocating, came up with a series of brand new programs that virtually started from nothing. They were a direct response to the pandemic. When we brought in programs virtually from nothing, there were, no doubt, issues that would arise. This is one of those issues, and it is an issue that today the government is addressing through legislation because of the impact it has had on our seniors. Some are trying to give the impression that the government is trying to fix a problem it created and that somehow the government has been negligent. However, this is unfortunate given the consistent supports and actions of the government for seniors since 2015 when we were first elected, let alone during the pandemic.

Yes, there have been some issues to deal with, but I suspect, after hearing comments from the opposition, that they will be supporting the legislation. I am encouraged to hear that. However, on the other hand, they are critical of the manner in which this is being processed and of not only the government but also the New Democratic Party. It is interesting that when the New Democrats do something the Conservatives do not like, they say there is a coalition between the New Democrats and the government. I think Canadians would rather see a coalition between the New Democrats and the Liberals than a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc. At the end of the day, the Conservatives have this default position: For anything the government wants, just say no. They know full well that they need their coalition to continue to frustrate the government's agenda. They know they can often count on the Bloc, but they get all upset if the NDP does not follow their recommendations. They get upset with the NDP because the NDP will not listen to the Conservative agenda, and then they say it is a coalition.

I can tell colleagues that the government has operated with all three opposition parties, collectively together. At times we have operated with the New Democrats separately, like today, and at times we have operated with the Bloc separately. We appreciate the mandate that we have been given by Canadians, and it is a very clear message: Canadians want us to work together.

We saw a very good example of that back in December with conversion therapy. Members will recall that the entire House recognized the importance of conversion therapy and the legislation before the House. The Conservative Party members were the ones who recommended that we do not have second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading, the whole process. They wanted to go right to royal assent, and the bill was passed unanimously. This shows that when it is convenient for the Conservatives and they feel it is important, it is okay and debate and committees are not necessary.

It is not the first time they have done that. They even attempted to get unanimous consent when there was no unanimous consent for getting what they believe is priority legislation through the House of Commons. If they disagree, it is anti-democratic, and the government is wrong because they we want to see something. There seems to be a bit of a double standard being applied. On the one hand, the Conservative Party now says this is important legislation and recognizes it is important legislation. After all, its members are going to be voting for the legislation. I understand the Bloc is going to be voting for the legislation too. However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition does not like the manner in which we are trying to get it through. The NDP supports the legislation and has been advocating for significant changes to take place regarding the compensation issue. It also recognizes that it is important to get this legislation through as quickly as possible.

The Conservatives say that the Senate is not sitting this week. As I pointed out yesterday, let us take a look at the legislative agenda. In the number of weeks we sat, we brought in legislation dealing with the coronavirus. The number one issue of Canadians for the last two years has been taking on the coronavirus. We can talk about Bill C-2, Bill C-3, Bill C-8, Bill C-10 and now Bill C-12, which are all legislative measures that deal directly with supporting Canadians and that deal specifically with the coronavirus, whether it is through programs that have been brought in, programs we are trying to extend to continue supports or the bulk-buying of things like rapid tests, which we debated yesterday. All of this stuff is important legislation.

We all know there is a finite amount of time to deal with legislation. It is not like we can debate a bill for 10 days and have it go to committee for two weeks. If it were up to the Conservatives, for anything they disagreed with, and even for things they agreed with, they would try to speak things out in order to frustrate the government. They would want to bring bills to committee for indefinite periods of time, with no commitment to get them through.

We are still in the pandemic. There is still a sense of urgency, even this week alone. Yesterday, we debated $2 billion-plus for rapid tests to ensure the provinces, territories and businesses in our communities have the necessary tests. Today is about seniors and making sure we are there to support them by putting money in their pockets. We still have other important pieces of legislation that have to be dealt with this week, if at all possible. I am thinking of the Emergencies Act. We also still have the opposition day motion from the Bloc party that has to be dealt with, and we have two short days this week.

Are the Conservatives saying that debate on our seniors, the rapid tests or the Emergencies Act should all just be postponed by 10 days or a couple of weeks because it is convenient for the Conservative opposition party? Ten days from now they can come back and ask why it has taken the government so long.

On the issue of the Standing Orders, I approach them not just as a member of government. I spent many years in opposition. I understand the importance of accountability, transparency and the process inside the House. I hope to engage with members in regard to our Standing Orders. We need to modernize them. We have plans and processes in place to accommodate debates, committees and votes. We see that. As I cited yesterday, whether it is on emergency debates in the chamber, opposition day motions, private members' bills or private members' motions, there are all sorts of limits.

What we have seen in the past 10 years, because we have to factor in the era of former prime minister Stephen Harper, is that we need tools to ensure that government bills can also get through in a timely fashion. That is why we are debating this motion today. If members believe it is important to support our seniors by getting money in their pockets, this is a piece of legislation members urgently need to support. The timing is very important.

The Minister of Seniors has met with opposition members and has been before committee. At committee, members can ask whatever questions they want of the minister. She is not shy to answer questions. We saw that earlier today, when the motion was brought forward. The department has provided information for members. Yes, we are making modifications today in order to get the money out more quickly to support our seniors. The department is working overtime to make sure we are there for our seniors in a real and tangible way.

The process we are going into today would have been preventable if, in fact, we could have had support from all opposition parties in saying that we could pass this legislation. In an ideal situation, it would be something that would be negotiated. However, the government is not in a position in which it can hold back on getting this legislation passed. With the support of one opposition party, we were able to ensure that our seniors would get the legislation they needed through the House of Commons. For that, I am grateful.

After 30 years of being a parliamentarian, there are some issues I hold near and dear to my heart, as I know many of us do. Our seniors, and the needs of our seniors, are of utmost importance. We often talk about the fact that where we are today as a society is all due to the seniors who were there before us, and we recognize there are needs that seniors have. I have made reference to the fact that I used to be a health critic in the province of Manitoba. I understand what those needs often require.

That is why it was so important for me personally, when I came to Ottawa, to be a strong advocate for our seniors. I remember one day when I was sitting in opposition. Former prime minister Stephen Harper was in Europe, and there was an announcement that the government was going to increase the age of eligibility for collecting OAS from 65 to 67. We opposed it, and we indicated we would get rid of it.

I remember advocating for the needs of the poorest seniors in Canada and for the importance of our social programs. I use those two examples because in 2015, when we were elected to government, two of the very first initiatives we took were, first, to reduce the age of eligibility for OAS back to 65 from 67. That was one of the very first initiatives taken. The second was to increase the guaranteed income supplement.

For those who understand the issue of poverty in Canada and want to help put more money in the pockets of our seniors, just as this bill does, in 2016 we talked about increasing, and then implemented a substantial increase to, the guaranteed income supplement. That one initiative lifted hundreds of seniors in Winnipeg North alone out of poverty, and tens of thousands across the country.

We will all become seniors, if we are not already. We ensured that the contributions to CPP would be enhanced with an agreement between provinces and the federal government, something that Stephen Harper was unable to do, to ensure that there would be more retirement money for our seniors.

In terms of the pandemic itself, and how the government stepped up to provide, that is why we have the legislation today. In our urgency to support people of Canada through developing programs such as CERB, there were some mistakes. It was not perfect, but it was important to get those programs out as quickly as possible. Now we are making a modification that is necessary to ensure that our seniors would in fact be getting money that they would have normally been receiving, but other benefit programs during the pandemic ultimately caused a problem. This would fix it. That is why it is good legislation for us to support.

During the pandemic, we brought in direct support for seniors, with a special focus on the GIS, again, and the OAS. We did it directly and we did it through other programs, such as the CERB, which is more of an indirect way. Another indirect way we did it was through supporting non-profit organizations that provide support for our seniors. We are talking about hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.

The Government of Canada has been there to support our seniors because it is the right thing to do. From virtually day one, in 2015, until today, we continue to bring in budgetary and legislative measures to facilitate and support our seniors, whether with long-term care, direct money into pockets, mental health or so many other areas.

An Act Respecting Certain Measures Related to COVID-19

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

Mr. Speaker, I was partly disappointed that the member did not ask me a question when I gave my speech, because he has been asking about the NDP's vote on the Conservative opposition day motion. The answer to his question is in the motion itself, which quotes Dr. Tam as saying that it might be worthwhile to re-evaluate some of the public health measures to date. The motion jumped to recommending the end of all public health measures, and having a plan to do that. Of course, those two things are not the same.

If public health officials are prepared to re-evaluate some of the policies they have had in place to date, that is a good thing and they can do that, according to what they think are the criteria that should be used in that reassessment. However, I think it was one jump too far for the House of Commons to come to conclusions about what the outcome of those re-evaluations should be.

On the question of some financial accountability, I would say that a lot of the questions that the member is asking, with respect to the spending for rapid tests, are questions we have been asking at the finance committee, because the Liberals are also asking for money under Bill C-8. We have had some assurances about better reporting from the government. In fact, there is still an opportunity to discuss some of these issues around spending on rapid tests in the context of Bill C-8, and I do not think it is a bad thing for Parliament to sometimes do its work efficiently.

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

Mr. Speaker, because Bill C-10 is about funding rapid tests and we have been talking a lot in the House today about the pandemic, the nature of public health measures and how long they should or should not last, I want to start by recognizing how tired everybody is of the pandemic. Whether people support lifting all public health measures right now or not, we are all feeling pretty fatigued and we would like to see our way out of this. However, it is not something we can just declare an end to by fiat. If we could do that, we would have done it a long time ago.

I do not really believe anyone is happy about the restricted lives we have all had to live over the last two years. It is something we did out of necessity before the vaccine in order to protect ourselves from infection, the consequences of being infected with COVID and the severity of it from a health point of view without vaccination. Since vaccination, we have continued to live a restricted lifestyle because transmission continues and we know we are up against a virus that is adapting even as it spreads. It is one of the reasons it is so important that we get vaccines distributed to the rest of the world. Vaccinating those in Canada or in one particular country will not be enough. These variants multiply, and given how small a planet we now inhabit with the technology of travel and everything else, variants eventually come here to roost. That is why we are not out of the woods yet.

As much as the political debate has intensified in light of recent events and some provincial governments have decided to change course, we may well end up getting different advice from federal public health officials in respect of federal mandates. However, all that Dr. Tam has said so far is that it might make sense to re-evaluate them. She has not called for lifting them. I am firmly in the camp of those who believe that this debate has to be led by public health officials, who have our best interests at heart. I know they are trying to keep up to date with the emerging science of the pandemic and are giving their best recommendations for how to reduce suffering and death as a result of COVID-19. It is our job to focus on how we support people through the economic challenges that we have to face, while the health challenges are addressed by public health officials and frontline health workers who treat those who have been infected.

COVID-19 tests are going to be an important part of that and, indeed, it was not that long ago that it was the preferred solution by the Conservatives, who now seem to be of the view that we can lift all public health measures and be done with them. However, governments have tried that before, and we do not have to go outside the country to see that. We just have to look at Alberta as one example. In the summer, it decided to lift all public health measures, and it very quickly found itself in distress with high rates of hospitalization. It is pretty clear that when we take that approach, it does not work out in the way that we would all hope and wish for. We have an obligation as decision-makers to be sober-minded about these things, listen to what public health officials are saying and look at the evidence. That does not mean there is no room for debate, and the country is currently having a very lively debate. However, it does mean that we still have to let public health officials lead that discussion based on the best available evidence.

One of the important tools for public health officials, to the extent that they want to collect data about what is happening with COVID, is a testing regime, and rapid tests are important in that regard. It is difficult in Canada right now to access rapid tests. Even if we do not take the macro point of view of a public health official, there are a lot of Canadians out there who maybe want to go visit their mom and dad or granny and grandpa or a vulnerable family member who is immunocompromised. They want to take a rapid test before they head over there because they know that COVID is around and is easy to catch.

Someone may have it and not be symptomatic, so folks would like to be able to have access to tests as a best practice or an added layer of protection or reassurance in order to be able to make those visits and have some confidence that, when they visit their loved ones or their friends, they are not taking COVID-19 into their home and into their life. That is another reason, beyond the public health arguments and beyond the economic arguments in terms of testing, if we are going into a workplace, why it is important to have access to rapid tests and why this money is important.

There are some real issues around accountability with money in the Liberal government. I will spare members the list, because I certainly do not have enough time to give it all, but as the member for Vancouver Kingsway, my colleague and NDP House critic, was just highlighting, that was why when we were negotiating with the government around the swift passage of this bill, which is just a two-paragraph bill that authorizes spending for rapid tests and their distribution to the provinces, we were keen to include some better financial reporting requirements in there. That is why we got a commitment from the government to table information every six months in the House on how this money is being spent, such as how many tests and where they go. That is important. It is important, because we are talking about large sums of money. It is important, because there have been legitimate questions raised about the way the government has spent some COVID-19 funds, including around sole-source contracts. I think Canadians should get information on how this money is being spent and they should get it in a timely way.

One of the most recent reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlighted the fact that the government was late in tabling its public accounts. It didn't table them until December. Normally, in the countries of most of our allies and trading partners, that happens on a six-month timetable after the end of the fiscal year, so tabling them in December was very late. I think it is true, especially when the government is spending large sums of money, that accountability and transparency become that much more important. They do not become less important because we are spending more money; they become more important as we spend more money.

That is why I am proud that the NDP has been able to negotiate some reporting requirements around this. I look forward to trying to secure a similar reporting requirement for Bill C-8, which includes another $1.72 billion in spending authority for rapid tests.

That was not the only thing negotiated around the passage of this bill. We in the House all know and Canadians listening may well know that the government made a choice to claw back the CERB benefits from working seniors who were on the guaranteed income supplement.

We were talking about it as New Democrats before the last election. We talked about it during the election. We have talked about is since the election. The government finally, just as a result of public pressure, felt an obligation to say something about it in the fall economic statement. They said money would be coming, but then it seemed it would not come until May. Then we heard maybe June. Then we heard maybe July. As part of the negotiations around swift passage of this bill, earlier today we were able to secure a commitment from the government that those seniors who have had their GIS clawed back would be paid no later than April 19, and for some of those in the most desperate need, that help may flow as early as mid-March.

That is a real concrete benefit for Canadians who were hurting. I have talked to seniors who have already been evicted from their homes. We have heard reports of seniors who have taken their lives because they had no sense of hope when they heard it would be so long until the GIS clawback was rectified. We have heard stories of seniors who have had to pass up on medication or are going hungry. This demanded swift action. It was something we were hoping to see the government do around Bill C-2, and we finally got it done.

To get Canadians access to more rapid tests and to get some of our most financially vulnerable seniors the help they need in order to stay in their homes or to be rehoused after being evicted all in one go I would say is a good day's work for a parliamentarian, and I am proud of that work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too heard our colleague from Kingston and the Islands answer a question earlier about why the government did not include the amounts for rapid tests in Bill C-8.

He said that it was because there was no omicron variant when Bill C-8 was drafted in December, at the time the update was done. However, we did have the delta variant and a pandemic, and we knew it was not going to be over any time soon.

Does my colleague think that there is a certain lack of predictability, a lack of vision and, in this case, a lack of medium-term perspective from the government, which is rushing us to pass a bill that will not even be looked at by the Senate until next week since the Senate is not sitting this week?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will name more than one for the members opposite. Today is an excellent example. Our provinces, territories, small businesses and big businesses alike are dependent on the federal government getting these rapid tests. We are supporting the people of Canada and our business community in Canada, and we are showing how we can work with provinces to make a difference.

The Conservatives and the Bloc seem to be fixated on not wanting to support the bill's speedy passage. In terms of the GIS, we can talk about the importance to seniors across this land in getting payments and the legislation coming up this week. It needs to pass too. Remember, there is a break week the following week.

We have an emergency in our nation. Hundreds of millions of dollars in trade is being threatened at our international border. That is another issue that needs to be brought to the floor of the House of Commons. We have a Bloc opposition day coming up this week. We have two short days also. The urgency is there. It is very real and it is important. It is time that we pass the legislation.

In listening to the debate today, I am a bit confused as I am sure anyone listening to the debate would be. The member for Cumberland—Colchester is a medical doctor and sits on the health committee. He talks about questioning the science and whether it is even necessary at this stage, suggesting that it is a waste. He is not alone. The member for Peterborough—Kawartha is also implying that it is a waste, calling into question the need for the rapid tests.

In fairness, they did have a member who was very clear. The opposition House leader said he recognizes the importance and he is going to be voting in favour of the legislation. I suspect the Conservatives will rethink their position and their speeches today. I would hope it would be unanimous in this House. Even the Bloc recognizes the importance of this legislation being passed. I would like to think that the Conservatives would also be supporting it.

People need to read some of the speeches and listen to what members of the Conservative Party are saying about rapid testing. We wonder why there is confusion and misinformation out there in our communities. It is there because of the mixed messaging coming from the official opposition here in Canada.

We have consistently, in the last couple of months, brought forward legislation to deal with rapid tests. First, it was Bill C-8 with $1.7 billion and today with Bill C-10 it is $2.5 billion. If we do not spend that money or if we do not make the commitment to get those rapid tests, we are telling provinces and territories they are going to have to do it. They will not be able to get the same bulk-buying power we can get as a national government. We already have the contacts and the network. Then we will work with provinces and territories to ensure we are able to meet those demands.

That is why this legislation is important. That is why I would recommend that all Conservative members join the rest of the House in supporting Bill C-10.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Testing, as we all know, plays a key role in our efforts to contain and mitigate the pandemic. Identifying infected individuals helps to prevent further person-to-person transmission of the virus.

As everyone knows, health care services are struggling to meet the demand for polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests, because the omicron variant has a very high infection rate. Provinces and territories across the country are now relying on rapid tests to help fill this significant gap.

Rapid tests are a screening method that can more easily and quickly detect COVID-19 in a variety of settings such as schools, workplaces and other high-risk environments including long-term care facilities and hospitals, to name a few.

Using rapid tests in new settings can help detect the spread of COVID-19 and support measures to break the chain of transmission.

Not everyone who has COVID-19 will show symptoms. In fact, the prevalence of asymptomatic infection is probably a significant factor in the high rate of transmission of omicron. Rapid testing allows a person to detect the virus in as little as 15 minutes, which makes it a powerful tool that Canadians can use to help curb the spread of the omicron variant.

Since the introduction of Bill C-8, which provided additional funding for the purchase and distribution of rapid tests, Canada experienced an exponential increase in the number of cases and hospitalizations. The spread of omicron also led to an abrupt increase in demand for rapid tests. This is putting pressure on global supply, where supply chains are very tight, so clearly we need to get more of these tests, and we need to do it now.

Bill C-10 will allow Health Canada to purchase and distribute hundreds of millions of rapid tests across the country and help ensure equitable access in all jurisdictions. It also builds on commitments made in last December's economic and fiscal update, which included an additional $1.7 billion in funding for the procurement and distribution of rapid tests across the country.

Bill C-10 would also allow Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada to continue supporting provinces and territories by securing the rapid tests that they need to keep Canadians safe and healthy, including through expanded school and workplace testing programs.

Finally, Bill C-10 would allow us to continue supporting businesses of all sizes by providing rapid tests for workplace screening programs through direct delivery and partners such as chambers of commerce and pharmacies.

Throughout the pandemic, the Canadian government has worked closely with its provincial and territorial partners to ensure they have the tools they need to manage outbreaks and ensure the safety and health of everyone.

The federal government started buying and providing rapid tests free of charge to the provinces and territories in October 2020. The Government of Canada delivered more than 35 million rapid tests to provinces and territories in December 2021, and 140 million additional tests were delivered to Canada in January alone.

The Government of Canada also supports the Canadian Red Cross in its delivery efforts.

Companies with 200 employees or more, including federally regulated companies, can receive rapid tests free of charge directly from the Government of Canada. Small and medium-sized businesses and other organizations can also receive and have access to rapid tests through one of the Canadian government's delivery partners.

The Canadian government has spent the past two years enhancing its ability to respond quickly and efficiently to the many challenges associated with the pandemic.

Working with the provinces, territories and other partners, we are delivering the tools we need to protect Canadians in our health care system from the most serious outcomes of COVID-19.

As my colleagues know, this year started out with a marked increase in the number of COVID-19 cases when there was a surge in the omicron variant in Canada and around the world.

Recent modelling has shown that the increase in omicron infections has probably peaked. However, the number of daily admissions to hospitals and intensive care units is still high and many hospitals in Canada are under intense pressure.

Therefore, we must continue to do everything we can to limit the spread of COVID-19 and its variants.

In the short term, that means vaccines, boosters and strong adherence to public health guidelines.

Because nearly three million eligible Canadians have yet to get a first or second dose of the primary series and many other Canadians are also eligible for a booster, we want to improve our individual and collective protection with the COVID‑19 vaccines. This will help us keep fighting the omicron wave and any potential new waves and variants.

Looking ahead, Canada will need to continue to tackle future waves, which may or may not be smaller than the omicron surge depending on how the virus evolves.

Screening tests, combined with individual public health measures and vaccination, play an important role in protecting Canadians and reducing the risk of outbreaks, swiftly identifying and isolating cases, and limiting the spread of COVID‑19 and its variants of concern.

We are all tired after living with the COVID‑19 pandemic for the past two years and the most recent omicron wave. We all want to know when the pandemic will be over, but we cannot simply snap our fingers and decide that COVID‑19 is over.

We are at a critical juncture in the pandemic. We must do the right thing and act responsibly, and we need to do it now. We know that rapid tests will help us slow the spread of omicron. They will also help manage outbreaks and, ultimately, they will help keep Canadians safe and healthy.

That is why I urge all members of the House to support Bill C‑10.

Government Business No. 8—Proceedings on Bill C-10

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to pay my respects to my colleague from Manitoba, who asked a clear question in perfect French.

I will answer the question in French.

That is exactly the type of debate we should be having in the parliamentary committees. The NDP member from Manitoba raised the issue of Bill C‑8 and that is exactly it, because in committee we can propose amendments, make changes, gauge responses and understand why one decision was made over another.

We can question not only the minister, but also the experts who come to guide us in our study. That is why Canadians elected us four months ago and we have a job to do. We have to hold the government to account, and that can be done through rigorous and serious parliamentary work in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committee. Unfortunately, the government is denying us that with a closure motion on Bill C‑10 today.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is our duty to be fiscally responsible in everything we do.

It was only by asking questions in my capacity as an MP that I found out the $1.7 billion for rapid tests in Bill C‑8 covered the period from December to February and that the $2.5 billion in Bill C‑10 is for February on.

In committee, I hope to amend Bill C‑8 to include accountability on the part of the government, and that could also apply to the money in Bill C‑10.

I would like the Conservatives' support at the Standing Committee on Finance so we can have adequate accountability for this money.

In the meantime, we do have a commitment from the federal government to fix the problem plaguing seniors who collect the guaranteed income supplement. This will enable seniors to get a payment much sooner than they would have otherwise. I think that is very important. It will save lives.

We are here to negotiate, so can we get the Conservatives' support for an amendment to Bill C‑8 that would ensure adequate accountability for this money?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is odd, sometimes, to try to make sense of various Conservative positions in the House.

I do think that rapid tests are very likely to continue to have an important role to play in the pandemic. I think it is prudent to try to have a number of rapid tests on hand across the country, lest there be another wave that requires us to again undertake certain kinds of public health restrictions we have had up until now.

I do not think we can declare an end to the pandemic by fiat. If we could, I am sure someone would have done so a long time ago.

It is reasonable to be prepared, and I think that supporting this bill is part and parcel of that spirit of preparedness that I have heard members on all sides of the House call for at various times.

I think the hon. member's concern about financial oversight is warranted. He mentioned Bill C-8, which also has money for rapid tests. In my work as a parliamentarian, what I have discovered and what the government has—

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible of me not to look at what happened in the House earlier today with this motion for closure the Liberals put forward. For two years, Canadians have been living with COVID-19 restrictions. There have been two years of lockdowns, of not being able to visit loved ones and of not being able to travel. There have been two years of isolation that has inflamed a mental health crisis and hurt Canada's vulnerable populations.

When it comes to lockdowns and mandates, we are seeing the evidence and public health advice for change. Last week, Canada's chief public health officer, Dr. Teresa Tam, said that all existing public health measures needed to be re-evaluated so we could get back to some normalcy. Just last week, we saw two Liberal MPs challenge their government for being so political about how it was treating the pandemic, and the response the government was taking to dealing with COVID-19 across our country.

Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Israel, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark are all moving to end restrictions and mandates. Many provinces in Canada are doing the same thing. Today, we come to the House and the government does not want to debate Bill C-10: It wants to debate stopping debate on Bill C-10. That is very problematic.

It was on December 14, if I recall correctly, that the government tabled Bill C-8. One of the key provisions of Bill C-8 was $1.72 billion for COVID-19 tests. We just debated that bill last week and the week prior. Canadians were looking for a plan in that bill. Liberals stood up time and again and said that they had a plan and were moving forward. For us to be here today, talking about Bill C-10 in the same context, which would see another $2.5 billion for rapid tests, I wonder what the House leader for the Liberals is doing.

Why do we have two bills that were tabled within four parliamentary sitting days of each other on the urgency of rapid tests when, in my province, the public health officer is telling us that, for the majority of the population, they are not needed anymore?

Dr. Bonnie Henry said that, in most cases, if someone is triple vaccinated, as I am, they can skip getting a test. If someone has COVID, they need to stay home and self-isolate. We are treating it like the regular flu. She is only recommending testing now for people who are currently hospitalized, pregnant, at risk of severe diseases or who live or work in a setting with others who are at an elevated risk of a severe illness.

Already, British Columbia is saying that we do not need to go to the Ag-Rec Centre in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon anymore and take a morning off work with one's two-year-old to get a swab up their nose. No. We just need to isolate them at home and move forward with our lives.

Now we are here in the House of Commons, having a debate about not having a debate on rapid tests. My big question is, where was the government a year ago? Where was it when parents had to take time off work? It costs parents an average of $250 for a week of day care, and then they had to take more time off work because of that. I know for a fact that if we had had rapid tests, parents would not have lost so much money. That is shameful.

Canadians were asking for rapid tests so long ago. Other countries, such as the U.K., the Netherlands and other European Union countries with similar GDPs to Canada's per capita, were able to navigate the virus in a much more efficient way because their governments were more responsive. All we get from the Liberal government is Bill C-8 on December 14, and then Bill C-10 on January 31, saying that we need to pay for rapid tests now.

I cannot help but be cynical knowing that the Prime Minister called an election that was really divisive for all of us. Liberals called an election because of the urgency to deal with COVID-19 and various approaches to doing so.

Here we are, so many months later, debating a bill not to have a debate on something that should have been done two years ago, or at least a year and a half ago. My constituents are upset. They are upset that they have to continue living with these lockdowns, but they are also upset with the incompetence of the government to move strategically on rapid tests, which is something that everyone agreed on, much earlier. That is shameful. It has impacted so many families and so many businesses.

Last week, I met with one of the largest sound companies in North America. It is based in my riding. It was ranked the number one sound company in North America in 2013, and the number one in Canada for many years. It is the only outfit in the province of B.C. that is capable of equipping BC Place stadium for major concerts. Company representatives came to my office, and were pleading with me for some type of path back to normalcy: some type of path to get their business going again. What they said to me was that they had taken advantage of the high-risk loans and they had taken advantage of the business loans. They were thankful for them, but they had come to a point where the Government of Canada was driving independent, private-sector small businesses into oblivion.

Yesterday, I received an email from Mr. Howes at Traveland RV. I went to school with his kids. The company is a major employer in Langley, throughout the Fraser Valley. The tourism sector does not know what to do this year, again. The supply chains are so impacted that the tourism industry does not know how to plan yet another year. It does not know where its revenue is going to come from. The tourism sector is asking for a plan. It is asking for some way out of this.

All we got from the government on December 14 and January 31 were two bills, both related to rapid tests. Frankly, they could have been the same bill. I do not know why they were done differently. Maybe someone could answer that in debate. All the tourism industry is looking for is a plan to get people back to work. All it wants to do is hire more people again. All it wants to see is a plan to end the mandates and to get people their lives back. It is not too much to ask.

Everyone has been vaccinated. We have a super high vaccination rate in Canada, but everyone has also gotten COVID. A lot of people who are triple vaxxed are getting COVID, and that is why some of our public health officials have changed their tune recently.

Omicron has evolved, and the government needs to evolve in the way it is approaching this new endemic stage of the disease.

Small Business

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, across the country, businesses are gradually reopening, and they want to improve their ability to guarantee the safest environment possible for their customers.

We know that ventilation that replaces indoor air with outdoor air is an important tool for preventing the spread of COVID-19.

Can the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance tell the House how Bill C‑8—

Opposition Motion—Federal COVID-19 Mandates and Restrictions

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the parliamentary secretary, and I say respectfully that I find it a little rich for the hon. member to be talking about rapid testing. For the past two years, the government has repeatedly dragged its feet when it comes to rapid testing. We on this side of the House, from day one, were encouraging the government to act with respect to rapid testing. Now, in year three, the government is finally getting serious. I say it is too little, too late.

The member talks about Bill C-8. What was completely absent from Bill C-8 was funding to increase hospital capacity in this country. When it comes to ICU capacity, for example, in which we had significant overcapacity problems part of the time during COVID, we have one-third of the ICUs the United States has and we rank last in the OECD, other than Mexico. Despite this, after blowing through another $70 billion of new spending, the government could not come up with new spending to increase hospital capacity so we could avoid the issues we have faced over the past two years. It is really a lack of leadership on the part of the current government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this very interesting. We just finished voting on Bill C-8. Bill C-8 would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the purchase of rapid tests. That is absolutely critical. The member can check with any province, territory and indigenous community to see that rapid testing is absolutely critical, yet the Conservative Party voted against those funds going there.

The member talks about the issue of privacy. He has no confidence and faith in the Public Health Agency of Canada, which has a very positive record on privacy and is recognized around the world. He wants to deny this indefinitely so a committee can study it indefinitely, as opposed to getting information. Does he not see the flaw in the Conservative strategy?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Let me get one thing straight right out of the gate: We will support the Conservatives’ motion, but with certain reservations, which I would like to discuss today. To begin with, I would like to address the current political climate.

This week, there were two events that summed up the current political climate. We saw the member from Louis-Hébert speak out. I would like to thank him, because I thought he had a measured, non-partisan tone. He made a lot of people feel better.

We also heard from the member from Carleton. I heard him yesterday in the debate on Bill C-8, and he barely spoke about the bill. His speech sounded like some kind of rallying cry pitting freedom against the pandemic. In my opinion, when a public decision-maker draws murky comparisons between freedom and a pandemic, there is something wrong. I say this because it reminded me of U.S. politics.

I do not know if my colleagues pay attention to that stuff, but there is one particularly despicable Republican, Ms. Taylor Greene, who made a problematic association between what is happening in the United States and the Nazi regime. Instead of saying “Gestapo”, she said “gazpacho”. Perhaps we appreciate culinary delights a little more than she does. Perhaps we are a little more cultured; we know what it is.

I mention this because it seems to me that Canadian politics are becoming more and more Americanized. That is what scares me. When I read the Conservative motion, I saw it as an attempt to unite the discontented. I can understand why people might be discontented. I have family members and people around me who are not happy about the current situation. Even if they are looking for someone to blame, they can see that the government is responsible for its actions, but nobody created the pandemic. I think it is irresponsible to unite the discontented who are proposing solutions to the crisis that are even worse than the current measures. Unfortunately, people's positions are very polarized right now, and I think that is the worst thing we can do during a crisis.

I am a great admirer of Camus, and this reminds me of something he wrote, “Servitudes de la haine”, or slaves to hatred, which was published in Actuelles II. To put it in context, it is from the end of the Second World War. I will read the passage, and then I would like to unpack it. Camus wrote:

...the truth is something that must be constructed, like love, like intelligence. Nothing is given or promised, but anything is possible for those who take initiative and take risks. That is the wager one must make when one is being suffocated by lies, when one's back is up against the wall. The wager must be made with equanimity [that is worth emphasizing] and implacability, and doors will open.

Camus was a great proponent of moderation. There is a concept in Greek philosophy called “hubris”. It is essentially about excess. It seems to me that there is a little too much excess in Canadian politics. People are using the pandemic to score political points. As I said, I found the comments from the member for Louis-Hébert interesting because he was trying to be reasonable and rational and point out that his party might need to make some changes.

What I would like to see from the Conservative Party is reasonable and rational people who are willing to say that they cannot support all of the protesters' demands because the pandemic is still affecting our health care system. I would not be surprised if the protesters I saw flouting physical distancing rules this week put additional pressure on our health care system in the coming weeks.

I think it is irresponsible to appear alongside the protesters and take photos with them, to use them for political purposes and commend them for what they are doing, while knowing full well that this is not the way out of the crisis. It demonstrates a certain level of political excess that is becoming increasingly common. Not to be unkind, but I could not help but notice some degree of excess in some of the statements made by the member for Carleton.

I am talking about excess because the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues refers to something Dr. Theresa Tam has said. We have heard from her quite a bit throughout this crisis. During the first wave, she provided some guidance that I heard several of our Conservative colleagues question. Now they are using Dr. Tam's words to call for the various measures that have been put in place to be lifted.

Over the past few weeks, we have once again seen plenty of examples of this ideological excess. Protesters demanded that all measures be lifted, but half of the restrictions do not even fall under the jurisdiction of the federal Parliament. They are provincial responsibilities. It is the provincial health departments that decide to impose lockdowns. In the House, the specific measures do not necessarily concern lockdowns or restaurant closures. The provinces deal with that.

What is more, all of this is being done for political purposes. Unfortunately, I have repeatedly heard some colleagues from the Conservative Party talk about lifting all measures because that would please the protesters outside. I talked about the current climate. All of this makes me think of that ailment of democracy called populism.

The definition of populism is to propose very simple solutions to complex problems. A pandemic is complex and is not something that can be resolved by honking horns, reopening restaurants or yelling about freedom. To overcome the pandemic, we have to rely on science. The worst thing a public decision-maker can do is try to exploit science and use it for partisan purposes. Science implies a form of truth and does not mix well with ideologies.

In the motion moved by my Conservative colleagues, I get the impression that they are attempting to use science for ideological purposes by referring to Dr. Tam. They did not listen to her when she said that unfortunately, we needed to impose certain restrictions on our individual freedoms because of the pandemic. Now, however, they are listening to her when she says the opposite.

The worst thing a public decision-maker can do is use science for ideological purposes, which we are seeing increasingly today. I look forward to seeing my Conservative colleagues rely on science when it comes to climate change, which they have not done so far, unfortunately.

I think using science for ideological purposes is one of the worst things a politician can do, because it fuels public cynicism. Populism feeds off that cynicism, rejects the elites and breeds skepticism of institutions. Populism is on the rise in Canada, and I do not think my Conservative colleagues are too upset about it.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that the Bloc Québécois might support the Conservatives' motion, with some reservations. The main reservation is that our Conservative colleagues seem to be trying to use Dr. Tam for their own purposes. We will see where that ends. I look forward to hearing my colleagues' comments.

Opposition Motion—Amendment to the Constitution of Canada (The Saskatchewan Act)

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

Madam Speaker, I want to first address the challenge put forward to me by the member for Yorkton—Melville. She wanted me to show how I can identify with the province of Saskatchewan.

I am a Prairie boy. I spent a number of years living in Saskatchewan, albeit I am a Bombers fan over a Roughriders fan. Unfortunately, I have family members who are Roughriders fans over the Bombers, which I suspect goes back to the time I spent growing up in Saskatchewan with my siblings and others.

Saskatchewan is a beautiful province. Much like with all regions of this country, I would say to my family and friends that Ottawa does care when things are happening in Saskatchewan. Whether they are constitutionally related, employment related, regarding the environment or even something such as charges on pollution, all of these things matter and they are issues we take very seriously.

The government has always been open not only to what people are saying but also to listening to what other parliamentarians have been saying. I thought that is where I would start today.

There has been reference made to this unanimous motion request put forward back in December, and I was one of the individuals who said, no, I did not think we should allow, through unanimous consent of the House of Commons, something to pass through related to a constitutional amendment.

I looked at what happened in the Saskatchewan legislature, where the issue was debated. There were comments put on the record with regard to it, and I want to share some of those comments with members today. I know some people were upset when I indicated that passing a constitutional amendment through unanimous consent without any debate whatsoever in the House of Commons was not an appropriate thing to do. That is the reason I said no back in December.

As I indicated in my remarks, I will be supporting the motion that was brought forward. Since the unanimous consent was requested back in December, I have had the opportunity to become better informed. I understand there has been outreach from MLAs in the Province of Saskatchewan to ensure and provide a sense of comfort to members on all sides of the House regarding why they put in the request.

I want to go right to the floor of the Saskatchewan legislature, where we saw a minister highlight why we are in this situation. Mr. Wyant said, “As members of this House [the Saskatchewan legislature] are likely aware, CPR is suing the Government of Saskatchewan for $341 million, claiming a broad tax exemption under section 24.” He went on to say, “As a matter of tax policy and business competitiveness, there must be a level playing field for all businesses.”

He goes on to highlight what I believe is a very important point, and this is one of the reasons I am very surprised a lawsuit would have even been launched. I do not want to get into the legal proceedings that much. The courts will do whatever the courts will ultimately do on the issue. However, Mr. Wyant continues to say:

...it’s our view that the Canadian Pacific Railway company agreed in 1966 that it would forgo the tax exemption in exchange for regulatory changes made by the federal government. The federal government upheld its end of the agreement by making those regulatory changes which provided significant benefits to the CPR. It’s now time to ensure that our Constitution reflects that reality.

He makes it very clear that during the mid-sixties there was a discussion that took place where CP, the province and the federal government, either directly or indirectly, engaged in a discussion about the constitution of Saskatchewan and the impact of the clause that we are debating today. The consensus and agreement going out of that meeting saw the residents of Saskatchewan and, in fact, all Canadians, ensure that CP would maintain payments or pay their fair share of taxes back then.

For those people who might be following the debate, I do believe it is important to recognize that, since that agreement between CP, Saskatchewan and the federal government, there has been a payment of taxes. That agreement was entered into in good faith. Earlier in the comments, I read that there is a lawsuit for $341 million, which is a significant amount of money coming from a corporation. That makes me question what caused the launch of the lawsuit.

Some may question why, in 2022, we are debating this today. Members will get a better sense of that if they look at the November 29 Hansard from the Saskatchewan legislature, where there was a resolution that was unanimously passed. I just want to pick out two things from it because it is a fairly lengthy resolution. The first of the two aspects of the resolution that I want to highlight for members is that it states:

Whereas the Canadian Pacific Railway company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan since the province was established in 1905....

I do not know all the taxes that CP has been paying. Hopefully there will be a response from CP or someone else as to why it is that the court action has been taken, but it is important that we recognize, as this resolution states, that since 1905 the railway company has paid applicable taxes to the Government of Saskatchewan.

The other thing I want to highlight is where it states:

Whereas on August 29th, 1966, the then president of the Canadian Pacific Railway company, Ian D. Sinclair, advised the then federal minister of Transport, Jack Pickersgill, that the board of the Canadian Pacific Railway company had no objection to the constitutional amendments to eliminate the tax exemption....

That is why I make reference to the fact of this agreement. CP was not looking to receive benefits from the tax exemption. In fact, it goes on:

The repeal of section 24 is deemed to have been made on August 29th, 1966, and is retroactive to that date.

That is, therefore, the resolution coming from the Saskatchewan legislature. Appreciating the fact that it passed unanimously, Mr. Wotherspoon from the New Democratic Party makes reference to the Saskatchewan Act and makes it very clear in his explanation stating:

This is why as the official opposition Saskatchewan New Democrats, we’ve called for the repeal of section 24 of the Saskatchewan Act, 1905 and why we are proud to stand united as a legislature to send this motion for approval to Ottawa, the House of Commons, and the Senate.

If members are interested in the details and content of the resolution, it can be found in the Hansard of the Saskatchewan legislature of November 29. Suffice to say, it passed unanimously.

When I look at the Constitution of Canada and the constitutional debates, I do not believe we should, through unanimous consent motions, pass a constitutional amendment. I do not say that lightly because, while I like to think I am still relatively young, I have had some experience with constitutional amendments. First it was as someone sitting in front of the TV back in 1982 watching our then prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau sign off, along with Her Majesty the Queen, on the Constitution of Canada and bring in the Charter of Rights, which was instilled in me as a very proud moment at that relatively young age but also did a lot to bring Canadians together and instill a sense of pride. Not much longer after I had witnessed that, I was inspired to get engaged in politics in a more tangible way and had the good fortune of getting elected in 1988.

Those who are familiar with constitutional change and amendments and attempts would know that in 1988 we had the Meech Lake accord. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature when it was the only province to not sign on to the accord. Back then, because of the holdup in the Manitoba legislature, I believe the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador withdrew its original support of the Constitution. I remember the significant protests that took place both inside and outside of the legislature, and why indigenous people in particular felt empowered to a certain degree through Elijah Harper to ensure that the national and provincial governments of all political stripes understood why there was an issue with the Meech Lake accord.

If we fast-forward from that experience to the 1990s and the Charlottetown accord, I had the good fortune, or bad fortune depending on how one wants to look at it, of being around for that debate. I remember having a debate in the north end of Winnipeg with a member of Parliament who was speaking against what I was proposing. It was Bill Blaikie, the former member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona and the father of the current member.

In that debate I said I disagreed with Mr. Blaikie and that, in fact, the national government had a role to play in housing in Canada, because the Charlottetown accord, among other things, tried to give the direction that housing was an entirely provincial responsibility. There were a number of us, including me, who felt the federal government had a role to play with respect to national housing. I find it ironic today to hear the comments from the members of the opposition saying that we need to do something on the housing file, when the Prime Minister has clearly demonstrated a strong cabinet commitment to national housing through the national housing strategy, with hundreds of millions of dollars coming from Ottawa to support housing.

For example, even Bill C-8, legislation that we were debating, has a direct impact on housing. This is why I say that constitutional issues are important to all of us.

However, sometimes constitutional changes can be all-encompassing. They can consume a great deal of time and effort and they are very difficult to achieve, which is why, when I look at governments from the past since the Charlottetown Accord, I do not believe that the mood of Canadians is to see constitutional change at this time. I do not believe that Canadians want us to be focusing on constitutional changes at this time.

That said, as has been pointed out, there are different ways in which a constitution can be changed, and the type of change we are talking about today is very different from what we have talked about in the past. Members of the Liberal caucus understand and appreciate that the Saskatchewan legislature has passed a unanimous resolution. We understand why the timing of it is so critically important today, even though it was enacted over 100 years ago in an agreement that I will provide some comment on shortly. However, the point is that as things take place in Saskatchewan, we understand the need for the federal government to respond, and today is a good example.

Someone mentioned earlier today that this is an opposition motion. Well, just because it is an opposition member's motion does not necessarily mean that it does not merit passage in the House of Commons or support from the government. That is why the parliamentary secretary who spoke prior to me indicated that the government would in fact be supporting the motion. We recognize that in the last election, as in the previous election, Canadians said they want Parliament and parliamentarians to work together, and where we can, we do. We do work together when there is that higher sense of co-operation, and we are seeing that with respect to this motion.

On other issues related to this motion, there is the issue of tax fairness. This issue was brought up consistently by my New Democratic friends in particular, to try to give the false impression that members of the Liberal government do not support tax fairness. That is so wrong. One of our very first actions in government was the Prime Minister's commitment to tax fairness. He brought in legislation to put a tax on Canada's 1% wealthiest. Ironically, my New Democratic friends voted against it. We have had not one but two budgets in which hundreds of millions of dollars were allocated to try to ensure that those who are avoiding paying taxes, including big business, are held to account. We are investing more in Revenue Canada. I do not need to be told that my constituents want and demand tax fairness. We as a government, through our cabinet and with the support of the Liberal members of caucus, and I suspect even at times the support of opposition members, have brought in initiatives to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness in Canada today.

Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I attempted to explain, from my perspective, what I see as an incredible health organization, the Public Health Agency of Canada. It is world-renowned in terms of its capabilities. It is an organization that has required data in the past. To the best of my knowledge, and members can correct me if I am wrong, it has been respectful of people's privacy. As I indicated earlier, Telus, a corporation, needs consumers more than consumers need it.

I believe that at the end of the day, no private information associated with individuals is being released. From a personal perspective, I suggest that the committee continue to have a dialogue on this issue with others regarding privacy, because I know it is a concern of Canadians.

I would hope we would want to continue to debate bills like Bill C-8 and others dealing with COVID. That is really what this report comes down to, the issue of COVID. It is all about getting that data so we can provide good, sound public policy in combatting this pandemic.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North for treating us to the pizza story. As an aside, I would like to acknowledge his unwavering loyalty to the Liberal Party.

I am half sorry. I know the member would have preferred to discuss Bill C-8, but the motion was moved and, like it or not, privacy is an important concern. Public and private companies should indeed be subject to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. That much is certain.

I am not sure whether my colleague has had the chance to see the film The Social Dilemma on Netflix. The film explains a bit about the ins and outs of possible perversions of privacy. Shoshana Zuboff, the main subject in the film, is going to appear before the committee to talk about this. If the member for Winnipeg North has not seen the film, I invite him to attend the meeting. With Nobel Prize-worthy experts testifying, I think it is worth listening.

Is my hon. colleague asking whether Telus and the Public Health Agency of Canada are too big to fail?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we were hoping to deal with Bill C-8 and then hopefully deal with the judges after that legislation, Bill C-9.

My point is that, because of this particular concurrence motion, we are not able to deal with things such as the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars for rapid testing or air ventilation for students in our schools. I do not want to take away from the importance of this particular report, but I can tell members that there are many reports that our standing committees are going to bring forward. I would hope that we would think in terms of the other possible venues in which they can be discussed.

The only advantage of the report coming here for concurrence is that I get to speak to it, and I appreciate that members want me to address the important issues of the day. Having said that, at the end of day when I hear some of the comments, such as “de-identification of data”, what is it? I think that for most Canadians there would have to be some sort of an explanation.

When I turn on my cellphone and make phone calls, I have a basic understanding of it. I make a phone call and my cellphone goes to the closest tower, and it is truly amazing how much information that tower collects, such as my name and where I live. There is all sorts of information no doubt at one tower. Now, if I happen to be driving at the time, and we should not talk on a cellphone when driving but maybe I am a passenger, and if I am going from one tower to the next, it starts to add up. They can track where I am. I can understand why some in society might be concerned about that, but what is done with that information is what the real concern should be.

We have legislation and we also have offices. The Privacy Commissioner's office is not just there for government but also for the private sector, so that if we find that there is a company out there that is inappropriately using the data being collected, then there is somewhere we can go to express the concerns we have. I would like to think I would be at the beginning of the line, whether it was Telus Canada, the Privacy Commissioner, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Minister of Health or possibly members of the committee dealing with ethics and privacy-related issues. There are opportunities for us to ensure that the data being collected is not being abused, and there is a need.

I understand the Privacy Commissioner came before the committee and made a presentation. I am absolutely convinced that, on a one-on-one discussion with the Privacy Commissioner or anyone else who is affiliated, such as the critic from the Bloc who is an expert in this field, there is a need for us to take a look at the laws we currently have. I can appreciate that there is a need for change and amendments. Hopefully, there will be an opportunity where we will be able to bring in such legislation, and the same concerns that we are hearing here today and in committee would allow for that type of legislation to pass if, in fact, the opportunity is there to bring it forward.

Through technology, things change rather rapidly. I know there are members of the committee who are here today and if I am wrong in my assertion that the Privacy Commissioner does not believe that there is a need for some of those changes to occur, please let me know. However, I heard more than one member today talk about “consultation” versus being “informed”. Yes, I recognize that there is a difference. The Privacy Commissioner was informed of it and aware of it. If there were some outstanding concerns, directly or indirectly, those likely would have been expressed to the stakeholders who needed to know.

I am not absolutely convinced that every action the government does has to go through the Privacy Commissioner. I have not heard that argument being made. I think there are certain situations where some departments, more than others, may have a higher need. Some departments may have a whole lot more expertise in that area, as I pointed out with the Health Canada agency. I would be very reluctant to make a general statement or to take a brush and apply it to every department and every situation where there is some information that is being drawn. Take a look at Stats Canada. I have received emails from Stats Canada. I am sure other members have also received emails from Stats Canada. There is all sorts of information being collected.

Would you apply the same principle of getting the Privacy Commissioner involved in every agency that the federal government has? Should we be expanding the Privacy Commissioner's office to take that into consideration? I am concerned about governments, whether they are provincial, municipal or federal, whatever they might be, and how they might be using that data, especially on issues of health care with everyone having a health card. All different provinces have that. There are driver's licences. There are endless examples, such as passports or you name it.

I am equally, if not more concerned, about this issue in the private sector. That is where I think we need to be spending more of our time and energy. I would like to think experts would acknowledge that.

When we talk about consent and getting a better indication or more clarity in terms of what consent really is, absolutely, but let us not be completely naive about it. I remember when we were talking about organ transplants in the province of Manitoba, talking about allowing MPI to have an opt-out, or to have it in some sort of a taxation policy, again I am going back to the province of Manitoba, and allow people to opt out without making an assumption. There are ways in which it can be done in a reasonable fashion.

I will go back to what I stated earlier, that Telus needs consumers more than consumers need Telus. If Telus were to violate in any way the privacy of Canadians, there would be a consequence to it, a very serious consequence. If Health Canada or the agency were to violate the privacy of Canadians, we would hear about it. I do not want the privacy of the constituents I represent to be violated, but I understand the importance of mobility data, among many other types of data sources out there.

What we are talking about is the coronavirus, COVID-19, and having a sense of mobility and of where people are going. We are not asking who people are and we are not listening to telephone conversations, which was pointed out, or anything of that nature. We are talking about raw data that will enable people who work in the sciences, the health experts and the health agency to ultimately make good, sound public policy. That is what Canadians expect.

At the end of day, I would have much preferred, which is hard to believe, to be debating Bill C-8 today so this issue could go back to the committee for further discussion.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to respond, first and foremost, to one of the issues that was raised, which is why the government is looking at mobility data. It is important for me to recognize that I really do value the contributions our standing committees make to the House of Commons. We often see that things coming out of our standing committees will ultimately end up on the floor for debate. Whether directly or indirectly, they contribute immensely to our institution, and I do want to thank those members who participated in this valuable study, no matter what political party they belong to.

I approach this debate feeling a bit mixed, in the sense that I was hoping we would be dealing with Bill C-8. What is interesting in talking about this particular report and asking for it to be concurred in is that the reason that collection was happening in the first place was coronavirus.

The government, including the Prime Minister, even when he was in opposition, has always talked about the importance of science, and how important data and, in the case of the pandemic, health care experts are, as well as the role they played in making sure we minimized the negatives of the pandemic. That means that we need to gather information and data.

Maybe about a year ago, some data was released. It went onto the Internet through Google. It might have peaked for about two or three days. I thought it was really interesting. It was about cellphone data, and it showed how people were travelling in communities, and not only in communities, but across the country and around the globe. I learned a lot from just seeing the snapshots of these little dots showing how mobile people are nowadays.

When I heard about the Public Health Agency of Canada looking at getting this mobile data, I was not overly concerned about it, given the fact that Canada's Public Health Agency has done an outstanding job. I would suggest they are second to no other government agency in the world when it comes to dealing with the pandemic. It has done it in a first-class way.

That does not mean it cannot or should not be held to account for the decisions they have made or the actions they have taken. I suspect that, over the coming days, weeks, months and years ahead, there is always going to be a reflection in terms of what it is that particular health agency did at a time when Canada needed that agency.

I would remind members of the House to reflect on not only the credibility of the Public Health Agency of Canada, a credibility that is recognized around the world. It is an agency that has the integrity and the expertise to make good, sound decisions. We have some vested interests there.

Telus is not a small company, as we all know. Telus is a huge corporation with a very large clientele. Telus could disappear fairly quickly in Canada, in terms of its footprint, if Canadians felt they were being betrayed or that it was giving out information it should not be giving out.

Health Canada as an agency is not new. As an agency it has been there for many years. If we had the health committee or another standing committee bring Health Canada before it, and I do not know this for a fact but I would speculate that Health Canada would say it is in constant need of information. It continues to look at ways in which it can bring in that information. I say that because I believe that within Health Canada there is a high level of expertise to deal with the issue of the privacy of Canadians.

I suspect that some in the opposition benches would say that is all fine and dandy, but there still is a need for us to be able to provide that sense of accountability to ensure that the rights of Canadians are in fact being protected. We do not have to be in the opposition benches in order to appreciate that.

When I was first elected, the Internet was around but not for the average consumer, that is for sure. In 1988, I had the little Apple with the 3.5-inch floppy when I was first elected, and I would punch in the phone number and hear the dial tone and it would click in. The point is that time goes on and we opened up a whole new window through this technology.

I remember talking to a business person who had his own data collection. Many of my colleagues might remember Paul Calandra and he would always talk about his pizza store examples. I actually have a pizza example where an individual business person was compiling his own data of customers with phone numbers and so forth. He said that if he ever changed companies or to be able to put out a special, he had a base that he could go to.

The same principles of the importance of data are there today. Take a look at what is happening with Google, Amazon and Netflix. There is a whole spectrum of exceptionally large Internet companies in particular that are gathering billions of pieces of data that could be associated with some form of identity.

My constituents, justifiably so, are very much concerned about it. Their primary concern is the issue of identity theft. Another concern is the issue of privacy and what the government is doing to ensure that privacy is protected. That is why I said at the beginning of my comments that I appreciate the fact that we have a standing committee that is dealing with the issue of privacy.

Where I have a bit of a problem today in terms of talking about this report is that all members will sit on committees and all committees will provide reports and all reports will ultimately be tabled here in the House. Unfortunately, if every report were to be debated, we would not have time to deal with not only government business but even opposition business.

I am wondering whether this would be better. If members of the ethics committee have some outstanding concerns, nothing prevents them from reconvening to go over the report and call before it ministers and others. I can appreciate the sensitivity of the issue, but as much as this report supplies a lot about mobility data, which is so important in order to be able to deal with the pandemic, I was hoping we were going to be debating Bill C-8 today, because—

Business of the House

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

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

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

Health

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

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

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

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

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