Bill C-8

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations in order to
(a) introduce a new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses on qualifying ventilation expenses made to improve air quality;
(b) expand the travel component of the northern residents deduction by giving all northern residents the option to claim up to $1,200 in eligible travel expenses even if the individual has not received travel assistance from their employer;
(c) expand the School Supplies Tax Credit from 15% to 25% and expand the eligibility criteria to include electronic devices used by eligible educators; and
(d) introduce a new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.
Part 2 enacts the Underused Housing Tax Act . This Act implements an annual tax of 1% on the value of vacant or underused residential property directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. It sets out rules for the purpose of establishing owners’ liability for the tax. It also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. Finally, to promote compliance with its provisions, this Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions aligned with those found in other taxation statutes.
Part 3 provides for a six-year limitation or prescription period for the recovery of amounts owing with respect to a loan provided under the Canada Emergency Business Account program established by Export Development Canada.
Part 4 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools.
Part 5 authorizes payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of supporting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) proof-of-vaccination initiatives.
Part 6 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $1.72 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) tests. It also sets out reporting requirements for the Minister of Health.
Part 7 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There are 10 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-8.

Motions Nos. 1 to 10 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available on the table.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-8 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Mr. Speaker, happy Friday. I believe few would dispute that we live in highly unusual times. Indeed, we are charting a path through a pandemic without a playbook. This is not the fault of the government: Every government is in the same situation, and as we all know, different governments have proposed different ways of moving forward. We must recognize that we agree, and I say “we” because we have to in large part unanimously agree, on most fiscal measures to this point. Canadians sent a minority Parliament to Ottawa and aside from the Prime Minister's shameless attempt to stage a power grab by calling an expensive and unnecessary election, here we are again in this minority Parliament.

We must recognize that, rightly or wrongly, our fiscal cupboards were literally spent dry responding to this pandemic. I am not here today to debate the past. I am simply pointing out the obvious. A significant portion of Canada's fiscal capacity has been spent. It is gone and we must recognize that. Why? Because in the event we run into any type of future emergency situation, we will have less fiscal room to respond.

Again, I do not raise that to point a finger of blame. I raise that because we must recognize that, going forward, we must be very careful how we proceed fiscally. Let me give an example. If anything, during this pandemic we have learned that our health care system was ill equipped to deal with the stresses and demands placed on it, more so when we see fully vaccinated Canadians who find themselves in our hospitals in the ICU. Every premier of every political stripe is clear that current Canada health care transfers are not enough to meet the needs of Canadians now or going forward.

Here is something I would like to share with every member of this place. The Canadian health care transfer stands at over $45 billion a year. In the current fiscal update bill, spending is forecast to increase to over $55 billion in fiscal 2026-27. In other words, there is an increase of over $10 billion in that time frame. I am hopeful that my friends in the fourth party hear that clearly, as they have a bad habit of referring to increases in health care spending as cuts.

I will get back to this increase in health care spending. The increase in health care transfer spending between now and fiscal 2026-27 is $10 billion. Here is the problem. Today, the interest we are paying on servicing our debt is just over $20 billion. Over the same time, it too will increase. The same budget bill forecasts that debt servicing costs will increase to almost $41 billion by fiscal 2026-27.

I can already hear members of the government say, “But debt-to-GDP ratio”. They will say, “The AAA credit rating”. They will say, “But now there is another thing”. Between now and fiscal 2026-27, we know two things will happen. The health care transfer will increase by $10 billion, but servicing our debt will increase by over $20 billion. That is $10 billion on health and $20 billion on debt.

To be clear, our interest costs of servicing our debt are climbing at twice the rate as our increases in the Canada health transfer. Does anyone not see that as being as a serious problem? The Parliamentary Budget Officer put out a report recently that said that the numbers the government put out in its last fall fiscal update actually underestimate our debt servicing costs in 2026-27 by $6 billion.

When the government talks about all the things it wants to do on the economy, and when it talks about all the action it wants to take, we really have to understand that we are putting ourselves in a situation where we will not have the fiscal room to respond in cases of further external or internal events. In external events, we have nowhere further to look than the situation that is happening in Ukraine.

We heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada last night. We see that now the talk about inflation being transitory has washed away. We are now seeing that Canadians are being told by economists they face a perfect storm of higher gas prices, rising interest rates and the costs that go with that, and rising food prices.

The Dalhousie report that came out earlier this year said the average family would be paying over $1,000 more in just grocery costs alone. That is not even factoring in the hit to their income with Canada pension plan increases that the government has put forward.

We do not have the fiscal capacity, in my mind, to be able to say to Canadians that we can handle external events. Why? It is because the government has baked extra spending into it and, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it is not giving proper projections of that. It is probably going to be higher. Government needs to be better than this. Our citizens are worried and anxious about their financial future, and the government continues to kind of walk around the issues that we have.

My particular area of focus right now, both on the finance committee and here in the House, has been given to me by our leader of the official opposition. I have been given the task of focusing on housing and inflation. Here is what I have to say on that matter: There has been a 43% increase in home prices. Right now, the average Canadian home price is $811,000 and rapidly rising. We are seeing where the number of people purchasing homes and the low supply, coupled with many of the things that are causing those fundamentals to go up, are pushing away the dream of home ownership. The government continues to put forward policies, inadequate policies in my view, that simply walk around the issues.

The great MP for Simcoe North put forward a very reasonable amendment. In fact, members are probably going to be a little shocked here. We actually were trying to help the government by putting forward that amendment. It was around banning foreign ownership of residential properties. It would have been for two years so we could take a look. The government says that it wants to look at data. We could have given it a two-year ban, and essentially we would then be able to see if it pushed down demand in the market and allowed more young Canadian families to have that first shot at home ownership, by pulling out, for a temporary time, foreign bids.

The government voted against the amendment. We were only trying to help this Prime Minister who, by the way, in multiple elections has said that he wants to address skyrocketing housing prices, which are a gobsmacking 43% higher than in 2019. The Liberals voted against the amendment. That is the main problem with the current government. It has underestimated how much money it has spent. We will see much of that $6-billion gap that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has identified in our fiscal track, so we are going to have less firepower from that.

We also have, at the same time, the perfect storm in which economists have told us that Canadians are going to be subjected to gas prices that they have never seen. I was born in Victoria, and I saw yesterday reporters pointing out that the cheapest form of gas was priced at $1.94 on the island. I have never seen that. In April, we will see the carbon tax go up to $50 a tonne, the backstop as well, and we will see where gas becomes increasingly unaffordable.

I have put forward with my able colleague, our industry critic, some very reasoned amendments to help improve the legislation that has been brought forward. Really, we can no longer simply let the government talk around the issues. It needs to start putting forward real policies, such as banning foreign owners from purchasing Canadian properties to give Canadians that first chance at home ownership. The government continues to bring forward legislation that is not up to the task.

Let me say again that it is always an honour to rise in this place. Again, I am imploring the government for my own riding. Those flooding victims in Merritt, Princeton and other rural areas of British Columbia are counting on the government. Unfortunately, they are told to wait as well. This is the problem I have with the current government. It is not addressing these important needs that Canadians have right now.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for putting forward some very reasonable amendments to the bill and for his advocacy on the housing file.

I would like him to expand a little more on the excessive spending and where we will be going when the cost of this borrowing goes up. I note in particular his comment about the over $20 billion a year that we are currently spending just to service the national debt. That is more money than we are putting into national defence despite how volatile the world is right now. We are seeing what is going on with Russia and its invasion into Ukraine.

I would like him to comment on that, because I believe we need to make a serious investment in national defence in the coming years.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague. As I said earlier in my speech, other important spending that Canadians count on, like health care, is set to go up at a certain rate, but our debt servicing will be far in demand. In fact, the debt servicing rate will be far over what we will spend in the fiscal year 2026-27 on military.

Yesterday, the Minister of National Defence tried to assure the House that our Arctic sovereignty is not at risk, but we can look at where other countries have been putting their resources. Russia has been investing heavily in nuclear ships so that it can push its sovereignty claims further into the Arctic. We need to ask ourselves if we are prepared to do the same. With the way the government has spent, I would say we are not.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance for his speech.

There is one thing about Bill C-8 that the Bloc Québécois members find particularly bothersome, and that is the 1% tax on underused housing owned by non-resident non-Canadians.

We could discuss the policy to determine whether it is a good measure in the context of the current housing shortage. The problem is that the policy sets a precedent. By collecting property taxes, for the first time in history, the federal government will be getting involved in a taxation area that, until now, has fallen under the exclusive jurisdiction of the municipalities and therefore the provinces.

I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on respecting provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the work the member does on behalf of his constituents.

In our Constitution, it is very clear that the federal government, rightly or wrongly, has the ability to tax in areas like property. It has taxing powers that provinces and municipalities do not share. It has a very wide range of tools. However, typically governments have trended not to go into those areas, because first of all, there is only one taxpayer, and second of all, the federal government does not have an established line of view into that area. This is the problem we have. The Liberals introduce all these new things whether or not the 1% would be effective and whether or not they are violating what is traditionally considered a provincial area, because municipalities and property taxes are provincial. I would say they are walking around the issue, not addressing it.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about his concerns with the federal government's fiscal capacity. Do members know who does not have concerns about fiscal capacity? It is the companies that made off like bandits by profiteering during a pandemic and that collected benefits from the federal government while paying out stockholder dividends and so on.

In an effort to invest in people and workers to make our communities all they can be, why do the Conservatives neglect the fiscal capacity of the very richest and wealthiest corporations in this country? They never put measures in place to actually tackle that gross inequality, which is expanding and has accelerated over the last two years.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the island will probably recognize that we have been very critical of the government regarding the Canada emergency wage subsidy for allowing profitable companies to access it while at the same time increasing dividends to shareholders and allowing bonuses for executives. This is unlike when Minister Jim Flaherty made some concessions on pensions with Air Canada. He put tight controls to make sure that executives could not profit from that.

We are on the record as opposing those kinds of payments, but I will remind the member that we are not in government. If he has an issue, he should be pointing the finger across the way and not at the Conservatives, because this program was designed by the government, and what it would describe as a bug is actually a feature.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage for Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act of 2021, which contains a number of measures.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the thrust of the bill. However, from the beginning, we have been pointing out a major problem, and that is the fact that the federal government is sticking its finger in the property tax pie. This is the first time that has happened.

There is a housing shortage. The proposed measure will mean that foreign residents who are not permanent residents or citizens will pay more if they have a residence in Canada that they are not living in. This measure could marginally assist in addressing the housing crisis. We do not disagree with the principle, but as the song by Jacques Brel says, il y a la manière, there is a right way to do things.

We see this as a dangerous precedent that brings to mind other similar cases in Canadian history. Today, Ottawa is proposing to interfere in a new taxation area, the only remaining area that it is not already involved in, and that is property taxes.

The part of Bill C‑8 that targets non-residents proposes a 1% tax on underused housing. As I said, the idea may be a good one, but is it right for Ottawa to do this in such a cavalier fashion without consulting the municipalities and the provinces? I have a bad feeling about it, and we see this as a serious problem because different levels of government all have their own taxation powers.

Property tax is under the jurisdiction of the municipalities and other creations of the provinces, such as school boards. Revenue sources are limited, so when Ottawa steps in and helps itself to a portion of the property tax base, that sets an unfair precedent. Moreover, the federal government will collect this tax without even talking to the people, the organizations and the levels of government that handle this area of taxation. That is a serious problem.

We are only talking about some $100 million annually, which will not have a huge impact on the fiscal imbalance. The real problem here is precedent. To collect this new tax, the federal government, its departments and the Canada Revenue Agency will have to develop a brand-new mechanism and will have the power to collect this revenue from property taxes. The history of taxation in Canada gives us reason to worry.

During the First World War, the government decided to introduce a corporate tax to fund the war effort, citing exceptional circumstances. That tax was justified and was supposed to be temporary, but Ottawa never cancelled it and is still collecting it to this day.

The same scenario reappeared during the Second World War, when Ottawa introduced individual income tax to pay for the war. This exceptional tax was supposed to be temporary too, but Ottawa is still collecting it to this day.

Everyone in Quebec remembers Mr. Duplessis's rallying cry “give us back our loot”, which I would like to co-opt today for property taxes. This is how Ottawa works. Once it takes hold of a taxation area, it never gives it up, even if temporary and extraordinary circumstances might seemingly justify it.

That is the problem with this machine. It is always getting bigger and taking over everything, aiming to be the be-all and end-all.

We are telling the federal government to be careful. Municipalities, school boards, and organizations associated with the provinces and Quebec have the opportunity and the power to manage this area, which they do while drawing only limited resources. We have to be careful not to let the federal government get its hands on this area of taxation, since the provinces and municipalities are already under-resourced and struggling to provide all the services within their jurisdictions.

As we know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer publishes a fiscal sustainability report nearly every year. Even with Ottawa's extraordinary spending during the pandemic, his findings have not changed. In the long run, over the next few decades, Ottawa will have a budget surplus, and without major changes, the provinces will be saddled with debt levels from which they will never recover.

That is why all the provinces are asking Ottawa to fund health care at 35%, or just over a third of spending, simply to restore some balance. Studies by the Conference Board of Canada have reached similar conclusions. The Council of the Federation also says that balance needs to be restored. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's studies remind us of this every year.

Rather than agreeing with us and saying that the federal government is taking too much tax for the services provided and will therefore increase health transfers or leave tax points, now Ottawa wants to get its hands on the last taxation area that it has not waded into until now. This is unacceptable. It makes no sense.

This is what constitutionalist and law professor Patrick Taillon said on February 17, in parliamentary committee:

However, being a good idea is not an excuse to flout our constitutional principles. From the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the division of powers, the spirit and letter of the Constitution must be respected. Without the prior consultation of the provinces or an agreement with them—in other words, without some legal due diligence—this good idea has vulnerabilities.

It is clear that the pith and substance of the measure involve the regulation of housing law, and there is no doubt that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over housing when it comes to private law, specifically, property and civil law and, generally, in relation to social policies and local affairs.

What the constitutional expert, Mr. Taillon, is saying is that because the purpose of this tax is to change behaviour in housing, an area of jurisdiction, it is highly likely that it is a regulation in disguise and would in fact be unconstitutional. He said that unfortunately, it is the courts that will have to rule on this.

It would have been interesting, smart and pragmatic to check all this ahead of time instead of exposing ourselves to court challenges that could end up overturning the legislation, knowing that if the act were to be struck down, the federal government's entire property tax infrastructure would already be in place and spending already committed. The damage would have been done. This would undermine the municipalities.

Should it not be deemed unconstitutional—we cannot assume how the courts will rule—it would nonetheless set a dangerous precedent because the tax will have been introduced without co-operative federalism, which could worsen the fragile fiscal balance within the federation. The balance would be unfair, and that is truly a serious problem.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois proposed a very simple amendment in committee stating that if Ottawa wants to move ahead with this tax, it must have the province's agreement to impose it, ensuring that there are consultations with the municipalities.

In closing, I take exception to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I take issue with you this morning, because you, and I am obviously directing my comments to the table, deemed that our amendment was out of order.

We do not agree with that decision. Our amendment did not broaden the scope of the act, nor did it alter it. It merely sought to make the bill respect the Constitution. We are therefore very disappointed with your decision, which makes the historic precedent set by Bill C-8 against the rights of the municipalities and provinces even worse.

In spite of my rebuke, Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent speech.

This bill includes measures to provide funding for health care and COVID-19 tests. Every day, the Bloc asks for an increase in health transfers for Quebec.

What does the member think of these measures? Will he support them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her question.

Bill C-8 provides funding for COVID-19 tests. Ottawa is going to pay for COVID-19 tests and send them to the provinces.

We want transparency and the ability to follow up. We naturally agree with this necessary expenditure. However, it reminds us that Ottawa is not contributing its share to health care.

In the 1990s, the Liberal government decided to fix its deficit problem by reducing transfers to the provinces. Since then, Ottawa's revenues have far exceeded the services it provides. Health care funding must be rebalanced. We do not want conditions, we want money now.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague will agree with me that a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the fall economic update was presented to the House back in mid-December, both here in Canada and all around the world.

I know the member and his party have been very active on the issue of climate change. I would like to hear his thoughts on what kind of fiscal capacity he would like to see the federal government direct toward climate change going forward because of the economic costs that will be incurred if we do nothing or too little.

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

Mr. Speaker, these days, we seem to be jumping from one crisis to the next. The Emergencies Act was applied recently in response to the siege in Ottawa. Now there is a barbaric war going on, in which crimes against humanity are being perpetrated. This is unconscionable in 2022.

All of this is going on against the backdrop of an environmental crisis. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada appeared in committee and told us again that we are underestimating the economic consequences of the climate emergency. The clock is ticking. We must act now.

Quebec has adopted a carbon market system, which is an excellent system. We are disappointed that the United States and the Canadian provinces have not gotten on board, because this system could have worked well.

Yes, we must do more. The Bloc Québécois is proposing an ambitious green finance plan that would allow private funds to support green infrastructure and net-zero projects rather than polluting projects.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a brilliant speech about the federal government's proposed interference into provincial jurisdictions.

Not only would this create a precedent, but it also seems as though the way the tax is designed, how it will be applied and collected, will not do much to help with the housing shortage.

I have to wonder whether the federal government should be using other methods, such as Quebec's proposal to try to address the housing shortage. What would my colleague suggest?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my brilliant and esteemed colleague from Mirabel for his speech.

The housing shortage is affecting everyone throughout Quebec and Canada. It is a major problem. A whole series of measures is required to remedy it.

Yes, a 1% property tax for non-resident owners of underused housing is more than marginal. It is symbolic, and this level of government has no business collecting it, at least not without the co-operation of the provinces.

The problem is that there is not enough housing. The government really needs to make up for all the lost time and, most importantly, build more social housing.

Once again, Ottawa abandoned social housing back in the 1990s, and today we are paying the price many times over. We are now seeing where decades and decades of underinvestment has led.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate to be able to rise today and contribute to the House's debate of the Liberal government's bill, Bill C-8, which has been faithfully reported back to the House by the Standing Committee on Finance.

The committee did consider one amendment to that, and of course today we are dealing with the report stage amendments brought forward by my Conservative colleagues. I very much appreciate the work done by committee members in examining this bill. I especially want to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who is the finance critic for my caucus and has been shouldering a lot of work at that committee.

Bill C-8 is an act that would implement certain provisions presented to the House in the fall economic statement. It would be a gross understatement to say that the country, and indeed much of the world, have changed since mid-December. I know, from the feedback from people in my riding and people I work with here in the chamber, that the pace of change over the last two months has really left our heads spinning. We seem, as a country, to be lurching from crisis to crisis these days, and it is not giving people much of a breather to accept their changed reality. I am hearing a lot of accounts of the mental health stress this has put on people.

It was back in mid-December that we were just, at the House, beginning to get a glimpse of how bad the omicron wave was really going to be. I remember the news reports in early December that there was some hope that the variant, which first emerged and was detected in South Africa, did not seem to have as much lethality to it, but of course that was blown out of the water by the concerns of how rapidly it spread. Even if a smaller percentage of people ended up going to the hospital, that small percentage, when we had the variant passing through our population so rapidly, did give rise to very considerable fears that our hospital system would be overwhelmed.

Of course we had a change in leadership with one of our political parties in the House. We had the protests descend on Ottawa and many cities across Canada, which turned into an illegal occupation and blockades at our border, further putting strains on our relationship with the United States. Then, of course, beginning just a few short days after that ended, we now have a fully modern conflict raging in Ukraine, where unprovoked Russian aggression is now putting the lives of 40 million Ukrainians at risk.

Here we are. The world has changed quite a bit. I do want to acknowledge that it is a frustrating time for so many people, especially in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. They are, like many Canadians, dealing with the inflationary pressures. They see the results in the price of food at the grocery store and the cost every time they fill up their vehicles.

What people have also witnessed over the last two years is the fact that so many of the wealthy in Canada, and indeed many of our most profitable corporations, have seen their profits soar during this time. Many of those companies actually took pandemic benefits and were guilty of paying out dividends to their shareholders.

It seems the hard-working families in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford are working twice as hard as their parents but for less money. These pressures are putting families at the breaking point. That is why I have always been proud to be part of a party that stands for trying to ease that inequality in Canada and making sure the very rich in our country do pay their fair share. If they do not, that burden ends up falling on working families.

In my riding, in the space of one year, depending on what part of the riding someone is in, we saw housing prices increase anywhere in the neighbourhood of 30% to 40%. That is in one year. With those stratospheric record levels of housing costs, of course many people were trying to sell their homes during that time to take advantage of the high prices. All of that selling in the Cowichan Valley also caused a huge crisis on rental availability, because when people are putting their house up for sale, usually the tenants are evicted as it is not really known if the new owner wants to inherit tenants or not.

We also have the worst record in the G7 when it comes to combatting climate change. In my province of British Columbia, we saw a record heat wave in June. We saw wildfires consume so many communities right across the province, and then just a few short months later, we saw catastrophic floods that effectively cut off the Port of Vancouver, our busiest port, from the rest of the country.

A smart government would be looking at this and looking at the evidence that these climate change natural disasters will keep piling up if we do not address them. A smart government would look at the economic toll this will place on our ability to raise revenue in the future.

As for my Conservative colleagues, who like to proclaim themselves as fiscally responsible, they should not ignore the damage this is going to do to future tax revenue and our ability to help communities from coastal inundation, protect them from wildfire danger and stand up for our hard-working men and women in agriculture, who seem to be dealing with flooding and droughts at a much more precipitous pace.

I know, from my time at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, of which I have been a proud member for four years now, that all farmers will tell us they are on the front lines of climate change. They need to have some recognition of the good work they are doing. They also need a partner in Ottawa who is going to help them take advantage and thrive through these very uncertain times.

It is all about choices. With Bill C-8, I think there is a sense of regret. For me, it is a sense of regret for what could have been and what should have been. That being said, if through these measure, we are going to propose things like allowing small businesses to acquire equipment that will improve the quality of their indoor air, I think that is a solid investment. Just because we are starting to see some very hopeful signs of us getting out of this latest variant of COVID-19 does not mean there will not be future airborne illnesses. We want make indoor air quality much better, and we would if we were to make these targeted investments.

I also like the idea of allowing for an increase in the school supplies tax credit and allowing us to expand that eligibility criteria to include the electronic devices that educators benefit from. A lot of people are struggling to make sure they can get by on those family budgets, so little measures like that, for many families, can actually go quite a long way.

I am also interested in the proposal here in Bill C-8 about the refundable tax credit for the return of fuel levy proceeds to agricultural businesses. This has been an issue we have been seized with at the Standing Committee on Agriculture, because, especially when it comes to activities such as grain drying or even heating a barn, I am all for giving farmers an alternative that is not based on fossil fuels.

However, what we heard, very clearly, at the agriculture committee was that the technologies that are free of fossil fuels are not yet commercially viable, and they will not be so for another 10 years. Therefore, if we are going to make sure we are trying to give that price incentive, we still have to ensure that a viable alternative exists for our farmers, which is why I am in favour of giving them these very specific and targeted breaks, so they can make it through with their bottom line.

Part 2 of Bill C-8 would basically establish a 1% annual tax on the value of vacant or underutilized residential property. This would only be when the direct and indirect owners are non-residents or non-Canadians. Again, on housing, there are so many more ways that the government could have tackled this very big issue. I would say this is a good first start, but there is much more that needs to be done. I know the government likes to pat itself on the back with all of the things it has done with housing, but the proof is in the pudding. If we still see housing prices rise to these stratospheric heights, we have to measure the effectiveness of the policy against that reality.

I will conclude here by saying that we do have a federal budget coming in the next number of months. I sincerely hope the government realizes that this is the time for bold policy action, to really make sure Canada comes through these uncertain and very challenging times.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of sitting with the hon. member at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and he raised an important point. I know it does not impact the province where he is from, but we have heard from farmers the importance of the availability of a carbon rebate for grain dryers and for heating their barns.

Can he inform the House how important it is to pass Bill C-8 so they can get access to this important tool?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to return the compliment to my friend. I have had the pleasure of serving on that committee with him. I think he and I are the two longest-serving members on that committee.

We have heard repeatedly from farmers about their willingness to do the right thing and be a central part of the conversation on how we combat climate change. When it comes to the hard choices that farmers have to make when they are purchasing new equipment or finding an energy source, we first want to make sure that viable alternatives exist, which is why until they are developed and until they are commercially viable, we prepare the necessary tax breaks to help them through those tough times.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the NDP's finance critic, the MP for Elmwood—Transcona, and I would like to thank that member specifically for his work at the finance committee. He supported the amendment from the member of Parliament for Simcoe North to Bill C-8 that would ban foreign buyers from purchasing Canadian residential properties. This member has mentioned that in his riding on the island, we have seen amazing jumps in home prices and lots of speculators there, including foreign speculators. He lamented that there is so much more that Bill C-8 could have been.

Could he enlighten this House as to why the government would vote against something that its own Prime Minister has promised to young Canadian families who want to get into home ownership? Why, when it comes to the chance to vote for something that meaningfully will address that issue, do they vote against it?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the workings of Liberals at committee, as with Conservatives, can remain a mystery, and we do not always know the full reason that they vote the way they do.

That said, I agree with him that so much more could have been done, but as an opposition party, we have to respect the government's prerogative to decide the time it will devote to the bills that it brings forward. We can only deal with the parameters that the government sets out.

For me, I am always looking ahead to the next day, to the next fight and to the ways that I can influence government policy and make sure that it is doing right by the residents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I very much look forward to that opportunity being with the next federal budget.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Joliette said that an amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois to Bill C-8 was rejected.

What does my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford think of our proposal that the federal government consult the provinces before infringing on areas under their exclusive jurisdiction?

The Bloc Québécois is very concerned about housing. We have made a lot of suggestions, but we think that the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over taxation must be respected.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would answer his question this way: The federal taxation power is a very broad power that can be open to a lot of interpretation, and courts have been a bit wary about intruding on that specific right.

That being said, I think the challenging times that we live in demand that the federal government look at unique and innovative ways to raise revenue. The NDP has long championed things like a wealth tax, and that is something I will continue to proudly fight for.

On the member's main question of consultation with the provinces, absolutely. If we are going to have a strong federal partnership, the provinces play a very important role in that, and I will never shy away from promoting the idea that consultation should happen on a regular basis.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-8 at report stage. I may also include some general comments, as I did not get a chance to speak to the bill when it was in the House earlier because the Liberals shut down debate on it.

Let me go through the different parts of the bill. As always, I am not here just to criticize the government; I like to make helpful suggestions as to what would be better or what should have been done as we go.

In the first part, there are some amendments to the Income Tax Act to put in place a few tax credits. I do not find these tax credits very objectionable, but I see there is one there to expand the travel component for northern residents who have to travel as part of their job. I want to bring to the attention of members that there is also a private member's bill to do this for tradespeople who are travelling as well, which is quite a good thing.

With respect to the tax credits in the bill, I want to talk a bit about the one for farmers to return fuel charge proceeds to give them a break. What I think would have been more helpful is for farmers to have been exempted from all the carbon tax increases that have happened over time. They do not get credit for the fact that most of them are growing crops that take CO2 out of the air. On the other hand, they are paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax. At a time when we as a government and Canadians in general are concerned about food inflation and the cost of everything is going up, certainly we could do more for farmers.

Also, many of them are still waiting for the compensation committed to them when the new North American free trade agreement, CUSMA, was put in place and supply-managed quotas were given up. In these times when the world is concerned about food security and food inflation, giving farmers the benefit of an exemption from the carbon tax and giving them the compensation they are due would be important.

With regard to the part 3 limitations with respect to paying back amounts owing under the COVID programs, the Conservatives supported the measures that were needed to get through the pandemic. However, we see that a lot of the problems with them, such as the GIS problem experienced by those people who also collected the CERB, are still not fixed. I think the government could have done a much better job in addressing those, but wrapping up these programs and making a plan to exit the pandemic and restore the economy is key.

There is money included to make support payments for COVID tests. The Conservatives were calling for rapid tests for quite a long time but, as with everything, the government has been very slow to deliver. The issue I have now is that the World Health Organization is saying all these travel restrictions, measures and mandates at the borders are no longer meaningful because omicron is so transmissible. It is everywhere, and people who are vaccinated can get COVID. Although at the time we were calling for rapid tests, now we are calling for the removal of these measures, especially at our borders, such as in Sarnia—Lambton, because they are really not doing anything to prevent the transmission and spread and are a burden and a barrier to trade and tourism, which are areas we want to see restored in the fall economic document. We want to get back to creating jobs and get tourism going, and these things will require the elimination of these mandates, which is what is being called for by the World Health Organization. We see many other countries and provinces dropping these measures, as is appropriate.

Part 7 talks about amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to address benefit periods for seasonal workers. While I think that is very good, I do not understand why some of the things we have been hearing about now for two years have not been addressed. An example is that people who were not quite ready to go on maternity benefits during the pandemic had to give up their jobs. We heard questions in the House this week on that issue. I would say that this issue is a priority.

The other thing that needs to be fixed is this: Federal mandates and mandates in other areas meant that people who would not take the vaccine were fired from their jobs and were not allowed to collect employment insurance.

This makes no sense at all. Under the employment insurance system, people pay a premium into it and they receive the benefit. The discrimination that prevented these people from collecting what they were qualified to receive from the system that they had paid into needed to be fixed.

Among other issues that we have seen, there is the discussion about the tax on vacant housing. We have heard members say that it is not the government's jurisdiction, but I would argue that it is not even going to work. The problem we are trying to fix is the affordable housing crisis in this country. That is simply a problem of supply and demand. Solutions that provide a minor amount of tax are really not going to drive the kind of behaviour we need to see.

In my own riding of Sarnia—Lambton, we have made quite a comprehensive plan, recognizing that we do not want to just tax vacant buildings but convert them into affordable housing. That is the kind of initiative that the government should be presenting and participating in with municipalities. If the measure the government put in place here was going to put a larger tax on vacancies and give that money back to the municipalities to address the affordable housing crisis in their ridings, that would have been far better.

In addition, the money is just not flowing fast enough. Certainly, we are coming along with our plan. We recognize that we have a lot of foreign students, so we need a residence built and we need some government support there. There are a number of issues that we could have addressed to deal with the supply.

The other thing is to keep foreign buyers out of the market. I have been speaking about this for two years. I know this aspect was raised at committee, and the government even had it in their platform. It just boggles the mind that it takes so long to put something in place that makes sense to all parties in the House.

The other reality we are concerned right now is food inflation. There are so many different factors at play, but one of them is the supply chain. We have certainly seen supply chain disruptions. I am concerned about the potential rail strike that we may see as early as in the next week or two, which will further disrupt the supply chain. This is going to be a big deal. Where is the government plan? We have distribution by rail and we have distribution by truck and we have distribution that comes through our ports, but there is really no comprehensive plan to protect and expand those distributions to impact on food security.

At the same time, in the middle of this pandemic, the government continues to increase the carbon tax. The carbon tax has done nothing to reduce our emissions in Canada. Emissions reductions in Canada have come from the technologies that we implemented and from actions we have taken to actually reduce the footprint. The carbon tax has done nothing but drive the price up for the people who could least afford it. I think it is obscene that the government is going to once again raise the price when we see people living on a fixed income and seniors being in such a tough spot.

When this bill came out, I expected that it would reflect some of the things that were in the fall economic statement, which started off by saying that it would protect our recovery by finishing the fight against COVID. Where is the plan from the government to finish the fight against COVID, to exit the pandemic and restore the economy? Let us get rid of these mandates. The World Health Organization is calling for it and other countries are doing it. We see the provinces returning to normal. We need to do the same. We need the government to take a role in putting forward a plan. Canadians are looking for that.

We have a lot of work to do to rebuild our economy and restore lost jobs. I, for one, would work together with all parties in this House to make that happen for a better Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I know we are almost out of time. I thought we would switch over and come back later for five minutes of questions and answers with the hon. member.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

When we left it last time we were going into question period with the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, we keep hearing about inflation. We have heard about the housing crisis. Right now in my riding housing has gone up over 40% in value just in one year, especially in Port Alberni. People are being pushed out. We need non-market housing. There have been several applications made to the federal government, but it continues to give them the shuffle. More and more people are displaced or homeless. Right now, we have an opportunity, a partnership of multi-stakeholders wanting to purchase a hotel in the Alberni Valley to house the hardest to house.

I might outline also that the Parole Board of Canada has written a letter of support for this proposal. It has outlined that there is not a single space for its clients to live when they are released through the federal parole system. That is very alarming and keeps the cycle of incarceration going.

Therefore, I am calling on the federal government, and I would ask the member if she agrees, to invest quickly into non-market housing to address this need.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we are seeing concerns with respect to inflation, food inflation and affordable housing, all due to the failed policies and lack of action from the current Liberal government. What I do not understand is why the member and his entire party continue to prop up the government and support these failed policies that are causing inflation and this burden on the people of his riding as well as mine.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair. I know the member is well aware that the Canadian taxpayer has the ultimate responsibility for the ever-increasing $1.2-billion debt the current Liberal government is continually escalating.

The member also mentioned in her speech the carbon tax and the ever-increasing financial impacts of that. I know she is aware that when we look at the price of gasoline going up, even the 45¢ increase in gasoline we have seen over the last six months amounts to a 3¢ per litre GST increase to the government, not to mention the quarter of a billion dollars in GST that is being collected. I wonder if she could give us her thoughts on the impacts of the GST and the carbon tax.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely concerned that at a time when we see seniors and people on a fixed income really struggling to survive, the government has put three carbon tax increases on them, an increase in CPP premiums and the escalator tax on wine and beverages. To add insult to injury, that carbon tax comes with a tax on a tax. This is really crushing the ability of people to afford to live. I think it is outrageous that the government is doing that, and I would call on it to reverse the taxes it has put in place already so that people can afford to live.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member commented earlier about the NDP and the Liberals working together. This is what it looks like: It is actually the Liberal-Conservative coalition that cut and gutted the national housing strategy over 25 years ago. We have lost over 500,000 units because of the Liberal-Conservative coalition to not invest in non-market housing and to come up with incentives for developers to build housing and profit off the backs of people who need non-market housing and need it right now.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, they do need help right now. When we talk about affordable housing, we know it is supply and demand. The government, its actions and its bills have not increased the supply appreciably. It has not kept foreign buyers from the market. It has not done anything to address the vacant buildings. The measures in this act are small, yet the member and his party are going to prop up the Liberals again and vote in favour of it. I do not understand it.

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

Mr. Speaker, good afternoon and happy Friday to everyone as I begin to speak on Bill C-8. Before I begin, I did have a chance to do a Standing Order 31 statement on Ukraine. I want to speak about Olena, who was the intern in my office as part of the number of Ukrainian youth who come to Parliament. They have not come for a couple years now because of COVID. My thoughts, my prayers and the prayers of all Canadians are with her and the people of Ukraine at this very difficult period they are going through.

Rest assured that Canada, our government, is there for them and we are with them, not only today or tomorrow but for all the days ahead so that the Ukrainian people can live in a free and democratic society. We want to ensure that Liberal democracies throughout the world have a path for freedom and democracy for their individuals. Liberal democracies are under attack because of Russian aggression. We must go to the wall, as I say, in helping the people of Ukraine and make sure that they are able to have a free, democratic and prosperous future. I want to say to Olena that she is in my prayers. Keep sending me messages on Instagram. I will keep responding and we will keep being there as best as we can for her.

It is a pleasure to rise today and chat about Bill C-8 being debated again. This is another measure that our government has brought forward to ensure that we recover, we continue to grow and we come out of this pandemic even stronger, not only for our economy but as a nation, as a people. Despite what is happening in Ukraine, which has received a lot of attention, and rightly so, we are still fighting a pandemic here at home and globally. Our focus is multi-faceted, but we still need to get that job done. We will, and Bill C-8 is part and parcel of that. It is obviously part of our fiscal update that was tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021.

I know much reference has been made to affordability here in the House. What I can say, as a father of three children and as someone who lives in York Region, is that our government is aware of this. The empathy is there. We have cut taxes several times for middle-class Canadians. We have raised them on the wealthiest 1%. We will always be there for middle-class Canadians and hard-working Canadians. We will make sure that they can get ahead and that they have a better future for their families.

We will be there today and tomorrow. I look forward to whenever budget 2022 comes out, because I know the focus of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance is ensuring that middle-class Canadians and their families have a great future. That is why I am part of the Liberal team. I have been a Liberal for many decades, and I will continue to fight for middle-class Canadians to ensure they have a bright and prosperous future.

In December, the government released the economic and fiscal update. The update provided important information about the government's continued support for Canadians and Canadian businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, I would like to speak about one aspect of Bill C-8 that would implement measures in the update that build on steps already taken to keep Canadians safe and help the economy recover.

The government has made the health and safety of Canadians its top priority since the beginning of the pandemic.

While the government has been focusing on a strong economic recovery, it has also been investing in vaccines and booster shots and taking other important measures.

Vaccination is one of the most effective ways to protect our families, communities and ourselves from COVID-19. Vaccines are effective in preventing severe illness, hospitalization and death from COVID-19, including the omicron variant. We must say that Canadians, unfortunately even today, are still passing away from COVID-19 and the variant, so we must remain vigilant as a society and as a country.

Today, Canada's immunization campaign has been highly successful thanks to an effective procurement strategy, a strong and agile regulatory system and clear and consistent work by public health workers and governments across the country. We are protecting children by making sure that Canada has the pediatric vaccines needed for children five and over to get their shots. We are also ensuring that booster shots are free for all Canadians, just as first and second doses have been.

Manufacturers have also run clinical trials of their vaccines for children in all age ranges, including children under five. They are expected to seek regulatory approval next month. The fact that children are able to be vaccinated will help prevent outbreaks in schools and help keep kids, teachers, school staff and parents safe.

As we know, millions of Canadians have been doing their part by getting vaccinated. As of mid-January, 81% of Canadians age five years and older have received their first two doses, and 41% of those 18 years and over having received their third, or booster shots, as well. In fact, Canada has the fourth-highest vaccination rate in the G20 and the second-highest in the G7.

Canada's existing agreements with Pfizer and Moderna provide for enough vaccine doses for all eligible Canadians to receive first, second, third and even fourth doses if necessary. The agreements also include options to procure vaccine adaptations such as those to protect against mutations or variants of concern. The government has also made investments to secure millions of booster doses for the years to come.

Our government, the federal government, is also committed to a national proof-of-vaccination standard. All provinces and territories have already implemented proof-of-vaccination requirements, including standardized pan-Canadian proof-of-vaccine credentials.

The requirement to show proof of vaccination to travel within and outside Canada and to enter businesses and public spaces helps protect Canadians from COVID‑19.

To implement such a requirement, it is essential to have reliable, standardized proof of vaccination status that works from coast to coast to coast and internationally.

The federal government is also working with international partners to ensure that the standardized Canadian proof of vaccination is widely recognized abroad, allowing fully vaccinated Canadians to travel anywhere in the world.

In order to support proof of vaccination, the government worked with the provinces and territories on developing a pan-Canadian proof-of-vaccination standard, which helps fully vaccinated Canadians travel within the country and abroad.

The government is currently setting aside the necessary funds to help the provinces and territories cover the cost of implementing new proof-of-vaccination programs.

As indicated in the economic and fiscal update, the government is committed to supporting the provinces and territories in implementing proof of vaccination by introducing the COVID-19 proof of vaccination fund.

Bill C-8 contains many measures to help Canadians on an individual basis and with their businesses. One of the measures in Bill C-8 is on extending the time period for CEBA so that individuals who have received payments from CEBA will be able to pay them back. If we look back over the pandemic, sometimes we think about how it has been two years and that time has passed. The CEBA helped nearly a million businesses across this country from coast to coast to coast. It was a vital lifeline to many of our small businesses. It kept them afloat. It helped them pay expenses. It helped them pay salaries, heating bills and so forth. It allowed them to weather the storm that was COVID-19 and that COVID-19 continues to be, although less so, thank God, as we move forward.

Also, with regard to Bill C-8, our government has stressed the need for more affordable housing and measures to help with housing affordability, including a vacancy tax. There are very simple measures we can do. I hope to see the elimination of blind bidding, which I know in the area I live in, from the feedback I have received, is a big problem for many individuals. Bringing more certainty and transparency, much like the Australian model and the U.K. model, to purchasing a home would be a big step for middle-class Canadians and many of the middle-class Canadians who live in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

It has been great to speak about Bill C-8. I look forward to answering questions and comments from colleagues.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague that I brought up during the initial debate on Bill C-8. I am trying to understand why the government chose September 21, 2021, as the start date for the refundable tax credit for improving air quality and ventilation in businesses. There is a business in my riding that owns an arena, and right from the get-go, it stood up as a field hospital to deal with the pandemic and deal with the potential there. It was responsible in making those changes.

Why is it out of pocket thousands of dollars? Why does it not qualify? It was hinted that this would be discussed at committee, but I do not think that change was made. If the member cannot answer the question today, I would appreciate the government coming back to explain the rationale for why September 21, the day after the federal election, is when the tax refund credit is effective.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously I was not at the finance committee and do not know whether an amendment was put forward or not by the opposition or the government. What I will say is that in Bill C-8 there are a number of measures that continue to help businesses, employers and Canadians on an individual basis. There is an improved tax credit for educators. There is the ventilation tax credit, as the member mentioned.

In terms of the start date, whether it was September or another date, I am not privy to the rationale there. However, I know that the measures we brought in have helped Canadian businesses and have assisted them weather the storm. For any changes on ventilation, which is very important for businesses, we will continue to be there to assist them.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who so ably talked about the federal immunization campaign. I notice that the federal government is far from being immunized against encroachments into areas of provincial taxation.

Under the Constitution, taxation was originally the direct jurisdiction of the provinces, and the only area of taxation for which jurisdiction and the spirit of the Constitution are still respected is property tax.

With respect to taxing unoccupied housing, does my colleague not think that before the federal government starts taxing in areas of jurisdiction that are exclusively provincial, it should get the provinces' consent first?

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

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

I would like to say to him that our government worked very hard with all the provinces in Canada.

During the pandemic, we were there to support the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in long-term care homes.

On measures with regard to housing, obviously there are taxation measures that are very relevant to the federal government that we need to look at and we need to use. There are tools available for us. Our goal is to help with housing affordability and affordable housing. We have done that with the national affordability housing program. We will be bringing out a suite of measures that the minister has been working on. I look forward to seeing them. They were in our platform and Canadians voted for them. We are going to see them in the coming weeks and months.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying how much I appreciate the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge mentioning the cost of housing in his speech. In Kitchener, as he might know already, the cost of housing went up over 32% in the last year alone.

He mentioned an interest in going further and being more bold. For example, the underused housing tax that is in this legislation would only be for those who are non-Canadian, non-permanent residents. I wonder if, on the topic of blind bidding, for example, he might be interested in sharing more about his personal views on how we could go further to address the housing crisis we are in.

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

Mr. Speaker, on housing affordability we must table measures. One of them will be the $1 billion-plus national accelerator fund. We need to encourage municipalities to speed up the process of approving projects and get shovels in the ground faster. I always hear the comparison that in the United States it can take eight to 12 months to start putting shovels in the ground, but in Canada it is much longer. We must break down the red tape and get more housing built across this country. In my area, the prices that things are selling for are remarkable. We need to get supply out there. This is multi-jurisdictional, and we will work together with all jurisdictions and all levels of government to get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about inflation.

My friend and colleague for Vaughan—Woodbridge just mentioned that he was prepared to fight for the middle-class Canadian. I found that really interesting as I was listening to and reflecting on his comments, because Canadians are concerned about inflation.

When we ask about this in the House, especially on this side of the House, we hear that inflation is a global phenomenon. The government is quick to look at everyone else and say that if we look at this G7 country, it struggles with inflation. If we look at that G7 country, it struggles with inflation. Despite repeatedly asking the government about the housing bubble, it will not even acknowledge that one exists. We should look at everyone else, but not look here.

Let us remember what fuels inflation, which is more dollars chasing the same number of, or fewer, goods. That is my concern. That was my concern yesterday. That is my concern today, and that will be my concern tomorrow when we debate in the House the government flooding the Canadian economy with more money.

When I hear my colleague for Vaughan—Woodbridge talk about fighting for the middle class, I contemplate the middle class.

I would like to think that my upbringing was about as middle class as it comes. My parents were both Italian immigrants. My father worked at a sawmill after coming from Italy when he was in his teens. My mother stayed at home to raise us and she went back to work just before I became a teenager. I feel like that is pretty middle class.

I do not know how my family would have survived today. On top of that, we look at things like taxes, and taxes upon taxes: GST on top of a carbon tax. People have their CPP deductions, their EI deductions and their income tax. When I look at what the government puts out and I see increases in taxation, I get worried.

That is what I saw. I saw a 5% increase, to my best recollection, at the last economic update. When we talk about fighting for the middle class, it is really irreconcilable when we see tax upon tax. Canadians are being asked to give more. These are not just the people who can afford it, but really everybody: the lower class, the middle class and the upper class.

This may surprise some, but I do most of the cooking in my house. I do much of the shopping in my house, so I am keenly aware of the nature of inflation.

I have watched prices go up. I try to be an astute consumer, as my dad taught me to be, but let us face it. People are now paying the same amount for chuck as they did for rib-eye just one or two years ago. I have butcher shops in my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I am very proud that they carry local products. One such butcher shop is called Chop N Block. I love that they carry products from just down the road: beef from places like Devick's Ranch, for instance, and things such as that.

I have watched their prices go up. What was $35 a kilogram, and was a treat for most people when it came to meat, is now $50 a kilogram. That treat is now out of reach. Chop N Block and butcher shops like it have often fed the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo at reasonable prices. Those reasonable prices are escalating not because Chop N Block wants to make a greater profit, but because their costs are going up and those costs get passed on to the consumer.

I am deeply concerned when it comes to Bill C-8 and thinking of more spending, where it is going to go and how it is going to be evaluated and considered.

The average Canadian will spend an extra $1,000 on groceries. Carbon tax is set to increase at nine cents a litre come April 1. Putting aside exactly whether we agree or disagree with the carbon tax, the simple fact is that gas will rise at nine cents a litre on April 1. That will amplify the already escalating cost on groceries. When groceries go up and goods go up, prices go up.

I hear the government say that we have a target of 2% per year with the Bank of Canada. A target is great, but how is inflation going to be reduced?

The price of bacon has gone up. Most notably for me, the price of pasta has gone up. Not everyone is as fortunate as I am to have a backyard garden where I can make my own pesto sauce for pennies. Not everyone can pay the taxes upon the taxes. The fuel is surging and I am concerned about this.

I recently held an economic round table with business owners in my riding. I plan to make this, hopefully, a monthly activity. I asked what was concerning them. The constituents from the businesses said, “We need more workers.” When we think about any stimulus spending, any further spending and anything that pumps money into the economy, we are worried when we see “help wanted” signs everywhere. People need more workers. Inflation and carbon tax are making it difficult for businesses to get by. They also said that bureaucracy and red tape for projects could be crippling, and that the CERB criteria were not specific enough and the CERB was therefore abused. That impacted their employment prospects. These are all things that we need to consider when we think about spending more money in the House.

We have repeatedly questioned the housing minister about a housing bubble. We have questioned the finance minister about a housing bubble. I have yet to hear an acknowledgement of this. When we ask the minister about the housing bubble, he talks about everything the Conservatives did not vote for.

I will tell members what Canadians did not vote for. They did not vote for the average house price to go from $435,000 to $810,000 in the last few years. I did not vote for that. Canadians did not vote for that. Why do we not simply acknowledge this and say what we are going to do to address this?

I once wrote a paper about short-term payday loans. I talked about death by a thousand financial cuts in that paper. At the time, I never imagined I would be in the House of Commons talking about this same principle of death by a thousand small financial cuts. Canadians are seeing more and more of their paycheques going to the government. The Prime Minister has spent $176 billion in new spending unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was the Prime Minister who promised small, modest deficits, saying that $10 billion was where we were going to start and that the budget would then balance itself.

Here is the problem. It is easy for today's government to bring on debt. It is actually quite selfish to do so, especially when that debt is unnecessary. Let us make everyone happy and we will spend. Does someone want money? Here we go, but who pays? It is all of us who pay. Everyone pays income tax. Everybody pays this. Passing it on to the next generation is simply not the answer, and it does not make it the right thing to do.

I have concerns about spending, I have concerns about housing and I have concerns about inflation. I know that Bill C-8 has a lot to say. It is over 100 pages. These are some of my concerns that I wish to share with the House.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair, aspiring to a higher position.

I want to thank the member for his speech. Just to put something in context, in my hometown of Conception Bay South today, a litre of gas is $1.91. It is not cheap. The member is right.

The member mentioned in his speech that the cause of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few products. How do we get more products out there, or less money out there?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly sympathetic to the people of Conception Bay South with gas at $1.91. I still remember when the gas stations were making room for the one in front of the zero, in Vancouver when I was an undergraduate university student. That was not that long ago, and here we are. I am certainly sympathetic.

With respect to fewer goods or the same amount of goods, we have goods. Those goods generally, unless production can increase, are going to remain the same. The concern I have is with how much we spend. When the government puts money into the economy, that is more money in the economy. That money chases the same number of goods, and as a result supply and demand, or whatever we want to call it, fuels inflation. That is the point I was trying to make to the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a great addition since this Parliament began.

I would like to ask him a quick question in regard to what is not in this bill. At committee, the MP for Simcoe North brought forward an amendment that would in fact help the Prime Minister keep his commitments to Canadians on housing. It would basically ban foreign ownership or purchasing of residential properties here in Canada.

We were able to get it on the floor to be spoken on, but it was Liberal members who voted against it. I know he is facing many of the same pressures in his riding as I do in mine, and foreign ownership is part of that.

Why does he think the government voted against its own commitment? Is it because the Prime Minister only cares about those votes at election time and has no intention to carry through on his promise?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, as I have learned from members on all sides of the aisle, so I thank him for that.

I am not sure why the Prime Minister would have voted against this. This is a pretty clear-cut right thing to do. When we have foreign money coming in, it will increase costs. Not only that, when we talk about money laundering and ill-begotten gains, that money can come in and be not only a mechanism of inflation but also a mechanism of laundering. I am not sure why the Prime Minister did not take action on this, because it really would have been a multipronged approach to issues that are plaguing Canada.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spent much of his time in his intervention lamenting inflation and consumer costs, with zero reference to the stagnation of real wages for workers. He lamented taxation on incomes, but he made no reference to the record profits that have been hoarded by big corporations, complete with ridiculous CEO compensations and shareholder dividends.

The hon. member has made lots of criticisms on this, but no criticisms on the capitalism that fuels it. Would he care to comment on the impacts of inflation as they relate to real working class people, such as the folks I represent in Hamilton Centre?

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has one minute remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the clarification.

With the greatest of respect to the member for Hamilton Centre, I represent real working people as well. My riding has seen a record number of sawmills shut down. My riding is even complaining about not being able to find workers when we do have industries there.

With all due respect, I am not sure that simply capitalism is the problem here. The problem here is that the government is spending a lot more money. If he wants to talk about the minimum wage, he should talk to his provincial counterparts.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to see you in the chair. I hope we will see more of you there. It is a pleasure working with you at committee, but it is nice to see you in the chair today.

It is nice to intervene with my colleagues on Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation bill, but before I get to that, it seems rather appropriate to acknowledge the devastation that we see in Ukraine. What we see in the unprovoked aggression of the Russian Federation in Europe is heartbreaking. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the government have my full support to continue to respond in the harshest of terms. I would support them to take an even more aggressive approach and I look forward to a Canadian response that includes an increase in our humanitarian efforts and aid.

I have listened to many colleagues speak in the chamber about Bill C-8. We studied the bill at committee. I take this job very seriously. On its face, there are many items in Bill C-8 that seem rather reasonable, such as measures to support educators on an annual basis by increasing tax relief and measures to extend the COVID supports provided to businesses. How we will procure additional vaccines in the future is also addressed.

There are other areas that I have significant concerns about, in particular the proposed housing tax and the carbon rebate that the government has proposed for farmers. However, before I turn to these issues, I would like to address an overall objection that I have to the bill.

Legislation is constantly being sent to the House that has significant amounts of spending attached to it. We are never told how it will be funded, because the assumption is that these bills will be funded with debt. The assumption is that there is no limit to the debt this country can absorb and that when we want to fund our programs, the answer is to just add them to the deficit.

This is not sustainable. I am appealing to all my colleagues that we must hold the government accountable for its spending plans. If members agree with all the expenditures in the bill, that is completely fine, but unless the government is also going to propose areas where it will cut back in order to fund priorities, I cannot support this legislation. We are missing an opportunity to set priorities. There will be no objection from me on spending on the priorities that all Canadians rely on, including health care, education and social support programs, including those programs for our low-income and most vulnerable members of society, and of course our seniors.

We cannot just keep piling on debt and pretend that there are no consequences for future generations. On this basis alone, I am against the legislation, and until the government brings forward a proposal to review its spending and shows how any new spending will be met with reductions in other areas, it will be hard to persuade me to support future bills.

Until the government gets serious about setting priorities for its spending, we will continue to see difficulty passing legislation through the House. I think there is a reasonable debate we can have about what those priorities are, but I also want to know where it would like to cut back. I agree with a former Liberal leader who indicated that it was hard to set priorities. That is right, and if we have 100 priorities, I submit that we have none at all.

The Bank of Canada raised interest rates just two days ago, and it is projected that the bank will raise interest rates many more times before the end of the year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a projection indicating that the federal government alone could see interest payments on its debt increase to $40 billion a year annually. That is $40 billion a year that we are not spending on health care, that we are not transferring to the provinces for education, that we are not using to grow an inclusive economy.

A social democrat friend of mine recently told me that social democrats should care about fiscal responsibility because it means that governments do not waste in some areas so that they can spend in priority areas.

Let us think about that. We could be having a debate right now about how we could spend $40 billion. We could be debating pharmacare, a universal basic income or doubling or tripling the support for certain vulnerable groups in society. We could also be debating about how to provide much-needed tax relief for Canadians to keep the burden of taxation low on families and individuals, especially in an inflationary environment.

The Bank of Canada tells us the economy is robust. It tells us that the economy is operating at capacity. That also means new spending will have upward pressures on inflation. Many economists are recommending to the government that it review its spending and reconsider its proposals to introduce new spending plans, because at this point in the business cycle, new spending will have upward pressures on inflation, and we know the budget coming before us in a month or so will introduce new spending.

Last year's budget introduced almost $100 billion over three years, and curiously, I did not see one additional dollar for health care. At a time when health care expenditures in provinces are going up without any end in sight, at a time in a pandemic when health care spending is of the utmost importance, the government has not shown an approach that would see an increase in spending on health care.

Now I will turn to Bill C-8, and specifically to the two proposals I wanted to mention today that we had challenges with. We have just heard one of them in the recent intervention: the proposed underused housing tax for foreign purchasers or foreign owners. If we think a 1% tax is going to have any impact on purchasing behaviour or increase the level of supply across this country, we are sorely mistaken. When an asset price rises by 30% or 40% in a year, a 1% tax is not going to change somebody's behaviour and will not deter money launderers, so we put forward a reasonable amendment, which was to introduce a temporary ban to provide a reprieve on foreign purchases of Canadian real estate for two years.

This was a campaign commitment of both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in the last election. The Liberals are famous for making promises, but they typically make two kinds of promises: those they intend to keep and those they hope we forget about. Canadians want to know whether this is a commitment the government is walking away from.

With respect to the carbon tax as it relates to farmers, I have heard from farmers in my riding and across the country that the rebate does not go nearly far enough. I had one farmer send me a bill for $13,000, just in carbon tax, for natural gas to dry their product. We need to provide farmers with relief. They are the ones who feed our cities. They cannot afford additional taxes.

A carbon tax is supposed to do two things. It is supposed to raise revenue for the government and it is supposed to change behaviour. However, sometimes there are no alternatives available for changed behaviour, and with prices going up somewhere between 30% and 40% over the last year on natural gas and fuel across the country, the outcomes the carbon tax is hoping to achieve are already being achieved. The government needs to provide much-needed relief to farmers, but it also needs to reconsider raising the carbon tax on April 1 of this year, because in and of itself, this is an inflationary pressure.

I look forward to questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Simcoe North for his work on the finance committee, where he put forward suggestions to help the Prime Minister keep his commitment to Canadians. Unfortunately, the government members rejected those suggestions.

I wanted to talk a little more about the fiscal policy the member was raising in his speech. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has actually said the government has underestimated its debt servicing for the fiscal year 2026-27 by $6 billion. That is $6 billion that could take away from important services that Canadians count on.

Could the member please reflect for the chamber on this mismanagement of our finances and on the impact that this underestimating of debt service costs could have on Canadians?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It is wonderful working on the finance committee, and I am learning a lot from him.

With respect to the interest charges on debt, we absolutely need to worry about this. One of the justifications for the government's spending using deficit financing early on in its mandate was that interest charges were so low. They told us not to worry. Now we see challenges with interest rates going up, and we know that they are going to continue to increase.

Now, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, we see that there is maybe a $6-billion additional cost that otherwise was not considered. Where is that $6 billion coming from? Of course, we could continue to borrow the money, but eventually my grandchildren, who are not even born yet, will be bearing that cost. I think that we need to consider this very closely.

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

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

I have questions about social housing. As we know, the provinces are capable of managing their own budgets. When we talk about health care, we are talking about transfers. Why does the government not transfer these amounts to the provinces as well?

I think that the government is interfering. It should really hand over the related amounts to the provinces, which are responsible for housing.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that very good question, and I agree with her. I think that the government is underfunding health care transfers to provinces.

In 2015, the incoming Liberal government ran on a platform to increase provincial transfers, but it has not. In fact, it has increased certain amounts of money, but then tied strings or attached some conditions on what that money could be used for. I would submit that the provinces know best where and how to use the money they receive from the federal government to provide services to their citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. I know the member is new. I am certainly a big fan of his predecessor, so if he should see him in the future, I ask him to please pass along my hello.

I have brought this up a lot in the House, although I will accept the fact that the member may not have heard me speak of this given that he is relatively new. The price on pollution was not meant to be a revenue-generating item for the government. All the money goes back to individuals and back to farmers in many cases. It is intended to be a mechanism to change market patterns and the decisions that are out there.

Will the member at least acknowledge the fact that, of the money that is collected in the provinces where the federal government has to do it, that money is returned back to the public in various ways?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member makes a number of interventions and I find many of them helpful, because it allows me to answer some of these questions quite clearly.

We would not know where all of the money is that is collected, because the government does not really, in a transparent way, show us this. It also does not indicate the cost of administering the carbon tax and rebate program that it has introduced, but I would welcome the opportunity to look at that.

Let us remember that, if a carbon tax is supposed to affect and change the behaviour of Canadians by increasing the price, what we have just seen in the last year, with prices for fuel increasing by 40% to 50% in some cases, is accomplishing what the carbon tax is supposed to accomplish. The carbon tax is, in many ways, just redundant and salt in the wound for many Canadians who can least afford its increase.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you, especially since we will be closing out the week together. Thank you for recognizing me.

Today, we are debating Bill C-8, which contains a number of budget measures, which we support for the most part. The Bloc Québécois is a party that proposes and supports measures that are in Quebec's interest.

This bill includes several standard elements and funds allocated under agreements with first nations, which we must endorse. Generally speaking, because these measures are useful, we will vote in favour of this bill.

However, there is a big hole in the bill, as there is nothing to address the housing crisis. The pandemic has changed people's habits. Some sectors in the market are facing severe shortages and, as several colleagues mentioned, the cost of renting or buying has increased considerably.

The economy will reopen, and immigration will resume, because Canada will accept newcomers and foreign students. That makes us happy. However, that is going to put pressure on the housing market in Quebec and the provinces.

As we have said repeatedly, the federal government has almost completely disengaged over time. From 1960 to 1995, it worked with Quebec and the provinces. For example, it supported the construction of about 25,000 new housing units. These past 20 years, however, there has been nothing. I am not saying it is any one party's fault. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals are to blame for doing nothing, and now we have a major housing shortage.

The government has since launched the national housing strategy and plans to help build 6,000 units per year, but that will not do much to alleviate the shortage I was just talking about.

The program numbers are convoluted because they include provincial money, private sector money and other sources of funding. Not only is this program less generous than what the Liberal government would have us believe, but it has been complicated for Quebec.

We lost a good two-and-a-half years negotiating. Housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, which we confirmed when we examined the bill in committee. Nevertheless, the Liberal government insisted on trying to impose its conditions, which shows the federal spending power. The federal government holds the purse strings, and so it has the provinces on a string.

Now it has come back to haunt them. Prices are rising and everyone is concerned about it, so the government is looking for a magical solution by creating a new tax on unused housing. This is a fiscal microaggression, an expression I am sure our NDP colleagues will appreciate. It is a small tax that will generate only $100 million in revenue. That is a small amount, and it is really easy for people to get around paying it. I am no tax expert, but I predict that people from other countries who have a house in Canada will start sending their children here on vacation for a few days so that they do not have to pay this tax.

This is also a one-size-fits-all tax. I am an economist and, during my career, I often looked at CMHC reports and expert reports on the housing market. Experts in the field study the housing market one segment, province, region or metropolitan area at a time, and yet this government is proposing a one-size-fits-all tax that will be the same everywhere, without any of the distinctions that a competent individual would make between the different markets. Sometimes, I feel like I am the only one here who understands that Montreal is not Vancouver and Saint‑Colomban is not Halifax. That is a problem.

Despite all that, this tax infringes on the last big area of taxation over which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. Patrick Taillon, a professor at Université Laval and recognized constitutional expert, testified about this before our committee. He said, and I quote:

With this tax, the federal government is, for the first time in the history of Confederation, at least, to my knowledge [and he knows a lot about this], encroaching on a form of taxation thus far left, and rightly so, in the hands of local authorities at the municipal and provincial levels. I am referring to the property tax.

He said that the federal government had shown wisdom in leaving this in the hands of the provinces. I would argue that the federal government had already lost much of its remaining wisdom when it comes to respecting provincial tax jurisdictions, and now with Bill C-8, it has none left at all. The government is fully treading on provincial jurisdictions.

This is a serious first step, because it will require infrastructure. When the value of a property or an asset is assessed, it has to be taxed as a percentage. This requires officials and infrastructure, mainly at the municipal level. That is a big problem.

This shows us once again that the federal government cannot help but interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces at the slightest temptation and any time there is a crisis, especially one that it has partially or fully caused.

History shows that whenever the federal government decides to take a little foray into the provinces' tax fields, it is often a one-way trip, and Quebec ends up footing the bill. That is how it is, and I think it is extremely serious.

During the election campaign, the city of Saint‑Colomban held a fantastic debate hosted by its mayor, Mr. Lalande, whom I salute. The mayors have told us that all towns and cities in Quebec need more tax revenue and that they need to look after their infrastructure. Some municipalities are having infrastructure problems because of climate change.

These mayors were telling us that they cannot rely on property tax revenues alone. That is all our cities have left, but the federal government is poking its nose in. Of course, the government will tell us that it is a small tax of just $100 million, but it is about the principle.

At committee, Mr. Taillon pointed out that this tax might very well be unconstitutional. On top of that, it will be ineffective. I am very familiar with tax systems, and this one will not get the job done. Not only is it a mistake, but it also shows a lack of respect for the fiscal jurisdictions of the provinces, for the Constitution and for our municipalities, which are asking us not to allow anyone to set foot in their tax field.

The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment. There have been some major tax collection agreements. That is how Quebec got its own tax return. The other provinces get their tax base defined by the federal government. In the past, there have even been tax rental agreements, where some provinces rented their tax base to the federal government through a bilateral agreement. Some provinces did that, while others said no. Typically, Quebec was against that. Ontario did it and then withdrew, but it was done through a bilateral agreement.

In Quebec, we asked for common sense and respect for the Constitution, for Quebec and for historical precedents. We told the government that if it wanted to tread on our jurisdiction, then it needed to ask us ahead of time, and the provinces that were unwilling could establish their own policies. Quebec is capable of establishing its own housing policies, especially since housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, I have to blame the table for not allowing this amendment. The Bloc Québécois still thinks that this would have been a solution for allowing willing provinces to consent to the federal government using this tax. Unfortunately, this was refused. The fact remains that we need co-operation, which is missing from this clause from Bill C‑8.

I will close by quoting Mr. Taillon.

In short, if co‑operative federalism means anything, the very least the government can do is consult the provinces and negotiate agreements to implement this policy, in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Constitution. The co‑operative mechanism should not, for that matter, allow the federal government to exert any authority over property tax.

I would have said it myself, but it was said so well at the finance committee.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague from the Bloc add his comments on the price of commuting and gas in Quebec, including in Montreal and throughout rural Quebec, considering his familiarity with his home province. Gasoline prices have soared 33%. Natural gas is up 20%, and food costs are climbing, with beef up 12%.

Could the member reiterate his thoughts on how this is impacting his home province?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents and I certainly are worried about the price of gas and the price of many other things.

This is further proof that we must accelerate the energy transition. Naturally, someone who has no need for gas or whose gas consumption is decreasing is less affected by this price increase.

Unfortunately, the price of oil is being affected by geopolitics and the war in Ukraine. However, we should be wary of using geopolitics or crises where people are suffering as an excuse to produce or export more dirty oil from western Canada.

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

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

I would like to know if my colleague shares my belief, and that of the NDP, that the economic update released a few months ago and the finance bills squandered opportunities to make up for all the cuts to health care. That happened under the former Harper government. The Liberal government has continued with these cuts, so people are struggling in the health care sector. Whether they are in Quebec or British Columbia, people everywhere are having a hard time.

Does my colleague believe that these were missed opportunities for the government, which is not providing adequate funding for our health care system?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that more health care funding is needed. I think that the government needs to unconditionally increase health transfers to cover 35% of system costs.

I do want to make a small correction. I am very concerned about the federal government interfering in provincial jurisdictions and, in many respects, I do not agree with the NDP's proposed funding method, which would involve even more interference in Quebec's jurisdictions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent, dynamic speech.

My question has to do with the underused housing tax.

Constitutional expert Patrick Taillon told the Standing Committee on Finance that it was probably unconstitutional and would be nullified by the courts. One of the concerns Mr. Taillon raised was that, in the meantime, Ottawa would have put a whole system in place to collect a property tax and that it would use this system in the future. There is a risk here.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I find funny is that the Liberals are telling us that it was in their platform.

I am stunned that they have not read their own platform, because I can assure them that we would have noticed. Nothing is more permanent than a temporary little tax. This will have long-lasting effects and will likely be expanded.

We should all be as concerned as my colleague from Joliette.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we begin Private Members' Business, I want to inform the member for Mirabel that he will have one minute remaining for questions and comments when this debate resumes.

The House resumed from March 4 consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair. We have not had the occasion to get to know each other very well. You have a lot of respect in the House, and that comes from colleagues of yours in Nova Scotia and colleagues on both aisles of the House. I wish you well in the role.

I am here to talk about Bill C-8. Bill C-8, as we know, would implement certain critical components of the economic and fiscal update that was tabled in December 2021. The government has made clear that this bill is a fundamental priority. I see that our colleagues in the House of Commons have looked at it in detail at the finance committee level and we are now at report stage.

I will take an opportunity here to offer my thoughts. There are so many aspects to the bill; it is quite detailed. However, I think it is best to focus on those areas that speak to concerns that my constituents have had over the pandemic, because the bill is entirely focused on the pandemic and the response to it. I will speak to it in that regard.

Before I do, let me reflect on the experience of the past two years, if I could, in a very brief way. There are many lessons to be learned. There is a lot of analysis that has been done and is yet to be completed. That will be left to historians, among others, to put together. When the history of the experience of COVID-19 is written, we will see a fundamental question at the centre of it: What is the role of government in everyday lives? What is the role of government when emergency strikes, when a crisis hits? That is exactly what COVID-19 represents.

There is a view of governing that was quite popular prior to the pandemic, a current of thought or an ideology, if one likes. It is libertarianism, which counsels that a government's role should be limited at best. Governments should provide for a military, a police force, only basic taxation and the maintenance of roads and other infrastructure. Apart from that, they should get out of the way and let people, as the ideology explains, thrive on their own and let individuals be exactly that, individuals. It offers a very precise understanding of individual rights, but at the same time a very limited understanding of individual rights.

That ideology has been called into question. Some in the House will still embrace it, no doubt, namely my friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party. However, I do not think the ideas of libertarianism stand the test of the pandemic. In fact, what we have seen is an approach to crisis and emergency that makes clear the important and fundamental role that government can and must play in response to crises such as COVID-19. There is no doubt the future will hold other crises. There could be other pandemics in the future. We hope not, but it is very possible. Other crises are bound to strike, and the experience of COVID offers a blueprint of what government can do in response to such situations.

In my community of London, Ontario, one of the larger cities in the country, people rallied around one another. They deserve tremendous credit for the way they came together to address the problem of COVID, with neighbours reaching out to neighbours and people who had never even met making sure that their loved ones were taken care of. I am thinking of seniors, for example, who did not have the opportunity, as it would have been dangerous for them to go out, to get groceries and other necessities. They had neighbours whom they had never met stand up for them and do what was needed. That was an example during the pandemic of unity and of people standing up for one another and with one another.

At the same time, we saw governments at all levels step up. In the case of the federal government, a number of emergency programs were introduced so that people could get by and businesses could continue to exist. This is not speculation on my part.

The former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, came to the finance committee a number of times. He has made very clear publicly since he left his role, and certainly when he held it, that had it not been for the emergency programs the government introduced, specifically the Canada emergency response benefit, the wage subsidy and the Canada emergency business account, or the CEBA, which provided substantial loans for businesses, the pandemic itself would have overwhelmed Canadian society and the economy. We may well have seen bread lines.

I put the question to the former governor about whether it would have been possible to see bread lines in Canadian communities such as London had it not been for those emergency programs, and he agreed. I invite colleagues to go back and look at what he said then and what he is saying now.

The government has a fundamental role to play, and Bill C-8 speaks to that. As far as Bill C-8 is concerned, there are a number of critical aspects relating to the pandemic. I am only going to speak about three.

First of all, there is the COVID-19 proof of vaccination fund. This would allocate funding for provinces and territories to implement proof of vaccination systems. Funding would go toward helping to pay for the establishment of proof-of-vaccination credential programs established by provinces and territories and also the issuing of proof of vaccination credentials to residents. There is $300 million allocated for this purpose if the bill passes, and I think it will. It certainly has the support of this side of the House. There is not a member, I think, who does not recognize the importance of helping provinces in this way, because they have also shouldered the burden. We have been there time and again to work with them on important programs such as the one I just mentioned.

Second, there is the safe return to class fund. As we remember, this was originally a $2-billion fund to help ensure the safe return to school. Under Bill C-8, a further $100 million would top up this fund to help with ventilation in classrooms, for example, for better air filtration for kids in schools. This is of fundamental importance. Another lesson of the pandemic is that schools, among other institutions, were not well enough equipped to deal with the emergency that COVID-19 spelled, so this funding would go to that very purpose.

Let me finally mention that the bill would allocate funding for helping with rapid test costs. Originally, we saw $1.72 billion allocated from the federal government to provinces so rapid tests could, first of all, be procured but also distributed, which is fundamental in dealing with COVID-19. Of course, rapid tests do not provide the answer, but they are a tool in the tool box as far as the pandemic is concerned. This is in addition to the $900 million that was already allocated for this purpose.

I will revise what I said. There is $1.72 billion in Bill C-8 for this purpose on top of the $900 million I just mentioned that was already sent to the provinces for this reason.

The point is that COVID-19 itself changed Canadian society. Its effects continue to be felt. Its effects will continue to be felt for years to come. We need to learn about that and will continue to analyze that, but also think deeply about the role of government in everyday life as we continue to deal with and grapple with the impact the pandemic had on each and every one of us.

I look forward to questions.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this bill, the Liberals had the opportunity to make life more affordable for Canadians, but instead they are continuing to let the big companies, and the people at the very top, profit from the pandemic without actually paying their fair share.

Why is there nothing in this bill to close the tax loopholes or offshore tax havens? Why do the Liberals continue to refuse to make the richest pay their fair share?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just point to the fact that it was this government that cut taxes for the middle class, which is something we did not see during the era of Reaganomics practised by the Harper Conservatives. It was this government that introduced the Canada child benefit, which is something that has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

It is this government that has put forward a meaningful agenda of tax fairness, and one that will be continued, as we saw yesterday. We will work with our colleagues in the opposition, and namely our colleagues in the NDP. The agenda will certainly, I hope at least, galvanize support throughout the House because we do need greater tax fairness in this country. This government is absolutely committed to that outcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very struck by the tough question from the NDP to the government. It seems like there is some trouble in paradise already between the NDP and the Liberals here, because the NDP signed an agreement to support the government's agenda and now it is already trying to say that the government is not good enough. Maybe this is a harbinger of things to come.

I note, as well, that the member just claimed that the Liberals introduced the idea of the Canada child benefit. Let us remember that, actually, it was Conservatives who introduced the idea of giving money directly to parents for child care. Liberals said they could not give money to parents, as they would just spend it on “beer and popcorn”, but the program was so successful that the Liberals have now tried to rename it and claim that it was their idea.

Will the member acknowledge the Conservative proposals? We have tried to work with the government and get it to do better. It was us who pushed for a higher wage subsidy, after all. The government has now spent so much money, and there have been so many scandals in the midst of that spending, and we have seen more debt run up by the Prime Minister in his time in office than in the entirety of Canadian history up until now.

Is the member concerned about the impact on the next generation, in terms of debt, the deficit, higher prices and inflation?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things there. I do not know where to begin. It will not be a surprise that I cannot agree at all with the member.

First of all, he is a graduate, as I understand it at least, of the London School of Economics, so he will understand, I hope, the basics of parliamentary democracy. The governing side sits here and the opposition sits there, so an accord is not a coalition. That is the first thing that needs to be put to the member. I know he is upset that parties have found a way to work together, but we will do so on behalf of Canadians.

On the point about the child care benefit that was introduced under former prime minister Harper, that was not a means-tested benefit. That benefit sent millions of dollars, in fact, to millionaire families, and that is not meaningful public policy.

As far as the fiscal issues that he raises, first of all, inflation is not in the hands of the federal government to control, but we are helping Canadians deal with costs. Child care would be an example. We will continue to work on pharmacare and now dental care to make sure life is more affordable, and we will present budgets that are absolutely fiscally responsible. I look forward to the coming weeks to see exactly that outcome.

Certainly, gone are the days of cut, cut, cut, when we saw the Harper Conservatives lead the country into an economic mess that this government has helped to clean up.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of degrees, I know my colleague is a graduate of Queen's University and Western University, so I assume he is capable of calculating a marginal tax rate.

The Liberals keep talking about their middle‑class tax cuts, but they do not seem to understand that when the tax rate is lowered by 1.5% for the tax bracket for people making just under $90,000, it is the rich who benefit.

Does my colleague realize that, with the Liberals' much-vaunted tax cut for the middle class, a household with two $150,000 incomes received 50 times the tax relief that a family with two $50,000 incomes got?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting to know my colleague across the way. I understand that we both went to Queen's, so that is only a good thing. We could build off of that to hopefully help deal with some of our disagreements, and we disagree on this point.

I only point to the example set by Madam Lagarde, who, in her time with the International Monetary Fund, made clear that the fiscal approach taken by this government was absolutely fair and progressive and put in place taxation measures that benefited the middle class, so that everybody could thrive and find a way forward, in terms of equality of opportunity in this country. We are going to continue to pursue such an agenda.

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

Mr. Speaker, members will have to bear with me today as I am not feeling so good. I think my sickness is caused by this new Liberal-socialist-quasi-communist Canada we are going to live in over the next three and a half years.

I want to start my speech by quoting professor Ian Lee from Carleton University. Dr. Lee came to the finance committee on Monday, February 7 of this year, and he brings a wealth of knowledge of banking and public policy. Here is what he said:

[It's] very difficult to put the [inflation] genie back in the bottle unless you take quite draconian measures.

That's not an opinion or a theory. We can look at the 1970s and where it ended up in 1980, and it took interest rates to 20%... it caused the worst recession in North America since the Depression.

Dr. Lee added that:

[Yes], there are solutions to inflation, but they're very, very painful...

Being a student of history, I hope we do not make the same mistakes of the 1970s by pumping cash into the market when it is not necessary. The economy is back to prepandemic levels, and this is what concerns me. When I see over $70 billion of new spending injected into the economy at a time when it cannot handle it, this is what will add to inflation, and it will drive the rate up.

I get calls from constituents in Miramichi—Grand Lake saying, “Jake, I can't afford my hydro bill.” “Jake, we can't afford bacon any more.” “I'm choosing between my hydro bill and pharmaceuticals.” I get these calls every day. I even got a call from a student who was worried that her bank account was going to be frozen because she donated 20 bucks to the convoy. These are the types of calls that members of Parliament are getting, especially in Miramichi—Grand Lake, which is a very rural area.

We need to distinguish between what we need and what we want, and focus on spending needs only. This way, we can justify spending in Canada, and we can justify our constituents' tax money during this inflation crisis. The Liberals and the NDP talk about the climate crisis every day. It is in every speech. It is the solution to every problem, yet the Liberals do not talk about inflation and the fact that the cost of living in our country is becoming so unaffordable that people cannot afford the basic things they need to survive in this country.

We need to stop putting the cart before the horse. We need to start producing the goods that people need to buy, which will create the cash in our economy, and not go the other way around by just printing more and more cash and then putting it in the economy without increasing our output of product. All that does is make more dollars chase fewer goods. This is a key contributor to inflation, and I can guarantee members that Canadian citizens in the ridings of all the members in this chamber are experiencing inflation.

This is another example of a tax-and-spend Liberal, and now Liberal-NDP coalition, government. The government is going to say, “Hey, look at all the wonderful things we gave you”, but in reality the taxpayers are paying for it. The taxpayers are paying for these things, with interest, and now there is the added cost of inflation.

When the Prime Minister assumed office in 2015, a typical home cost $435,000. Now, it is over $868,000. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister. He has now doubled the cost of a home in our country. That is what he has done for his constituents, and that is what he has done for all the people in Miramichi—Grand Lake.

Since the start of the pandemic, the government has brought in $176 billion in new spending, which is totally unrelated to COVID‑19. I think it is relevant to bring this up and get it on the record. The majority of the people I speak with do not believe that it could be possible. They say things like they never heard that on the news and there is no way the government could be allowed to do that. They wonder why they have not heard it on TV or somebody has not reported on it. These are the things my constituents are saying.

My constituents in Miramichi—Grand Lake do not want their grocery bill to increase every single time they make a trip to the grocery store. It is not fair to them. It is not economically feasible. The cost of living in this country is crippling Canadians. They are not able to pay for hydro. Their kids cannot leave the basements of their houses when they are in their thirties to get a home in this country.

Chicken is up 6.2%. Beef is up 11.9%. Bacon is up 19.1%. Bread is up 5%. These are all products that can be produced right here at home in Canada. The writing is on the wall. It is time the government took the time to read it. Canadians do not want inflation to skyrocket like it did in the 1970s. “Justinflation” is real, and we are all paying for it every single day.

Earlier this week, I had the opportunity to ask the economist Dr. Dehejia, from Carleton University, about this very topic. He told the committee, “I certainly don't think that our inflation problem is driven by transitory factors. I think when you look at the reality of it, in fact Mr. Robson mentioned correctly that some three-quarters or more of the basket in the CPI has gone up in price. That isn't just because of the war on Ukraine or oil...supply disruptions from the pandemic, those things...at the margin...would be maybe 1% of our current 5.7% are factors that may disappear. But when the money supply is growing at 14%, 20%, it is basically a monetary phenomenon. We're [all] just printing too much money. So I'd say no, it's not transitory.”

This is from a Carleton University professor, and I have quoted two economists today. Inflation is crippling Canadians.

I do not support Bill C-8 and neither does the Conservative Party of Canada. This is why. We want a Canada where we produce more goods, keep costs down, build more houses and do the things that allow Canadians to have a home, contribute, invest locally and be part of their community. We do not want a Canada that is governed by total and outright socialism by the members across the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake the following. When we look at the content of Bill C-8, the funds for vaccines, for HVAC systems in schools and businesses, and what we are doing on the housing front to ensure we address the issue of housing affordability, how can the member opposite not support such measures that benefit his constituents and Canadians from coast to coast to coast?

I think it is almost on the realm of irresponsibility for the member opposite and his colleagues to not support measures that support Canadians, such as funds for vaccines and improving schools, as well as to help educators across this country. I would like the member opposite to address that because we have been there for Canadians since the start of the pandemic. We will continue to have their backs, and the backs of businesses owners, from coast to coast to coast.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, on Monday, at committee, said that there was no housing crisis in Canada and that we had a healthy supply and a healthy housing market. This is the type of hypocrisy that I hear in committee.

I will remind the member of this: He mentioned vaccines. I got an email yesterday from a woman who had to purchase so many mandatory masks during the mandate, which was put in place from across the aisle, and she could not claim them on her income tax. Of course, as the national revenue critic, I get all sorts of emails, but here is a guy who is talking about having the backs of Canadians when he has crippled Canadians with mountains of debt, inflation and now hypocrisy.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about how hard it is for people right now, and I absolutely and totally agree with him. In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, people are struggling to survive.

However, what I find shocking is that he talks about people struggling to survive a pandemic, yet his party wanted to cut CERB payments from workers, even the frontline workers who kept us fed during the pandemic. They also voted against sick time.

There was a motion put forward yesterday to generate revenue and tax billionaires. What did his party do? It voted against it. The member's party seems to vote against anything that helps people and vote for everything that supports their corporate buddies. Does my hon. colleague support lifting corporations up on the backs of people?

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is already hard to get women to run for politics. To see this kind of behaviour in the House of Commons, the heckling and the absolute assault coming from the Conservative benches, is absolutely appalling. I would like the member who was yelling at her to apologize.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank the hon. member, but his point of order is more a matter of debate.

That said, all members of the House are obviously asked to keep the tone of debate very respectful.

The hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a typical day in the House of Commons to have virtue signalling from the socialist and communist parties here.

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

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

Here is what I will say. I support the development from—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him, but the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from the NDP just used language that is absolutely unparliamentary, and I would ask that he retract and apologize for the language that he just used.

You can ask him what that language was, Mr. Speaker. The member for Courtenay—Alberni can repeat the words he just shared with me, and we will see if the Clerk sees that as unparliamentary.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I understood the intervention by the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

Would the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni like to speak to this point of order?

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

Mr. Speaker, after the heckling directed at my female colleague, I responded. I do apologize. I called him a misogynist pig, and I should not have done that. It was unparliamentary. I ask that my apology be accepted, and I retract those words to him. It was the wrong thing to do, and I will try to keep myself under control in the future.

However, I do ask for decorum here and that we respect people speaking in the House. A woman should feel safe in this work environment. This needs to be a safe workplace.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni having apologized to the House, I consider the matter closed.

I invite the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake to finish his answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to debate a bill, and we are dealing with virtue signalling and hypocrisy. I will tell members where it is coming from. It is coming from the government that nobody wanted in Canada, the NDP, the party that is now going to be the government with the real government, which was given a minority. Everyone in Canada knows the stink that is on both of them at this moment, because one is worse than the other.

All we get in here is virtue signalling and total hypocrisy on both sides. I have had enough of that. I hope they realize that, every day that I come in here, I am going to do this job. I am going to promote gas and oil. I am going to promote the things that Canadians need to pay for their economy while the rest of them are going to do nothing.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Natural Resources; the hon. member for Yellowhead, The Economy; the hon. member for King—Vaughan, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-8, and not for the first time. I think one of the things to recall about Bill C-8 from the original debate is just how underwhelming it was as a response to the circumstances that the country found itself in at the time of the fall economic statement, and the circumstances that we continue to find ourselves in. I think “underwhelming” is the word to capture what is going on in this bill.

This is a time when we have heard some talk about this already indicating that Canadians are really facing extraordinary pressure with respect to the cost of living. That is very much true in the case of housing. We saw the beginnings of a Liberal attempt to try to address some of those issues in the housing market in this bill with an underused housing tax.

It is our point of view that there are a number of loopholes with this tax that are going to seriously undercut its effectiveness. We do think it is appropriate to try to undertake policy initiatives that will help relieve some of the pressure on the housing market, but there is a lot more that needs to be done.

Other measures in this bill include money for rapid tests and some money to assist provinces in preparing proof of vaccination documents that will be required from Canadians when they travel to other jurisdictions. Those will continue to be a useful tool for travel until worldwide requirements for vaccination no longer apply. We think it makes sense for the federal government to be there, providing some assistance to provinces in preparing that documentation.

We also think it makes sense for the federal government to continue to source rapid tests and distribute them to the provinces or to provide resources to the provinces to be able to source those things themselves for, as much as many public health restrictions have been lifted across the country, the fact is that COVID is still very much here. There is still very much a possibility of it resurging again in various forms. It makes sense for governments be prepared in case that does happen. Rapid tests will be an important tool in that regard.

While this bill is rather underwhelming, we do not think that is a reason for it not to go ahead. In the fall out of having a rather underwhelming bill and an underwhelming fall economic statement, New Democrats have undertaken to try and get the government to do more of what it needs to do to respond to the real needs of Canadians, such as housing, which I mentioned earlier. That is why, in the agreement that was struck between the Liberals and the New Democrats in the House, we talk about changing the definition of affordability in the national housing strategy, which has too often resulted in public funds contributing to building units of housing that actually are not affordable for many of the Canadians who need government intervention to build units that they can see themselves moving into and being able to pay for month to month. We know that is an issue for too many Canadians. We have heard lots of stories.

I shared a story in the House, I believe it was yesterday, of a gentleman who has a job and was living on his own. He is an adult but had to get his teeth fixed. He had to move back in with his parents because he could not afford the cost of it. He had to borrow a lot of money to have his mouth fixed, and that meant that he could not afford to live independently any more and probably not for some time. Those are costs that Canadians are contending with right now.

Yesterday, we saw a Conservative motion that talked about lifting the GST from the price of gas at the pump. I have heard Conservatives today complain about the cost of gas, not only at the pump but also in home heating. As I said yesterday, there is some agreement there in terms of wanting to be able to provide relief for Canadians, which is why I proposed an amendment to their motion to have the GST lifted off home heating.

That something that would apply not just to those getting oil and gas at the pump, but also to a broader range of Canadians. I hazard a guess that although there are many, many Canadians who drive a vehicle every day, there are many more who benefit from home heating. I think that is a larger category. I think that is fair to say. I have not done the research, I will admit, but I think it is probably fair to say there are more Canadians who heat their homes than drive cars. I am guessing, having just survived another Winnipeg winter.

We felt that was a broader-base measure for tax relief that did not only apply to oil and gas and that would have the advantage of having it be harder for the companies that are charging Canadians for the use of that energy to just raise their prices to make up the difference. In many cases, when it comes to the cost of home heating, that is delivered through a utility. There are usually regulations in place that require those companies to go to an independent body to authorize price hikes.

We are here to talk about those kinds of things. We are also here to get action. We are working towards getting the government to change the definition of affordability under the national housing strategy. We have a commitment now from a government that just nine months ago voted against having a dental care plan to moving ahead with a dental care plan, something that is going to make a tangible difference in the lives of Canadians and that is going to help them afford something that is right now beyond reach.

It is likewise with pharmacare. Again, just within the last 12 months or so, the NDP proposed legislation to enshrine the legislative infrastructure we need for a national pharmacare plan to help provide relief for the cost of prescription drugs. Again, my Conservative colleague who just spoke on this bill earlier referenced the cost of prescription drugs and how hard it is to afford them. We have a real idea for how we can make that affordable. It is not just the NDP's idea, but it is something that civil society advocates have done the research on, have been pushing for for a long time and have shown that not only could we extend service and make prescription drugs more affordable for people but that we could actually do it with an overall savings to the taxpayer in the order of about $4 billion every year.

Parliament is a difficult place on the best of days, particularly minority Parliaments. People sometimes take comfort, and not just the government but even, I daresay, sometimes on opposition benches, in a majority government because there is a sense of how things are going to go and how they are going to unfold. We have our usual mechanisms for trying to call out the government for their shortcomings in a majority. There are more options in a minority Parliament in the Westminster system, but our duty remains the same, which is to hold the government to account, to try to use our position and our power in this place to get the things done that we said we would endeavour to do, and to shine a light on the activities of government to make sure that it is doing those things and it is doing them well.

We have seen many examples, let alone outside of Canada but also within Canada at the provincial levels, of confidence and supply agreements where certain parties, for the sake of some political stability and the sake of making progress on items they deem important, agree to a certain level of co-operation with the government of the day, which is not at all a relinquishment of their duty as an opposition party to examine the work of government and to hold it to account.

In question period today, we heard New Democrats asking what I think were difficult questions. Certainly by the government's response they were difficult questions. That is the kind of work we are going to continue to do. We heard questions about the government's failure so far to ensure it is getting people out of Ukraine in a serious emergency, and the bureaucratic hurdles that are making it impossible for people to get out of Ukraine and get to the safety of Canada. Those are things that need to be fixed.

We have an agreement to work on some of the things on which we could find common ground with the government of the day. Bill C-8 stands out as an example of why it was so important to be able to develop tools to push the government to do things it is reluctant to do; things it said it would not do, like a dental care plan; things that it has been reluctant to do, like pharmacare; and then some of the things it said it would do but we all know from our experience in this place that those commitments are not sufficient from the government and so other tools are needed in order to get the government to follow through on the things it said it would do.

That is why I am looking forward, and the proof will be in the pudding. I am looking forward to seeing some real, concrete action and initiatives in the next budget that are far more inspiring than what we saw in the fall economic statement and the subsequent Bill C-8.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair.

When we look at Bill C-8, I am a bit surprised by how forward the Conservative Party has been in its opposition to the bill, given the actual content of the bill. For example, it talks about the purchasing of rapid tests, which were in great demand by the provinces back at the beginning of the year. There was an obligation for the federal government to provide these rapid tests. If it were not for the federal government doing it, there would have had to be another level of government. If not that, then it would be people who might not be able to afford rapid tests.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the contents of the bill, which, one would think, the Conservative Party would have been supporting?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I had said in so many words, or just about, in my speech, this bill is far more disappointing in its ambition than in its substance. One of the things that is a bit better about this bill, and something that I worked on with members of other opposition parties, the Bloc and the Conservatives, is a provision for better reporting on the money that has been allocated for rapid tests. That is something that we in the NDP thought was important because the bill would authorize a rather major expense. We have heard from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the government has been late in filing its public accounts. Therefore, we thought that additional financial reporting was warranted, given the size of the expenditure. I also worked with members of the Conservative Party and the Bloc on Bill C-2, a bill that we opposed, to get some assurances that companies who received the new wage subsidy would not be able to pay dividends to their shareholders if the companies were recipients of the wage subsidy.

This is a place where we come to work. We negotiate with various parties to try to get done the things we promised our electors we would do.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not normally do this on my phone. I just got a message from the Liberal Party. It says to thank the member for his work.

I am just wondering if there is any level of discomfort at any level of debt. Obviously, it feels good to spend money. I know the member said, as a social democrat, that spending is important to him. What is the number, the debt-to-GDP ratio, that he feels uncomfortable with? Is it 50%? Is it 80%? Is it 100%, or are we just going to spend ourselves into oblivion?

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

Mr. Speaker, any time we are talking about deficits and public debt, we cannot just talk about spending. We also have to talk about revenue. This is something that is always missing from the conversation when Conservatives want to talk about deficits.

This is why the NDP has proposed a wealth tax on fortunes of $10 million and over. It is why we proposed an excess-profit tax for large corporations that made more profit during the pandemic period than they had in the preceding years. It is why we continue to speak against tax havens. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated Canadians lose $25 billion in tax revenues every year through these tax haven agreements. I could go on.

Let us talk about appropriate spending. Let us talk about smart investment. Let us talk about balancing the budget, not only by looking at our costs but also looking at the revenues that we have coming in, as any responsible business would do.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP is not the only agreement that was negotiated in the dead of night. The 1982 Constitution, which was negotiated in the middle of the night to the detriment of Quebec, clearly states that health is a responsibility of Quebec.

Can my colleague tell me why the NDP is always ready to help everyone? It is even prepared to help the Liberals have a majority.

However, it is never there when it comes to respecting Quebec's jurisdictions or getting the Prime Minister to sit down with the premiers of Quebec and the nine other provinces to arrange health transfers with no strings attached.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not recall this because I do not think he was elected at the time. However, on pharmacare, in one of our motions in a previous Parliament, the action we were talking about and wanted the government to do was to convene a meeting with the provinces to talk about how to move forward on pharmacare. The Canada Health Act is a long-standing framework under which the federal government has funded health services, and it is not enough. There is a need to increase the health transfer, including health transfers without conditions.

We are far apart from the Bloc on this, but we are not far away from respecting provincial jurisdiction. We just believe that the federal government can continue to play a meaningful convening role and funding role in health care in Canada.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your role. It is wonderful to see you take part in a fine Canadian federal institution such as the Speaker.

I am pleased to rise again to talk about Bill C-8. It is another massive Liberal spending bill, with little oversight and probably little chance of delivering on what they have talked about. It is almost a Liberal pre-engagement gift to our colleagues in the NDP.

To summarize, the fall fiscal update added $70 billion in new spending and this is spending on top of that. This is $70 billion, as I mentioned, that does not even include the Liberals' campaign promises, which will be tens of billions more for their election goodies. This is going to add on top of what we saw in the public accounts, the $1.4 trillion of debt for the Canadian taxpayers. Think about that: $70 billion more on top of the $1.4 trillion that has already been added up until now. That does not even include probably $100 billion to $200 billion, depending on which discount rate we use, for unfunded public service pension liabilities and hundreds of billions of dollars more in Crown corporation debt that is not accounted for.

One of the problems I have with Bill C-8, and I have talked about this a lot in the House and in committee, is the lack of proper oversight for the bills and spending. We have heard the previous Treasury Board president admit to committee that he had not been following the rules. We saw it with the WE Charity scandal. The Treasury Board is required to have, for their submissions, an official language analysis. The Treasury Board, under the current government, decided to ignore it and not require an official language analysis, even though it is right in the rules that it is required. They break these rules in order to benefit their friends at the WE Charity, which, of course, was funding members of the Prime Minister's family.

We saw it with the wage subsidy, with the $100 billion. We asked the President of the Treasury Board if it had gone through the Treasury Board approval process. It had not. This is, again, the problem we have. The Treasury Board rules are not just suggestions. They are not mere guidelines. These are actual rules. The Treasury Board is supposed to be the gatekeeper, the adult in the room at the cabinet meeting to ensure that Canadians are getting value for their taxpayer money.

What did we see? The Treasury Board said they were not going to look at that and that it was more important to get the announcement out than to do its job. Therefore, $100 billion did not go through Treasury Board approval.

What did we get? We heard about massively profitable companies making out like bandits. We hear the NDP demanding higher taxes on these companies with excess profits, but it is funny that we never hear them going against their colleagues in the Liberal government to end these massive subsidies and this corporate welfare. As long as we are spending, that is okay. They do not care where it is spent.

We saw that with the Liberals. We saw the Thomson family, one of the wealthiest, the second, if not the top, wealthiest family in the country, receive money in the wage subsidy. Companies like Berkshire Hathaway, worth half a trillion dollars in market cap, a company owned by the Oracle of Omaha, got money from taxpayers in the wage subsidy. Then there is Nike and Rogers. Rogers has $25 billion to do a buyout bid for Shaw Communications, yet it got money from the government. Chinese state-owned banks and airlines received wage subsidy money.

Of course, what would a government handout from the Liberals be without money going to their friends at Irving? It was not enough that they are getting, probably, a $100-billion contract for the Canadian surface combatants and hundreds and hundreds of millions more for the offshore patrol ships, yet the Liberals are also giving them wage subsidies.

As for the offshore patrol ships, the way shipbuilding works, the first ship is the most expensive, the second one a bit less expensive and so on, as the company learns and improves productivity. The sixth, seventh and eighth ships should be a lot less expensive, yet, for the government, with Irving, the price is going up. The more ships, the more productive they get, but somehow the ships are becoming more expensive. Again, it is just another handout without proper Treasury Board oversight.

We heard of an exclusive ski club with a $43,000 membership. We hear the government talk a lot about the middle class and those hoping to join the middle class. How many in the middle class can afford $43,000 for a membership at a ski club? This ski club had $13 million for a new lodge, paid $13,000 in taxes and yet got $1.4 million from the government for the wage subsidy.

Here are some of the other companies. Suncor energy, much as I love energy companies, with a $31-billion market cap rate, got money. Bell Canada was another. Couche-Tard from Quebec, with a $45-billion market cap, got money. Lululemon is another. The money was used for share buybacks and executive bonuses.

Unlike our colleagues in the G7 or the OECD that were also offering wage subsidies, we were the only country that did not set up fencing around who got the money. Britain had a program for wage subsidies, but it banned the use of money for share buybacks and executive compensation. Not this government. “Why?”, we asked. Well, it did not go through a Treasury Board program. We asked the Auditor General. Her comment was that the government did not set up the fencing even though it knew it would be more expensive and knew that companies would take advantage of that.

The CRA did not have all the information it needed to validate the reasonableness of the applications before issuing payments. Why is that important? The Auditor General stated that $300 million in the first tranche of the funding went to companies with a high risk of insolvency. He stated and showed that $2 billion had gone out to companies that had not filed taxes or GST remittances in years. The CRA knows that these companies have a much higher chance of going into bankruptcy. It is one of its leading indicators of companies going into bankruptcy, and yet the government handed out the money without any oversight. The Auditor General's report stated, “We noted that the subsidy was paid to applicants despite their history of penalties for failure to remit and other advance indicators of potential insolvency.” This is the Auditor General. This is not a partisan Conservative MP. Again, why was there no oversight?

I will go back to the poor planning. We have been asking for rapid testing since 2020. If members go back to Hansard, they will see many requests from our health critics over the last two years for more money for rapid testing. Those requests fell on deaf ears.

The government will say, “Well, look, there's $1.7 billion in Bill C-8 for rapid testing, and there is also $2.3 billion in Bill C-10.” I am sure that is going to come back as well, so it is $4 billion. “Big deal”, members are probably thinking, “That's great.” However, in the supplementary estimates (C), which are being deemed reported tomorrow, there is also $4 billion for rapid testing. Therefore, is there $8 billion for rapid testing, because that is what the government is asking approval for? Well, no, it is not $8 billion; it is just $4 billion. The government has basically said that it messed up, so it is going to duplicate the request to Parliament in order to make sure that it has the money. Honestly, one could not run a lemonade stand with such advance planning, yet this government thinks to run the government that way.

Here is the funny thing. The supplementary estimates (C) will be approved tomorrow for $4 billion, and Bill C-8, which was brought in a couple of months ago, will actually approve the $1.7 billion after it is already approved in the supplementary estimates. Again, it just goes back to poor planning by the government.

Also, in Bill C-8, the repayment of the CEBA is being extended for six years. We asked in public accounts if there was no provision for bad loan writeoffs. We were told that there is no provision for loan writeoffs for this money, because there is such little chance of any of it, they were saying, being written off, which is wonderful. However, why then is the government extending payback for a couple more years if the government itself is saying that there is almost no chance of any losses? Again, it just goes back to poor planning by this government.

Bill C-8 all around is a poorly written bill and there are a lot of items that are not needed, which is why we are not going to be supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his respectful decorum in the House and for his speech.

I have concerns about some of the things he said in his speech. Of course, we do not agree on many things, but he talked about the NDP fighting for and getting supports for workers throughout the pandemic, which is something we are proud and honoured to have fought for. We did want more provisions and more guidelines so that big corporations did not potentially take profits and then pay shareholders, and that is something we did rail against.

The Conservatives cannot point to anything they fought for through the pandemic for workers or for people who struggled throughout the pandemic. We heard them yesterday when they voted against our motion to tax big corporations such as big oil to make sure there was revenue for things like a dental program, but we know they do not support a dental program. They actually do not believe that Canadians need a dental program.

Does my colleague not believe that the super-wealthy who profited from the pandemic should be paying more in taxes to pay their fair share and contribute to supporting important programs like dental care?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we do not believe in is supporting the government and the massive corporate welfare that the NDP is backing.

It was the Conservatives who pushed the government to allow people who were working and also on CERB to make up to $1,000 without getting their CERB clawed back, and we achieved that. It was the Conservatives who first asked for the increase in the wage subsidy from the paltry 10% the Liberals offered, and I will note that it was the Conservatives who were asking for a GST rebate on the massive record high cost of gas, which the Liberals and the NDP voted against.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the member from across the way would be critical of this government and its spending and accusing it of spending on frivolous things when he is part of the party that was known for buying $15 glasses of orange juice and building gazebos in individual ministers' ridings.

Nonetheless, what we are hearing continuously from across the way is some kind of notion that the Conservatives get to wipe their hands clean of participating in the spending that has happened over the last two years. This member voted in favour of it through unanimous consent motions time and time again. They then get up in here and try to lecture us for all this spending when they voted for it. They did not even want to debate it before they voted for it. They did not even want to bother standing up in this House to vote for or against it. They just said that they were good with it by unanimous consent.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the fantasy world put forward by the member for Kingston and the Islands. Of course, if he had bothered reading the public accounts, and I do not think anyone in the government has, he would see that his government gave $50,000 to a company to come up with an new flavour for an IPA.

He talks about $15 orange juice. His government gave $50,000 to a brewery. I ask everyone in this House, if they had $50,000 to help Canadians, how many would say that we need a new flavour for an IPA? Only the Liberal government would put $50,000 for an IPA flavour ahead of the needs of regular Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton West did a bit of tracing of what looks like double accounting for the same money for the purchase of rapid tests. It looks to me, and in fact there is testimony in the other place by our Auditor General, that the money found in Bill C-10 and found in Bill C-8 is also in the supplementary estimates. He hinted at this. It looks like $4 billion twice. I am curious to know how we think we account for that and make sure $4 billion does not get spent twice on the same rapid tests.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. It is a duplicated $4 billion, and that is my concern. We have only the word of the government that it is not going to get Parliament's approval twice and only spend it once. I do not trust that the government will do that. I would love to have a government member stand in the House today and say that yes, that $4 billion will lapse and will not be spent.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to rise today and take part in this important debate on the economic and fiscal update. I of course listened with great interest and I always learn a lot from the detailed research that my colleague from Edmonton West does before he makes any interventions in this House. It is very important that we have that perspective, and I thank him for it.

Since the start of the pandemic, we have seen record sums of money spent to address a once-in-a-century and a once-in-many-lifetimes event. It is very important to take stock of how the money was spent, and the effect that the spent money will have going forward is incredibly important.

We have heard a lot over the last few days about the federal mandates. While opposition members, members of the public and members of the media have asked the government why it has not aligned its health restrictions with the restrictions that have been guided in all of the provinces by their chief medical officers of health, we have heard a lot about the stats as they relate to health care.

I think that is really important. While the science does tell us in all of the provinces across Canada, because there is only one science, that it is safe to end the vaccine mandates and safe to lift mask mandates, the information that the government points to speaks to hospital capacity and speaks to screening and diagnosis that has not happened as a result of the pandemic.

We have seen, over the last two years, a 20% reduction in cancer screenings. We know that almost half of patients have had cancer screenings and care appointments either cancelled outright or postponed. When that happens, we have to look at another very important statistic, which is that a four-week delay in treatment increases the patient's risk of death by 10%.

We have this tremendous problem in our health care system. Tremendous amounts of money are being spent by the government. As was laid out by the previous speaker, my colleague detailed some of the areas the government prioritized in terms of spending money. What would it look like for diagnosis and treatment if the government prioritized its spending, in partnership with the provinces, on health care?

We are discussing $70 billion of cash today. It is printed money and borrowed money. Canadians will pay interest on that money, and it will fuel inflation. What do we get for it? The previous speaker, the member for Edmonton West, talked about the government spending $50,000 on having someone create a new IPA, a new beer flavour. What could we have done in even one hospital with $50,000? We are talking about a 10% increase in fatalities when treatment is delayed by only four weeks. I think that is a really important frame. We talk about the effect of this spending on Canadians. That is what it could look like if it was directed in a different way.

The government talks about the room it has to borrow and the room it has to spend, but what is it doing for everyday Canadians? If it is not for share buybacks and not for executive bonuses, what is it doing for everyday Canadians? We know the effect of this rapid spending and the pressure that it is adding onto everyday Canadians' budgets because of the inflation that it is fuelling, and people are making impossible choices.

Heating or eating, that is a call I got in my constituency office many times. People cannot afford their home heating bills. They cannot afford the increased grocery bills. Now we have seen, over the last few weeks, that other global pressures, added to the taxes the government has put in place, are pricing Canadians out of even being able to put fuel in their cars to get to work or to take their children to a medical appointment or a recreational activity. It is really hard to see where the priorities are for everyday Canadians when we look at some of the spending we have detailed.

It has been an impossible two years for Canadians. We see the inflationary pressures that are created. We know that it is debt and interest on that debt that will be paid by future generations. In the next couple of weeks, we are going to see increases in taxes again. The skyrocketing prices in every area of life that Canadians have are unsustainable. We know that it is more than one in two Canadians who cannot afford their groceries. They are cutting back every week. We know that it is families across this country who cannot afford $1.80 or two-dollar a litre fuel.

Our national debt is $1.2 trillion, and what do we have to show for it? As the chief medical officers of health in 10 provinces across this country are saying we can drop the mask mandates and end the vaccine mandates, two years later, two years after the official opposition asked for it, after Canada's Conservatives called for rapid tests, the government is saying, “Let us buy some rapid tests.” I would say the government is a day late and a dollar short, but it is two years late and billions of dollars more than we have to spend.

Canadians are in a tough spot. For many things, necessary spending, necessary commitments were made by the House over that two-year period. Then we can look at the shameful waste and missed opportunities that the government had. Again, I will talk about health care. Prepandemic, hospitals operated at between 95% and 130% capacity across the country. Now the government is saying hospital capacity is at 100%. That is where it was before the pandemic. What is the spending that the government has committed that is going to solve these legacy issues? It is not solving legacy issues.

Pork barrelling, pet projects, executive bonuses and share buybacks, that is going to be the legacy of all of this spending that members in this place, their children, grandchildren and their great-grandchildren are going to be paying the interest on before we even get to talk about paying the principal on that debt.

We now have the government partnering with another party that has made unaffordable promises and that is going to balloon the spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. Canadians just cannot afford an NDP-Liberal government. Canadians deserve accountability. They deserve a path back to fiscal responsibility. It is the responsibility of any credible government to do that.

We are just not seeing the results for the money that it spent to date. We are not seeing a real plan for the money it is planning to spend going forward.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few things that have been said by the member opposite both now and previously. We have been throwing out numbers on the debt, which the member disagreed on, one being $1.2 trillion and one being $1.4 trillion, but it is done in isolation without looking at the percentage to GDP and without looking at what is happening in the rest of the world. We can shock and scare people with those tactics, but I do not think it is constructive.

If we were to look at Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio and our credit rating from Standard & Poor's and Moody's, both of which I feel have a better grasp on economics than perhaps members in this House, we would see that Canada still has a AAA rating and that our debt-to-GDP ratio is around 85%, about the same as Great Britain, but there are 25-plus countries with a greater debt-to-GDP ratio, including Japan, France, the U.S.A., Singapore and many others that have actually increased spending, as we did, to ensure that the debt citizens could not afford to take on and that all economists across the world knew we were going to incur during the COVID pandemic was taken on by the government.

Could the member please explain why he keeps throwing out these scary numbers without putting them into context and without talking about the global situation?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill is scared by the numbers, so are Canadians. They are scared because they cannot afford to pay their bills. It is great to talk about a AAA credit rating. It is great to talk about how debt to GDP stacks up against other countries, but it does not matter. In this country, whether people live in Victoria by the Sea, Prince Edward Island, Victoria, British Columbia, or all points in between, life is getting more unaffordable.

When the government says incredibly ridiculous things like the government has taken on debt so that Canadians do not have to, guess what. It is Canadians who have to pay down that debt. They cannot afford the increased prices of natural gas to heat their homes, propane to heat their homes or gasoline to put in their cars. They cannot afford the increased price of groceries at the store.

Liberals can talk all day long and tire themselves out patting themselves on the back, but Canadians know that the spending by the government is unaffordable and unaccountable, and responses like that demonstrate that they are incredibly out of touch. They think they can say they are better than the guy next door, yet people in this country cannot afford to heat their homes and feed their families.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to respond to something. The members opposite talked about having this great low debt-to-GDP ratio, but I have to note that they are including money that has been set aside for CPP assets. We are the only country in the OECD that tracks money that way.

According to the IMF, when we take that money out and compare us on an apples-to-apples basis, we are the 22nd worst out of 29 in the OECD and the fourth worst in the G7. I wonder if my colleague would like to address the fact that the government is not being up front with Canadians on the true debt-to-GDP level.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again Canadians are well served by the member for Edmonton West and his detailed analysis and breakdown of the spin that we hear from the government benches when its members talk about the massive debt it racks up and how they try to dress it up as something that Canadians ought not to be concerned about.

The government continues to spend money and say things, as I mentioned before, like it is taking on the debt so that Canadians do not have to. Of course it is debt that Canadians are going to have to pay back. While it would try to distract and impress Canadians by inflating numbers in a way that is beneficial to its framing, we know just by walking down the aisle at the grocery store, by pulling up at the gas pumps and by getting our home heating bills that the government is absolutely unaffordable, no matter how much lipstick it puts on the pig.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are in a situation where the fiscal house is on fire. The Prime Minister has run up more debt in his time in office than every previous prime minister, including the last Trudeau prime minister, from 1867 until 2015. Just in time, the NDP has arrived to pour more gasoline on this fiscal fire.

I have been listening to the debate on Bill C-8 today, the government's fiscal plan, if they want to call it a plan. It is a promise to spend more on everything in the midst of an agreement to spend even more with the NDP.

I was struck, hearing the member for Elmwood—Transcona from the NDP describing the levels of spending in this budget as “underwhelming”. “Underwhelming” is what the NDP is saying about the spending. I know his speech was very hurtful to Liberal members, just after they ink a deal. Imagine being called underwhelming during the post-wedding speeches. So much for the work that is supposed to exist. The NDP, nonetheless, has sold out to agree with this deal with the government, but still it is describing the government's fiscal measures as “underwhelming”.

Let us look at the reality, at the overwhelming level of debt and deficit that we have seen run up by the government in the last six years. The Prime Minister, in 2015, promised in the election three $10-billion deficits. It is hard to imagine there was a time when a $10-billion deficit seemed quite large relative to what we had been used to. Up until 2015, there had been a general consensus that outside of extreme events, a global financial crisis—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order. We have a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting my colleague in his speech. We actually have Liberals across the way laughing while this speech is going on, laughing at what the member is speaking about. Frankly, it is hardly funny and hardly funny for Canadians. I hope they would respect the House and actually listen to the member.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Of course, we ask that all members of the House maintain decorum.

I would ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to continue his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands just assured me that he was not laughing; he was not even listening. It is too bad. He might learn something. I see him chatting over there without a mask, which does not bother me. I think he should be free to choose, but his other Liberal colleagues must be terrified at that reality.

Nonetheless, let us talk about the fiscal situation and the promises that were made by the Prime Minister. In 2015, the Prime Minister said that there would be three $10-billion deficits and a total of $30 billion in deficits, and then in the fourth year there would be a balanced budget. The Liberals blew through all of that in year one. They said they were being ambitious in their hopes for the country. Well, I would say that we should measure our ambition by how much we leave to the next generation, not by how little we leave to the next generation. While calling it ambition, the government is creating a situation where my children and their children will have so much less capacity to develop and invest in their own future because they will be paying for the debt that we have run up in such a short space of time. This was the promise made in 2015, broken right away, blown through. Now tens of billions of dollars in deficits per year have become hundreds of billions of dollars of debt and deficit.

The NDP has continually said throughout this process that it is not enough and the Liberals should be spending more. I just listened to speeches from the NDP members, and it is such a baffling philosophy to me. They talk about people who are struggling, but they never jump to the obvious conclusion, which is to let them keep more of their own money and let them spend it on what they want.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona said that he spoke with a constituent who, sadly, had to move back in with his parents as a result of expensive dental work. I would suggest not creating a massive new government program so the government can pay for his dental needs, because he would have to apply to the government, someone would have to be hired to evaluate his application to see if he qualified and we would have to establish thresholds and determine who the money will be paid through and when. Instead of going through that entire process, how about we cut his taxes? How about we spend less money, financed by inflation, so that his money can maintain its value?

Every time I hear stories from members about people who are struggling in this country, it strikes me that those on the left use these stories as an excuse to say we should have more government. More government is not going to help people who are struggling. Why are people struggling? It is because the cost of living is being driven up by high taxes, by inflation and by the fact that the government is financing its out-of-control spending by reducing the value of money that people have.

This is most evident in the case of gas prices. Let us be very clear and honest about why gas prices are where they are. It is because of a policy decision by left-wing parties, Liberal and NDP, that believe the gas price should be high because they want to use high gas prices as a tool to discourage people from driving. The only reason to support a carbon tax or carbon price, whatever we call it, is to discourage people from buying gas by making the costs higher.

Now, of course, the price of gas fluctuates and responds to other events, because absent the tax there is an underlying price that goes up and down. However, a significant amount of that price is determined by the taxation that sits on top of whatever price a private entity would charge. Of course there are fluctuations and of course those fluctuations are shaped by global events, but on top of those fluctuations we have policy choices made by politicians who believe that gas prices should be higher.

What strikes me is that almost nobody in the House is prepared to honestly acknowledge that. I hope that someone here, Liberal, NDP or Green, is willing to say what they honestly, clearly believe, which is that they want gas prices to be high. That is the point of a carbon tax. It is to make gas prices high. However, somehow, they think they can fool people by saying that even though they have put these taxes on gasoline, they would like prices to be lower, and then they blame something else for that fact. Their solution is to have higher and higher taxes and then to create more programs to allegedly treat the affordability problem.

To me, this is like being in a hole and we just keep digging, because the more spending we have, the more programs we promise, the more government intervention we have and the more expansion there is of the state sector, the more that money will have to come from somewhere and the more we are going to see deficit, inflation, higher prices and higher taxes. That in turn is going to make life less affordable. We are in this vicious cycle that is going to accelerate now as a result of this union between the Liberals and the NDP. We are going to see more spending. That is the promise of the deal these parties have made.

Coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic, when many people are saying that we need to get our spending under control and back off of some of these spending measures and move back toward balanced budgets, the government is agreeing to an extreme NDP economic policy to put its foot on the gas further. My concern about this deal between the Liberals and the NDP is that we are going to end up with the worst of both worlds. Historically what we have seen in the House is the NDP pushing far-left economic policy but sometimes standing with us in trying to hold the government accountable on its ethical failures. Very often, those in the NDP have opposed things like time allocation and programming motions. They have been willing to join with us on requests for documents on things like holding the government accountable over the WE Charity. We have had significant disagreements with the NDP about economic philosophy, but at least we have been able to work together on some issues around protecting Parliament and the functioning of Parliament and on holding the government accountable for significant ethics violations.

However, what we see with this deal is that the government is talking about being able to get a free pass to move its legislation faster without the kind of accountability and scrutiny that are required. It will be expecting the NDP not to hold it accountable on ethical issues and not challenge it on issues regarding access to documents in defence of Parliament. At the same time, we see, without any seeming reluctance, the Liberals diving fully into the radical left-wing economic philosophy of high taxes, high inflation, high deficits and high spending. What we are left with is this picture of an accord that looks like Liberal ethics with NDP economic philosophy, and that is a disaster for this country.

If we must stand alone, the Conservatives will indeed take a stand and fight back against these abuses of Parliament, abuses of process and broken promises to voters, and the escalating damage being done to our economy. We will not solve the affordability crisis through higher taxes, higher deficits and inflation. We will solve it by supporting economic growth driven by individual freedom and individual initiative. That is the kind of philosophy we need. We need support for economic growth driven by individual ingenuity and getting the government out of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, only a Conservative would refer to taking care of Canadians during a pandemic as ultra left-wing ideology. In any event, I find the rhetoric coming from across the way to be absolutely remarkable. This is the same party that three or four years ago was criticizing the Prime Minister of Canada for the low prices of oil in Canada. As a matter of fact, members of the Conservative Party, for all of the failings and incompetence they claim the Prime Minister has had, say he was somehow able to affect the global price of oil. Meanwhile, now that oil is where they want it to be in order to extract more out of the ground, suddenly they are saying the price of oil is too high and it is the Prime Minister's fault. He is the reason that people are paying more at the gas pumps.

Can the member explain to the House which Conservative he is? Is he a Conservative in favour of high prices of oil so that we can extract more out of the ground in his home province, or is he a Conservative who supports lower oil prices so that gas is cheaper at the pumps?

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

Mr. Speaker, that question was actually below the standards we are used to hearing from the member for Kingston and the Islands. He said that he was not listening to my speech earlier and his question did make that eminently clear.

On the question of gas prices, it is not for me to set the price of oil. It is not for me to say what the optimal price of oil would be. The member should listen to me now at least, but he is not and that is okay.

The issue is that his government is pursuing a policy of intentionally raising the price of gas through a carbon tax. That is the purpose of a carbon tax. What I am saying, recognizing that the price of oil is set by global factors, is let us give people relief at the pump by eliminating the carbon tax, which is the amount they pay to the government on top of the price set by the private sector.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to speak about the gas tax, but I am going to choose my words carefully, because I gave my speech yesterday.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said the fiscal house is pretty much on fire. He also spoke of future generations. Yes, I think it is important to think about future generations.

I have a suggestion for putting out the fiscal fire. Last spring, there were measures in the budget to fight tax havens. However, we have heard nothing more about it, and it has completely fallen under the radar. Now, if we were to really fight tax havens, we could happily think of future generations without worrying so much.

What does my colleague think of the government's leadership in the fight against tax havens?

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

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of tax havens, I think people should follow the law and we should have rules that are designed to ensure that people who work in Canada are paying taxes on things in Canada. What we cannot control, though, is that when taxes are too high, sometimes people will simply choose to make investments elsewhere. They will choose to live and work elsewhere.

While we do need to address loopholes or points of unfairness that people are taking advantage of in the tax system, we should be looking to make Canada a jurisdiction that is desirable from an investment perspective and desirable from a taxation perspective. In a world of international competition, we cannot get away from the fact that if we do not do that, people will make other choices with their money.

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

Mr. Speaker, Ted, who is a constituent of mine in Parksville, came to me last week and most of his teeth had fallen out. I have since learned that all of his teeth have fallen out and he cannot eat. He is having challenges. He is one of the 6.7 million Canadians who do not have dental coverage and do not see a dentist on a regular basis.

The member asked what the New Democrats honestly believe. We believe that big oil companies, big box stores and big banks that have profited over a billion dollars should pay more tax. We know the Conservatives believe, according to their leader, that Canadians do not want or need a dental care plan. Ted does.

Can my colleague speak about what he would say to the 6.7 million Canadians who do not have a dental care plan? Does he believe they do not need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know Ted and I do not know his situation, but I think what Ted would like most is to have the dignity and ability to have a good job and low taxes. This will allow him to afford to make his own choices with his own money, including being able to attend to those kinds of needs.

We should have significant compassion for those who cannot afford those things, but I do not want Ted and others in his situation to have to go to a bureaucrat and ask for permission to pay for the things they need. I want him to be able to earn and keep more of his own money. I do not know the particulars of his situation, but for people in that situation, I say giving individuals control and autonomy, and ensuring they have resources and that our economy is functioning at a level where they can make those investments in themselves, is a much better way to go.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and represent the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot.

Entering into debate on Bill C-8, I believe there is some incredibly important context that is required for an understanding of the circumstances our nation finds itself in when it comes to the fiscal realities the government and so many Canadians are facing.

Recently, it was revealed that there is a 5.7% inflation rate. For context, the average wage in this country goes up by somewhere around 2.5%, so the reality is this. By virtue of inflation and the average wage, and I certainly hear from constituents often who are not getting that 2.5% increase, the buying power of Canadians is being reduced each and every day.

I found it astounding that when I asked a question yesterday in question period, and some of my colleagues continue to ask these questions today, that the Associate Minister of Finance for our country would stand up and say that a tax break on gas, diesel and home-heating fuel would not help. My challenge to all Liberal members who agree with the Associate Minister of Finance would be to ask their constituents whether or not a 5% savings in a province such as Alberta, and more savings for provinces that have HST, would make a difference. I say to all the Canadians who are watching that, if they have a Liberal member of Parliament, they should share with them whether or not the tax break would make a difference when it comes to the reality that so many Canadians are facing, with the increased costs of things such as fuel at the pumps.

This again is important context. I represent a largely rural constituency and the reality is this. We do not have access to a subway. As much as Drumheller, Camrose, Wainwright or Provost would love these massive public infrastructure projects, such as light rail transit and whatnot, these communities of 20,000, 10,000, 5,000 or fewer people do not have an option. The members opposite would suggest they should simply buy an electric car, or simply take the bus. As a representative of a rural constituency, I know that is for sure not the reality of the 10% of Canadians who do not live in major urban areas, and certainly many others who do not have equitable access or easy access to public transportation.

Let me share this observation. I find it interesting. I hear from many constituents who are concerned about the cost of the carbon tax on their daily lives. A carbon tax on their home heating bill, which is in some cases as much as the cost of the gas itself, will be added on April 1. It will be close to 12¢ per litre, in addition to the cost of the commodity itself and the various other taxes. The reality of the carbon tax is this: It is important for Canadians to understand that the Liberals want these prices to be higher. The Minister of Environment stood up again today and said that this was an effective mechanism to address emissions. Okay. The context for what he is saying is this. The more Canadians pay, the better, because it will force behaviour change.

Again, I ask. When it comes to the feedback from the Liberal and NDP MPs and their new coalition arrangement, which let me make very clear Canadians did not vote for, the reality is that the Liberals and the NDP want higher taxes and higher prices for elastic commodities such as the natural gas that heats people's homes, the heating fuel that is required in many first nations communities, and the gas or diesel that is required for people to take kids to soccer practice or commute to work, and for truck drivers or locomotives to deliver the goods that Canadians need.

The reality is that Liberals want those higher prices, so now they are going to talk about affordability and make excuses around how somehow a bit of a break for Canadians will not actually help. The reality is that Canadians know otherwise.

I would just share an inconvenient truth with the new Liberal-NDP government that exists in this country. When it comes to the results of the last election, it was actually the Conservatives who received the most votes. An inconvenient truth again is that it was actually the Conservatives' environmental plan that received the most votes.

An inconvenient truth for the members opposite is that it was the Conservatives' plan, which was highly recommended by economists when it comes to addressing the housing crisis that exists in many areas of this country, that received more votes than the Liberal plan, the NDP plan, the Bloc plan or any of the other parties' plans. That is an inconvenient truth, because the Liberals are desperate to cover up the fiscal disaster that is present within Canada and to further distract from the reality of the situations of the many constituents I hear from who are facing challenges to simply make ends meet each and every day.

We stand here debating Bill C-8. I guess the one bit of solace, when it comes to the reality of being faced with the new NDP-Liberal government, is that this is basically what we said would happen in the context of the last election. We said that a vote for the NDP was a vote for the Liberals, although the media and many Liberals said it would not happen. In fact, the leader of the NDP said that it would not happen. The true colours have now shone through.

I have advice to all NDP members watching. If they look throughout the history of coalition agreements, they will see it rarely works out for the coalition minority partner. History has a pretty strong precedent in that regard. My suggestion is especially to the backbench of the Liberal Party. I certainly hear from constituents that they are encouraged that a few of those members are starting to stand up against the authoritarianism that has been represented in the front bench and the Office of the Prime Minister. The constituents simply ask that these members stand up for the people they represent, whether it be on issues related to COVID, affordability, housing or agriculture.

In listening to some of the talk about agriculture, as a farmer myself, I agree and appreciate how important food security is. With the situation in Ukraine and energy security, we have a situation developing that could be absolutely disastrous for global food security. This is directly related to so many of the issues we are faced with here, yet the Liberals would do something like suggest a 30% reduction in the fertilizer required to grow the food that is needed to feed the world. It is this sort of absurdity that, although the members opposite like to gloss over some of those realities and facts, certainly has a massive impact.

As I come to the conclusion of my speech, we have seen the carbon tax reality impacting Canadians. We have seen the out-of-control spending, and more dollars chasing fewer goods, and the reality it has on impacting Canadians' buying power for things such as groceries, fuel and housing. We see the devastating impact of a government that puts more credence in big announcements and carefully worded press releases than in actual, carefully crafted monetary policy for a G7 power.

So often, we see the challenges our country is facing being simply dismissed, ignored, or in some cases ridiculed by a now NDP-Liberal government. It truly needs to take a moment and consider carefully the implications of the massive expenditures, and massive direction that Canadians certainly did not vote for, in terms of a functional majority within the House of Commons.

These are the things that need to be considered as we debate these important issues within the people's House—

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

If we want to have time for questions, it is time for them now.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is a very eloquent orator. I will give the member that. Sometimes, I am not too sure about some of the substance, but his voice does carry in the House. We can hear him.

Obviously, in a parliamentary democracy, Canadians vote. They send us here to represent their interests. For the last two and a half years, we have had their backs. We will continue to have the backs of Canadians, day in and day out, as we exit COVID-19 and the pandemic.

In reference to Bill C-8, there are many provisions in the bill for affordable housing, for vaccines, and for helping businesses and schools with their HVAC systems and their ventilation systems. There are many measures in Bill C-8 that would assist the hon. member's constituents, his businesses and the wonderful folks who get up every morning and work hard every day. There is also an improved tax credit for educators.

Can the hon. member not at least admit that there are many provisions here that would assist his constituents, and that the members of the official opposition should actually vote for Bill C-8?

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

Madam Speaker, I just have a note before I answer the substance of the member's question. My constituents speak often about how they would like the Liberal government to get out of the way for them to be able to prosper and for things like our agricultural and energy sectors to be able to prosper. They want us to be a country of “yes” again, to be a country that allows major infrastructure projects, and to be a country that allows economic development that is uninhibited by the heavy hand of bureaucrats in Ottawa.

I would quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who recently said, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as stimulus no longer exists.”

It was not me who made those statements initially. That was the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is somebody who thinks long and hard about Canada's monetary policy.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I agree with him that the increase in the cost of living is deplorable for the people in his riding and those in mine. We need to find a way to help our constituents with the rising cost of rent, food, gas and so on.

In my opinion, slashing the carbon tax is not the solution, and it is not a good idea either. In Quebec, we have the carbon exchange, which is working well.

For the other provinces, the tax that was imposed increases people's bills by a few dollars a month, but they can recoup that money through a tax refund. Will eliminating the carbon tax generate enough money to help our constituents? I do not think so.

I think we that we should go after the money in tax havens rather than eliminating the carbon tax, since that tax is a good measure to help combat climate change. Does my colleague agree?

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

Madam Speaker, the simple answer to the member from the Bloc's question would be yes. Let us have a meaningful effort to actually make sure that those who are illegally avoiding taxes in this country are discovered and prosecuted and, wherever possible, that those funds are recovered.

When it comes to the record high prices that Canadians are facing at the pumps, whether because of the carbon tax, although I disagree with the carbon tax and its policy and Albertans vehemently disagree with the carbon tax and its policy, I think the member from the Bloc would agree that it should be up to a province to make that determination for its citizens. It should not be a big-handed, bureaucratic, heavy initiative determined in the hallways of offices in our national capital city. It should be the people of—

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

I have to interrupt the hon. member because it is 5:43. The hon. member will have about a minute left to continue answering questions the next time the bill is debated.

It being 5:43, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 23 consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has one minute left on his feet.

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

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a true honour to stand in this place and fight for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot and, of course, to stand for the principles of peace, freedom and democracy, especially in an age when there have been such clear threats from actors around the world who would love to tear down the freedoms that we enjoy today—

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

I am very sorry. It was my mistake. We had one minute left for questions and comments, not to resume a speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, thinking in terms of freedoms, my question to the member is this. How is it that the Conservative Party can actually say no to, and vote against, Bill C-8, when Bill C-8 is all about supporting Canadians in all regions of our country?

Does the member realize what the Conservative Party is asking him to do: to vote against supports for the pandemic? Does he realize that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand for freedom and democracy in this place each and every day, but what is absolutely untenable is the fact that members from the party opposite refuse to stand up against probably the most authoritarian Prime Minister that this country may have ever seen. Time and again, I hear from constituents who are thrilled that a few of their members are standing up against the tyranny that the PMO exerts over members of the backbench. As we saw—

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

That is it.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Richmond Hill.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as today marks the first time in the 44th Parliament that I am exercising my privilege to rise to speak on a government bill, I want to take a brief moment to acknowledge those who have helped to get me here to stand alongside my hon. colleagues and once again represent the people of Richmond Hill.

I want to thank the volunteers who put in countless hours to spread our message, as well as friends and staff who helped mentor and guide me, and helped further connect me with the community. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not thank my wife and my two children, without whom I would not have had the emotional support to continue this work. Lastly, I thank my larger family. They are the people who have trusted me to work for their best interests: my dear constituents in Richmond Hill, whose engagement and community leadership has consistently impressed me for the past six years. Indeed, my constituents will be the beneficiaries of the bill that I will be discussing today.

I feel privileged to rise in the House to speak on Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021, and other measures. In my riding of Richmond Hill, there are over 5,000 small businesses, with labour participation of over 64%. Richmond Hill is home to many of the workers who helped establish the foundation and growth of our economy. Many of them also constitute the membership of my community-led small business council, where I meet monthly with my constituents to hear their concerns and feedback on our government's support for their businesses.

First, let me acknowledge that Richmond Hill's small businesses have shown immeasurable resilience throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While our federal government has played a key role to the provision of critical supports so far, we know that it is vital to continue this assistance to ensure a continued strong recovery. Our efforts in providing crucial financial assistance to, and collaboration with, the provinces and territories ensure that the health and safety of Canadians are an utmost reflection of the priorities of our government on this front.

Since the onset of COVID-19, we have implemented income support, we have issued direct payments to families and seniors, we have helped businesses keep their workers and we have helped workers keep their wages. Bill C-8 is yet another manifestation of these priorities: it serves as an extra, supplementary tool in our tool box. The bill is constituted of seven parts, each of which addresses a key and prominent issue within our national and local communities, starting with the funding for the procurement of rapid tests and investment in therapeutics, moving to the protection of our children's health and safety in school, and leading to a re-emphasis on critical and targeted support for workers and businesses that will protect their financial and physical well-being. This is a well-rounded piece of legislation with a comprehensive, but targeted, approach.

With the onset of the pandemic, businesses in my riding stepped up by introducing new measures that enabled them to continue serving Richmond Hill safely and in alignment with public health measures. They fought COVID-19 head-on by enforcing vaccine mandates and reducing capacities to encourage social distancing. Many even installed protective barriers within their spaces to maintain the safety of staff and customers alike. Now, as provincial jurisdictions begin authorizing an easing of restrictions, we know that COVID-19 and its impact still persist, which is why our federal government will continue to support businesses in their safe operation.

In December, our government's Bill C-2 received royal assent. Within this bill, we acknowledged the spread of the omicron variant and its potential for further disruption to small businesses. As such, we integrated key economic support, including the extension of the Canada recovery hiring program, the establishment of the Canada worker lockdown benefit and further extensions to the Canada recovery caregiving benefit and the Canada recovery sickness benefit. These initiatives, among others in Bill C-2, have been and will be instrumental in keeping Canadian businesses strong and resilient in their recovery from COVID-19.

The new measures in Bill C-8 would add to the line of supports that become law by the passage of Bill C-2 in numerous ways. Proper ventilation and improvement to indoor air quality are key components of the continued fight against COVID-19, but this is also a costly endeavour.

Bill C-8 would alleviate this by proposing a refundable small business air quality improvement tax credit of 25% on incurred, eligible air quality improvement expenses. This tax credit would be for eligible expenses taken between September 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022. It would make safety against COVID-19 affordable for small businesses.

That is not all that Bill C-8 proposes in order to support businesses. Our government recently announced the extension of the repayment deadline for the Canada emergency business account loan. All eligible borrowers in good standing would qualify for partial loan forgiveness. The interest-free and partially forgivable loan provided by the CEBA has helped our small businesses, nearly 900,000 of them, stay afloat during one of the biggest economic challenges for our country.

This extension would facilitate short-term economic recovery for small businesses and greater repayment flexibility for those who had received support from CEBA. Nonetheless, businesses that benefited from CEBA are still burdened by the impact of the pandemic, and our government wants to help mitigate some of the financial stress.

Repayments on or before the new deadline of December 31, 2023, would result in a loan forgiveness of up to a third of the value of the loan. This can translate to about $20,000 in loan forgiveness. Bill C-8 would take this a step further, as it would invoke a limitation period of six years for debt due under the CEBA program to ensure CEBA loan holders are provided consistent treatment regardless of where they live.

Through all of the realms in which our federal government has provided pandemic-related supports, one theme consistently emerges, which is our focus on the health and safety of Canadians. That theme is extremely apparent in Bill C-8, as we build on previous initiatives to keep students, teachers, staff and families healthy by authorizing payments for the purpose of supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools.

This expands on our government's supply of over $3 billion in direct transfer payments to the provinces and territories for testing and contact tracing through the safe restart program. In fact, $4 million of this funding directly benefited my constituency of Richmond Hill, as it ensured we had the resources to safely restart the economy. We also made significant investments in empowering the provincial and territorial health care systems to strengthen their testing capacity by purchasing and shipping over 80 million rapid tests to them at a cost of over $900 million.

As the demand for rapid tests persists, Bill C-8 seeks to allocate an additional $1.72 billion to the Minister of Health for the procurement and distribution of rapid antigen tests to provinces and territories and directly to Canadians. This initiative, combined with the funding through the safe return to class fund, demonstrates how the government is helping to keep our communities healthy and safe.

Today, I have touched on just some of the components of Bill C-8 that would deliver real results and crucial supports for Canadians. Bill C-8 would mean a safer and stronger Canada, and for my community it would mean a safer and a stronger Richmond Hill.

I strongly encourage my hon. colleagues to consider these key supports that their constituents would rely on for their financial, physical and mental health and well-being. I invite members to join me in supporting its passage through the House so we can continue having Canadians' backs.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I am concerned about is housing in Oshawa for seniors and youth. Conservatives brought forward Motion No. 54 to ask the Liberals to abandon their first-time homebuyer initiative, because it has literally only helped about 15% of the people it is targeted to.

With this budget implementation act, does the member see anything in it that would increase the supply of housing for Canadians who actually need it?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, housing and affordable housing have been the focus of our government since 2015. There has never been the amount of investment we have made in housing initiatives through our national housing strategy. Over $75 billion has been invested, or is planned to be spent, over the next three and a half years at least. What we have seen is a very balanced and comprehensive approach to housing, whether it is increasing the supply of affordable housing, getting new families into the market, or refurbishing existing low-income housing to ensure people who need housing have shelter. As well, we have been addressing homelessness.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we agree with Bill C‑8 in general. We find it kind of anemic, but we are okay with it.

The part that gives us pause is of course health transfers. Yes, the government transferred huge amounts of money during the pandemic, but that was a one-time thing. Quebec and all the Canadian provinces want a permanent transfer that covers 35%. That transfer is not in here, even though it could be fully or partially funded by anti-tax haven measures, which are also not in here.

When will we see these things in the budget?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. We have the honour and privilege of being on the OGGO committee together.

I would like to make a point on a comment my colleague made. She said, “ad hoc”. I do not think our measures, as they relate to COVID-19, have been ad hoc, especially the ones that dealt with the safety and health of Canadian citizens. I think they have been broad, as I said, and they have been strategic. They have had a great benefit.

Our country is now in a position where nearly 90% of Canadians are vaccinated. We are seeing that the provinces and territories are relaxing some of the restrictions. Our government is, has been and will be there for all Canadians to make sure their health and safety are a priority to us.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Richmond Hill. I will be allowed to speak later, just after question period, and will lay this out with more detail and background, but one thing that strikes me about Bill C-8 is that it draws into sharp relief that much of the spending from the federal government is in provincial areas of jurisdiction. It can also be accused of being rather late coming on stream regarding money for schools, ventilation and rapid tests. I am not going to blame the federal government for this. These are provincial areas, and I am wondering why the provinces did not step up. When we look back at COVID, and I hope we do look back and analyze it, we will wonder why we did not have better provincial-federal co-operation early so that Canadians got the help they needed, and businesses, schools and so on got the help they needed, faster.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we all know, eight dollars out of every $10 that was spent on COVID-19 was provided by the federal government. Our government has been at the forefront of COVID-19 from day one. We also talked about how broad and how strategic this expenditure has been.

As it relates to working with the provinces and territories, we are always there, in lockstep with the provinces and territories, to make sure that the health and safety of Canadians are made a priority. As the provinces and territories are removing some of these restrictions, we must figure out where our next role is. What we realize is that, for us to be able to keep Canadians safe as these restrictions are being removed, our area of focus should be schools and, therefore, the air we are breathing, as masks are being removed. We are focusing on that through Bill C-8, as well as on the businesses that would be—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures. The Standing Committee on Finance spent a lot of time debating this piece of economic legislation.

Just as an aside, I would like to wish a very happy birthday to someone who just joined us in the House, the member for Joliette. One can hardly tell; I do not see a single new white hair. I wish him a happy birthday.

We describe this bill as anemic because it is sorely lacking in substance. It seems fitting for a worn-out government. This latest version does nothing about the labour shortage, offers no plan to improve productivity and significantly underestimates the magnitude of supply issues, being very weak in the solutions department.

Measures announced last spring to tackle tax havens have also been put off until later, that is if they have not fallen off the radar altogether, even though they are a much-needed revenue source. We are in the midst of the recovery, but it is hard to discern any economic leadership on the federal government's part.

Meanwhile, the successive crises since January, specifically the emergency measures crisis, the war in Ukraine and the increase in COVID-19 cases, remind us that we are not out of the woods yet. More importantly, with the new NDP-Liberal alliance and the tabling of the economic update, the Trudeau government has clearly shown its colours—

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

I must remind the hon. member that we do not refer to other members by name.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has shown its true colours. It is about to come into conflict with Quebec and the provinces, since this means that it categorically refuses to increase federal funding for health care with no strings attached. Whether the Minister of Canadian Heritage likes it or not, this sets the stage for a real fight.

My speech will focus on three issues: the lack of health measures, the lack of measures for housing, and support for our businesses, especially those that will continue to be affected by the repercussions of COVID-19 for a long time to come, particularly the tourism and cultural industries.

First, on health, the federal government should mind its own business and look after what falls under its jurisdiction, such as procuring COVID-19 tests.

The government, however, is maintaining the Canada health transfer escalator at 3% until 2027. This is the legal minimum and below the annual increase in health care costs. We can never say this enough, but Quebec and the provinces are unanimously calling for an immediate payment of $28 billion to cover 35% of health care costs, followed by a 6% escalator.

The message from the Liberal government is crystal clear: It believes it spent enough money last year on the pandemic, so it is refusing to provide its share of health care funding. That reasoning is flawed. COVID‑19 spending is one-time and temporary spending, while the federal underfunding of health is a chronic problem that is choking the finances of Quebec and the provinces. Ottawa is therefore perpetuating the fiscal imbalance, but, most importantly, it is ignoring the lessons it could have learned from the pandemic.

As the critic for seniors, I have to say that we owe it to the victims to try to prevent these tragedies from ever happening again. As the critic for the status of women, I think it is sad that a government that calls itself feminist did not answer the call for help from caregivers and health care workers, most of whom are women who have been on the front lines since March 2020 because of this pandemic.

The Bloc Québécois will not give up its fight alongside Quebec and the provinces for a sustainable, unconditional increase in federal health care funding.

Second, we must tackle the supply of housing, as this is still another serious problem in Quebec. Today, to deal with this crisis, Quebec would need approximately 50,000 new social, community and truly affordable housing units, and that is a lot. I can speak to that because Granby has one of the lowest vacancy rates in Quebec. I am a member of a committee where the city and community organizations are working hard to try to find solutions. However, there is no magic wand, and the federal government must follow suit and take action.

Between 2011 and 2016, under the Conservatives, the number of affordable rental units in the private market for households with the greatest needs declined by 322,600, and this seems to be a continuing trend.

At this time, the Liberals are focusing on a suite of programs and initiatives that address all variables of the housing market except for the most important one, which is more available supply and more housing units. Putting more money in the hands of first-time home buyers, mainly by doubling the first-time homebuyers' tax credit, will do nothing to increase the supply of social or truly affordable housing.

Scotiabank estimates that 1.8 million additional units would have to be built in order for Canada to match the inventory of G7 countries. That shows how much of a gap we have to fill. It is no coincidence that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's most recent report of August 2021 estimates that in the absence of additional funding to address this problem, the number of Canadian households in need of affordable housing will also rise to 1.8 million in five years.

It is important to understand that, if housing supply is the crux of the problem, then social and community housing must be the priority, not the English-Canadian vision of so-called affordable housing, which is growing more and more outdated, particularly in an overheated market.

Despite the incredible rise in housing prices, the housing problem in Quebec and Canada is having a much greater impact on the rental market than on the real estate market. That is why the most important indicator to focus on is housing supply, particularly housing for the most vulnerable, who are growing in number. Social and community housing must be the priority.

Right now, the Liberals' strategy is all over the place. Many of their initiatives have failed. We are already halfway through the time frame set out for the national housing strategy, and yet, according to a recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the programs specifically dedicated to the construction of housing have spent less than 25% of their budget.

Now is the time to build. Housing will not materialize with a snap of the fingers. If we want to get out of this mess, then we need to exponentially increase our housing supply, particularly our supply of social and community housing.

The national housing strategy, which was launched in November 2017, shows that the government has a good understanding of the impact of housing outside Quebec but it does not take into account Quebec's way of doing things and the AccèsLogis Québec program.

Rather than relying on and promoting what works, the federal government wants to impose its vision, even though its programs do not meet our needs and realities, and focus on affordable housing to the detriment of social and community housing.

There is not enough funding, and that money is not being used effectively. Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over housing. Since housing needs vary quite a bit based on socio-demographic factors, and since provincial and municipal governments are more familiar with local issues, these governments are better able to assess and identify what people need.

Third, I want to talk about assistance for businesses. The Canada emergency business account, or CEBA, was designed to provide zero interest, partially forgivable loans to small and medium-sized businesses to help finance expenses that could not be avoided or deferred as they took steps to safely navigate the shutdowns resulting from public health measures to mitigate the spread of COVID‑19.

Since this program was first launched, the Bloc Québécois has called for amendments to the assistance programs to better meet the needs of businesses. For example, we called for more flexibility in the eligibility criteria. We brought up the issue of business debt early on. A survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, in December noted that more than one-quarter of businesses in Quebec might not make it through 2022. More than half of small businesses have not returned to normal sales, and the average debt of a small business in Quebec was almost $100,000, going even as high as $206,944 for a dine-in restaurant.

According to the CFIB, as of October 31, 1,454 insolvency cases had been filed in Quebec alone, which accounts for 60% of all cases filed in Canada. I should note that small businesses contribute 30% of Quebec's GDP. We are proud of our SME models.

Clearly, measures that only increase businesses' debt levels are inadequate. We therefore support this measure to extend the repayment deadline to qualify for loan forgiveness.

It would also be important for the programs to include businesses that opened after the beginning of the pandemic, like companies in the start-up phase. The Bloc Québécois has already shared other ideas for improving the situation for SMEs, including support for online commerce and for card payment processing fees. We are calling on the government to negotiate with the card issuers to secure lower fees for online transactions.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois will continue to be there for the businesses and people of Quebec, because the future holds many challenges, from inflation to labour shortages. The Bloc Québécois will be in problem-solving mode, laser-focused on the needs and demands of Quebec.

I have one final point to make about Quebec's demands. We had concerns about Ottawa respecting Quebec's jurisdictions, which appear to be infringed upon by several of the bill's measures. That is why we voted in favour of the bill in principle, in order to better understand the scope of certain parts of Bill C-8.

Based on the testimony we heard and the government's responses in committee, we came to the conclusion that Quebec's areas of jurisdiction were indeed being encroached upon. This is the first time the federal government has dared to interfere in the area of property taxes by seeking to penalize non-resident, non-Canadian second home owners.

The intrusion could not be any clearer. It was illustrated and explained very well by constitutional expert Patrick Taillon, who testified before the Standing Committee on Finance in February 2021.

We introduced a single amendment that would correct the problem. We tried to find a compromise by proposing measures for property taxes, to make this acceptable to provinces that did not want it. Unfortunately, the Liberal committee chair ruled the Bloc Québécois amendment inadmissible before it could even be debated.

Once again, this government is trying to stick its nose in where it does not belong. It needs to mind its own business.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc party says that Ottawa should play no role in housing. The member says we should be providing a lot more money and investing in more programs, even though she says we should not be providing housing because it is not in our jurisdiction. The member says health care is not Ottawa's jurisdiction but that we need to provide a lot more money toward health care.

One would think that the Bloc's position is that Ottawa should be an ATM machine and that is it; let us just give the money. Canadians, no matter where they live in the region of Canada, recognize that Ottawa does have a role in housing and does have a role in health. It is called the Canada Health Act. We have the national housing strategy.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on this. Does she truly believe that Ottawa has no role to play in health or housing, especially when we reflect on the will of the people of Quebec?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I am going to have to repeat the same thing. My answer has several elements. They are called health transfers and they are provided for in the Constitution. As I explained, Quebec has health care and housing programs. Ottawa must transfer the money. That is how it works.

With respect to health care, Ottawa does not know how to manage our hospitals and nurses, but the Quebec government does have that expertise. The Liberal government has been cutting health transfers for far too long. We have ended up with an underfunded health care system. The Liberals say that the issue of health transfers will be addressed after the crisis, but we urgently need that money now because we are in a health crisis.

The same goes for housing. Quebec has its own programs. I sit on committees with provincial and municipal government representatives in Quebec. Everyone is saying the same thing. They know what to do.

Ottawa has a system of federal transfers, which support areas that it is not involved in. It has its own areas of jurisdiction, such as procurement, as I explained. As for the rest—

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

Order. Questions and comments.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with almost all of the member's speech and I would especially like to bring up some more issues on the tourism and hospitality sectors that she briefly mentioned.

I have been working a lot on that file lately. The tourism and hospitality recovery program was brought in before omicron, when it was assumed that the pandemic was over, yet it is not. Businesses are still struggling. She mentioned some of the companies that do not qualify, such as start-ups.

Another group of businesses that do not qualify for the program are businesses that are seasonal. Many tourism operators in Canada are seasonal, and yet these companies are basically prohibited from qualifying for this program. I wonder if she could comment on that.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It gives me an opportunity to come back to something that I was only able to talk about briefly, and that is help for sectors that will continue to be affected for quite some time because of the pandemic.

My colleague is right that this program dates back to December, before the arrival of the omicron variant. That seems like a lifetime ago because a lot has happened since then. Since we are talking about tourism, I would say that we are coming to the realization that we still have a long road to travel.

That is why I talked about the importance of having more flexible, more tailored programs for sectors like tourism and culture that are still going to be affected for quite some time.

In committee, we asked the following question: Can we get resources to provide more support to self-employed workers in the cultural industry?

We were told that it was too complicated technically speaking. In 2022, can we find solutions, provide support and show some flexibility in order to help them?

Yesterday, members of the Bloc Québécois talked a lot about the importance of predictability. While attending meetings of the Haute‑Yamaska RCM's strategic business intelligence committee, I noted that this is what tourism operators are calling for.

The Government of Quebec and the provincial governments have a plan for lifting restrictions, but the federal government does not. It is important for businesses to be able to plan ahead. These are measures that Ottawa could do something about in order to help these sectors, which will continue to be affected by the pandemic for quite some time.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Ottawa has decided to interfere in the property tax jurisdiction. That is a first. There has been no attempt at collaboration to find a solution.

We said that the federal government could do so if the province gave its approval. Why does my colleague think that the government has once again refused to work with the provinces?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it comes down to the new NDP-Liberal centralist alliance that categorically refuses to compromise when it comes to staying out of Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-8.

The first thing I want to do is go back a bit in time. Madam Speaker, I think you were there as well for those times. It goes back to when Jim Flaherty was the finance minister. He had a budget that was called the “economic action plan”. It was a main event back in those times. Economists and business owners and people from all over looked at this economic action plan as the path forward for the Canadian economy, especially in those times of the huge economic downturn in 2007 and 2008. It was really a shining light, I would say. It allowed us to get through that time and by 2015 to present the new Liberal government with a balanced budget.

Back in that time of 2015 and over the next four years, the government spent $100 billion extra over what it collected. That will go into history and will be a guiding light for future governments. It goes back to when we were kids and our grandparents were telling us that when times were good, we should salt a bit away. That way, when times get bad, we would have a bit more to spend to keep going.

The Liberals actually really spent when times were good, and when times were bad, they really spent a lot. In 2015 the federal debt was about $600 billion, and in seven short years we are at the point that we have doubled that debt to $1.2 trillion. We have not doubled it; the Liberal government has doubled it to $1.2 trillion so that the amount that each and every Canadian owes has doubled. It is unfortunate.

I understand the times. Yes, there was some money that went to helping Canadians tremendously. We obviously know that, but nevertheless, the numbers are the numbers.

There are a couple of things I want to point out. One thing is inflation. We hear this on the news. Ten years ago, we did not really hear about inflation. Even five years ago we did not hear about it. Now there are different excuses for inflation. In September, it was transitory. In October, it was transitory. In November, it was greedy corporations; it was their fault. In December, it was the supply chain. In January, it was the supply chain. Now, in February, it is Russia. Can members believe this? In a matter of six months, we have had at least four or five different reasons to blame for the inflation. That is an impossibility.

We know that when there is a limited or decreasing supply of goods and an increasing monetary supply, we are going to have inflation. Some have estimated a 40% increase in the monetary supply in this country in the last two years. The only people to blame for such increased spending are the people sitting across the hall here in the House of Commons. They are the only reason. They cannot blame Ukraine and they cannot blame it on being transitory. They have gotten rid of that term now because it was debunked.

The other thing I hear, more than time to time, is GDP growth. The finance minister has talked a number of times about GDP growth. However, to my mind and to many other people's minds, when inflation is close to 6%, the highest in 30 years, and when some economists say that if we calculate inflation as it was calculated 40 years ago or 30 years ago, inflation is over 10%, how can they claim to have GDP growth of 4.2% in 2021? It is all new monetary supply and it is all inflation.

The Liberals even have, in their fall economic statement, a term called “GDP inflation”. That should put to bed all of the finance minister's claims about robust GDP growth. In fact, there are so many warning points and warning signs in the fall economic update about headwinds and what if this happens and what if that happens that this fall economic statement is what I would call priced to perfection. Anything less than perfection is going to produce a catastrophic result.

Let us look at what is going on right now. Brent crude this morning is $113 U.S. That was not in any projections. It is doubtful that GDP growth will be as high as it was in 2021. That will reduce government revenues. There are a lot of issues with this fall economic update.

The Bank of Canada claims to have stopped quantitative easing. That is great, but it has not started on quantitative tightening. What the bank calls it now is “quantitative reinvestment”. We are creating all these new terms for things, and really it is just fooling around with the money supply.

If we go back in time and really look at money and the Bretton Woods agreement, which came about during the Second World War and remained in place until the gold standard was abandoned in 1971, money was actually backed by something. Money is just debt. That is all money is today, and it is unfortunate that the government of the day does not respect money. It does not respect the taxes that people pay.

I saw an article just the other night, maybe last night. It was in the Toronto Star, so we know it must be true if they are reporting it on the Liberals. It said what the government was spending on Harrington Lake, and I could not believe it. It was something like $14 million that has been spent on the old property at Harrington Lake, and we know the Prime Minister built a new place at Harrington Lake for $9 million. The government has also spent $3.6 million on the Rideau Hall property, the Governor General's property.

I am not going to go into all that, because in the big scheme of things we are talking about trillions and billions of dollars, but this just goes to show the lack of respect for the taxpayer dollar and for the small business owners who have been grinding it out and grinding it out. They see that and have a lot of unique words that they use when they describe how much they dislike the spending.

As for gold, in the sixties the government owned 1,000 tonnes of gold. By 2003 there were only 3.4 tonnes of gold left, and we know who was mainly in government during that time. The Government of Canada sold the last of its gold in 2016, as far as I know, and it sold it at $1,245 an ounce. If we look today at the price of gold, we see it is almost $2,000 U.S. an ounce.

There are a lot of talented Liberal members of Parliament. I would not dispute that, and we hear of the Prime Minister's golden touch or Midas touch, but I would argue that pretty much everything the Prime Minister touches is the opposite of the Midas touch or the gold touch. Pretty much everything he touches is a disaster. We can even look at selling the gold. He sold low in a good time, so I do not know about that.

Another one is the green bond. That is in the economic update. In my riding I have the largest nuclear facility in the world, Bruce Power. It is a huge job creator. It generates baseload power for the Ontario grid, and unbelievably, to the shame of the environment minister, nuclear power was left out. There are so many jobs in Liberal-held ridings in Toronto and around the GTA that I cannot believe the members in that caucus would go for that. I would be furious.

The idea of a green bond is to reduce emissions. In the province of Ontario, there were smog days 20 years ago. Anybody who lives around southwestern Ontario remembers those days. Those are gone, and it is because of nuclear energy. To put nuclear power in with tobacco and all the other things they put it in with is really an insult, and I have heard from a lot of nuclear power employees who are quite outraged by that.

Another issue is around COVID tests and vaccinations. I would like the government to table how many vaccines have been thrown out in the last six months. I estimate the value in the tens of millions of dollars and maybe the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The other thing is COVID tests. This is another disaster. Maybe it will come up in questions.

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

Madam Speaker, on the one hand the member says that he is really concerned about the deficit and about how badly we are doing on the deficit front, yet the Conservative Party understood, at least at the time, that we needed to spend those billions of dollars to support businesses and the people of Canada. Even in his speech, he somewhat recognizes that. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that we are spending all this money to support Canadians and at the same time criticize that we had to borrow some money in order to be able to spend that money.

The member was taking his cheap shots at some of the government expenditures. I wonder if he endorses his interim leader's purchase of a bed and some bed sheets for $8,000. Was that a wise expenditure from the leader of the opposition party?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the always cheerful member from across the way for the question.

I would say that times have changed. Obviously, the economic realities of 2020, two years ago, to today are different. The Liberals are still stuck in 2020 time.

I hear the health minister every day get up and talk, but that is not what the reality is. The reality today is that small businesses want to be open, restaurants want to be open and the tourism industry wants to be open. We see this even at the airport and crossing at the border with ArriveCAN. How many members of Parliament have constituents who have issues with ArriveCAN? It is time to realize that it is 2022, and we have to get the economy open and support small business.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Huron—Bruce. He estimated that Canada had thrown out tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of vaccines. Many large biopharmaceutical companies and research labs used to be located in Canada, particularly in Quebec and in the greater Montreal area. Canada is the only G7 country that did not manufacture any vaccines, in large part due to the budget cuts under the Harper and Martin governments. The big pharmaceutical companies left Canada because subsidies had been cut.

What does my colleague think about the fact that cuts made by the Harper government led to the loss of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that there is a bit of wishful thinking in there, but I would ask the member this: What about ICU beds? That is one tangible thing that would have made a difference for people who live in Quebec and in my area. The Liberal government did not work with any of the provinces to really do anything on ICU beds, respiratory therapy or anything that would have helped someone in the early days who had COVID or even someone who gets COVID today. The government has nothing to show for that, and I think that is really unfortunate. It could have transformed some of the health care delivery in this country during the last two years, but it did not.

There is the comment about vaccines, which is fair, but there was a lot of vaccine that had been thrown out, and I think that money could have been better used for ICU beds or rapid tests. I mean, some cities in the U.S. have rapid tests and PCR tests on every street corner. Do we have that? We do not have that here, and that is a real shame.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the speech from the member for Huron—Bruce. He talked a lot about inflation, but what I do not hear from Conservatives too often is talk about the inflationary pressures of climate change.

The war in Ukraine right now has sent oil and gas prices skyrocketing. However, we know that in future decades, the effects of climate change, water scarcity, the hits on agricultural lands and the conflicts that are going to arise from those pressures will continue to send oil prices high. It is a very volatile energy source and always has been.

Does the member not realize the logical fallacy of the Conservatives chasing policies that are going to lead to more fossil fuel infrastructure being developed, which will contribute to climate change, contribute to more inflation in the future and put Canadians' livelihoods at risk?

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to be careful with what I say here, because I am counting on that member's support for my private member's bill this afternoon, so I am not going to burn any bridges here this morning.

However, let us look at the price of West Texas and at the price of Brent Crude. I mean, pretty much the same amount of oil was produced in December as is being produced today. This is speculation in a lot of cases, and I think that is an issue.

We are just a small bit at 2%, but look at the rest of the world. We can be leaders, but we need the rest of the world to come along with us.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House and to have the opportunity to speak.

I want to start this morning by talking a bit about my family. My wife, Irene, and I have three amazing kids, a son and two daughters, and 10 grandchildren. We have more than tripled our investment, if one does the math, and that is what good Conservative policies can do.

I love those kids. One of the reasons I got into politics is because I love those kids and I care about the future. Like every parliamentarian who is sitting in the House today, I know we want to leave the next generation off better than we are ourselves, so we agree on that. We disagree on a lot of things, and we disagree passionately about things.

One of the things we disagree on is how we want to see Canada become a better place and how best to get there. That is why we have these debates. They matter for the future of our children. That is democracy. Like my colleagues, I am proud to say that this bill, Bill C-8, is the wrong approach for Canada, for our children and for our grandchildren.

There is a story of a kid who went and bought a used football at a second-hand store. He brought it up to the counter, and the man told him it was $5. The man then asked him he would also like him to pump it up for him. The kid agreed. The man got out a small hand pump and in a few seconds the ball was inflated. Then the man said the football would now cost $10. The boy asked the man why it was now $10 when it was originally $5. The man shrugged and said he was sorry, but that is the cost of inflation.

Inflation, that is what Bill C-8 would do. It is going to fuel the already out-of-control inflation in this country because it is going to add more than $70 billion of new inflationary fuel to the existing fire. It is a fire. It is a raging fire of $1.2 trillion, and we need to address that. This bill would exacerbate that, and that fuel will further increase the deficit. It is going to increase our debt, and Canadians cannot afford more inflation.

Rebekah Young, the director of fiscal and provincial economics at Scotiabank, said, “With the Canadian economy already at capacity and price pressures mounting, incremental spending - even if merited - could complicate efforts to keep inflation expectations moored.”

Inflation is already hurting Canadians. I am getting letters from across my riding to this effect. One person wrote that they went to the store today and spent $200 on groceries, none of it even for them. They said that the butter was over five bucks, and the price of gas is outrageous.

Another wrote that they have to ask themself if they should pay for groceries or for their hydro bill. They wonder how long this can continue, and say that folks should not have to be making these types of decisions.

Yet another wrote that she has young adult children and grandchildren. She is very concerned for them, with the price of groceries and the price of living is so high. She worries for this younger generation and said she was reaching out to me in all this craziness to ask for advice. She went on to say that she and her husband live in my riding, and that they make a good living, or least they used to. They used to think of themselves as middle class. Apparently, that is not good enough anymore because her husband just got a second job and they have three grown kids that live in their home because they cannot afford to move out.

Let us talk about why people cannot afford to move out. One reason is food prices, the most basic necessity of life. In a country as blessed and wealthy as Canada, nobody should ever go hungry. There is no reason why any man, woman or child should go to bed, school or work hungry, yet for more and more, this is the reality Canadians are facing every day, and the reason is because of inflated food prices.

I could stand up here and talk about percentages, but all members need to do is go to their grocery store and look at the bill. They know that prices just keep going up. Even if the price stays the same, and my wife has told me this recently, the package and the portions are smaller and the quantities are fewer. The price has not changed, it is the same old price, but we are not getting the same bang for our buck we got just a year ago.

The average Canadian family will pay an additional $1,000 a year for groceries this coming year. As if that is not bad enough, in my riding, which is largely rural, it gets even more complicated. A constituent told me the other day that if they had not made significant changes and cuts to their weekly grocery bill, they would be paying $1,000 more every two months. We are not talking luxury vehicles or vacation homes. We are talking about something as basic as making sure that Canadians can put food on the table, and for too many Canadian families and seniors, that is getting harder to do.

We also know that when the price of food goes up, the more expensive items, the really healthy foods like fruits and vegetables, tend to be the first things to go up in price and the first things that get cut from the budget because they are just too expensive.

By the way, when grocery prices go up, who gets the money? The government sure takes its share. I do not have time this morning, but I could talk a long while about how the carbon tax has actually fuelled inflation and damaged the average Canadian's affordability index. We know who does not get the money, and that is the average hard-working Canadian who is finding it harder and harder to get by, let alone get ahead.

Liberals claim that inflation is a worldwide phenomenon, the result of international markets reacting to COVID, the global supply chain issues and the war in Ukraine. I am sure all of those things do play a role and that makes a very convenient smokescreen for the government, but let us look at the facts.

Canada has the ability to feed itself. Canada has abundant resources, which should have resulted in affordable gas prices, but because of the Liberal government, it has not. There is no reason we cannot produce enough quality food for Canadians so that the prices are reasonable. There is also no reason we cannot ship it across at a reasonable price. The only reason that neither of those things is happening right now is because of the government's policies.

Let us also look at housing. Let us talk housing for a minute. When the Prime Minister took office, the average home price in Canada was $435,000. Today, a mere six and a half years later, the average home price is $810,000, a whopping 85% increase. That is what The Canadian Real Estate Association's chief economist called the biggest gain of all time. That is “Justinflation”.

Bloomberg reports that Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world. Toronto and Vancouver are the world's fifth and second most expensive housing markets. Families are now spending two-thirds of their gross income on monthly mortgage payments for the average home. No wonder 53% of Canadian families are on the verge of not being able to pay their bills and service their debt. It is not just in our major cities either.

I recently heard from two of my constituents, Joe and Skyler. They just had a baby and, like many Canadians, are trying to save up money for a house. This makes sense because renting where they live costs as much, if not more, than a mortgage payment. The issue is a down payment. When prices are inflated like this, that becomes an issue.

In the town where they live, the average home price is about $400,000. If they could get a minimum 5% down payment, they would need to save up $20,000. That would be tough enough, but Joe is a self-employed contractor who recently started his own construction company. Because he is self-employed, the bank says he needs a 30% down payment. How is Joe, a single income earner, supposed to save up $120,000? That is in rural Manitoba. Imagine if they lived in Toronto or Vancouver, where the average home price is $1.5 million, which requires a $450,000 down payment for self-employed individuals.

A home for their family is fast becoming the impossible dream, just like it is for so many Canadians. Why is this? It is because of “Justinflation”. Justinflation is hitting our homes. It is hitting homes right across Canada. Instead of infusing another $70 billion into our existing $1.2 trillion of debt, we need a viable plan forward. As Robert Asselin, senior vice-president of policy at the Business Council of Canada, said, “The right path is to grow the economy to pay for new spending measures – not the other way around.”

Canadians are finding it harder to make ends meet. To fill up one's car costs more, groceries cost more, household items cost more. Simply put, inflation is causing everything to cost more. Policies are crippling to families, farmers and truckers. I look at this bill and, to be honest, I do not think this is going to help. I do not think more spending is the answer. I do not think more regulation is the answer.

It is not the cost of food, gas or housing that is the real problem. It is the cost of the government, a government whose policies ensure that more dollars are chasing fewer goods. It is the fact that we have a government that says it wants to help families, when it really needs to just get out of the way. It should stop flooding the market with inflationary currency, get the deficit under control, reduce the debt and stop trying to control everything. The government needs to let Canadians live their lives and get out of the way.

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

Madam Speaker, a number of Conservatives have talked about inflation and what they fail to say is that, when we compare Canada to the United States, Canada's inflation rate is below the United States. When we compare Canada's inflation rate to G20 countries, on average we will find that Canada's inflation rate is below the average G20 country. Canada's economic policies have been progressive, ensuring that Canadians' backs would be protected while going through very difficult times.

I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on what supports he believes should have been cut to address the concerns that he raised in his comments.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I anticipated the member for Winnipeg North would be here with a question. I would be really eager to provide him with an answer, but there is $600 billion that the Liberal government has spent in the last two years that is unaccounted for. I cannot tell him where he should have spent less money because he will not tell us where he spent the money in the first place.

It is time for the government to be honest and transparent with Canadians.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again today.

I want to begin by acknowledging that we are all on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and express our deep appreciation for their patience as we remain on unceded territory. Meegwetch. We need to re-establish in every speech, at every opportunity, the ongoing demands of reconciliation, and it has to be more than a land acknowledgement.

Today, I stand to speak at report stage on Bill C-8, a bill I support and which I have spoken to at previous stages in this place. Report stage gives us an opportunity to look at where we are on the verge of the bill passing and going forth to the other place. Some concerns have arisen, and I want to address those because I would like to know from the government that there is a plan to address issues that surfaced from the hard work and diligence of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I also want to reflect, as we have this opportunity at report stage, when we are more than two years into a pandemic, to perhaps look at some of the elements that are at a higher level of abstraction in the bill before us, but which are related. Nothing will be off topic, but I do want to reflect on where we are now two years into the pandemic.

First, let me address what Bill C-8 is, just as a quick refresher. This is a bill in seven parts exclusively in response to COVID-19 at various aspects: its health impacts; the essential equipment that we need, such as rapid testing; and impacts on different sectors, including schools, businesses, individuals and workers. It is one more of the many, many bills we have seen since we started down this road March 13, 2020, when this place adjourned because we realized we were in a global pandemic and we could not continue meeting as we had. Since that moment on March 13, 2020, we have in this place, generally by unanimous consent, approved tens of billions of dollars of relief similar to what is in the package before us today in Bill C-8, which I support.

We have things like rapid tests, ventilation for schools, delays for small business for when they have to start repaying loans. It is a package with which I think all of us in this place are now very familiar. One thing was surprising, and I want to dive into it a bit because the citizens of Canada need to know that we are paying attention to the billions of dollars we pass in this place, and that was a certain redundancy, which the sharp-eyed people at the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer noticed. It is in relation to spending for rapid tests, which again, I support.

There is $1.7 billion for rapid tests found in Bill C-8. There was $2.5 billion for rapid tests found in Bill C-10, and then there was the $4 billion in the supplementary estimates that we have also passed. The question is this: Are we paying more than once for rapid tests? The answer is yes. The money is allocated, at least $4 billion, twice. I see an alarmed parliamentary secretary looking my way, yet Yves Giroux, our Parliamentary Budget Officer, has confirmed that there is in fact more money allotted than is needed.

I will quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaking in the other place:

When we asked questions about the intended use of this funding, it was to procure rapid tests for COVID-19 and to distribute them to provinces and then to Canadians. When we [the Parliamentary Budget Office] asked why try to have it go these two different routes to get to the same end, the government responded that it wants to get the funding as soon as possible, so they’re trying this through Bill C-10 and Bill C-8, as well as Supplementary Estimates (C). They will use whichever authorities come first to procure these tests. However, they have already started procuring these tests, so they are doing some risk management should the spending not be approved. That seems to be the reason why they are pursuing the two different approaches.

The discussion in the Senate then went on to discuss if would we spend $4 billion twice, or would there be some way of stopping the additional approvals once the tests are purchased? I do not really feel I have an answer to that question in this place.

I am still voting for Bill C-8. I want to make sure we get the rapid tests. I want to make sure we know what we are spending the money on, but I would also like to register now in this place, especially to government members, that we want to make sure there is some mechanism in place to avoid spending $4 billion twice. It appears from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's questioning of the government that this was not by accident, but I would like to flag that I have never seen it before, and I think it is quite unusual to approve spending $4 billion twice to make sure we get it once.

With that, I want to turn to a key area I think is, at a higher level of distraction, a problem with our federation. I am not proposing ways to fix it, but I want to flag it. It has been the reason we failed to meet our climate targets. I do not mean just recently; I mean over the last three decades. It is a reason why, I think, we have been less effective as a country, and I am not speaking of a particular government or political party, than we could have been in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. My thread on this is that, spoiler alert, I do not think the provinces and the federal government work particularly well together. They should, and we must.

I note that on COVID-19, eight dollars out of every $10 spent on COVID relief came from the federal government. We passed that in this place. Collectively, we did that. However, there was the speed with which we acted. The federal government might have been ready to act on numerous occasions, but the provinces were not, and if the action was in an area of provincial jurisdiction, we were delayed.

I definitely know this is the case on the climate emergency. Ironically, the European Union, which is made up of more than two dozen independent separate sovereign nation states, has done a better job than our federal government, our 10 provincial and three territorial governments, all together in one country, being able coordinate, negotiate and come up with a shared solution.

Leaving the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the European Union went back to home base and within weeks had negotiated a global agreement, global meaning all the EU countries in a bubble, on who would do more cutting of greenhouse gases and who would do less, so they could achieve the target they collectively negotiated. They are now collectively about 40% below their 1990 levels of emissions. Canada is about 20% above our 1990 levels of emissions, and I think a lot of this is because of federal-provincial tensions and a failure of collaborative leadership. I do not know how else to put it.

In the case of the ventilation for schools, which is my thread here, I worked all summer of 2020 on an idea I got for how to get kids back to school safely. I thought about it, and I thought of all of these tourism facilities, as I am very committed to the tourism sector, such as convention centres and hotels, that were vacant because of COVID-19. They would like to be able to put people to work. We had schools that would have overcrowding if kids went back to school. I wondered why we could not take the places that were empty because of COVID and allow schools to take place there. Then they would have had a lot more air and a lot more ventilation. It might have worked. I started talking to people, like the brilliant Paul Nursey, who heads Destination Greater Victoria. I started talking to people who run convention centres. They said they loved the idea and that it could work.

I will fast-forward to how many people and groups I got involved: People for Education in Toronto; the Tourism Industry Association of Canada; the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the union that was negotiating and talking to other levels of government; and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities gave me the time of day too. We started thinking we could put this together, and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance of this nation and her staff were interested in the idea. The one place I could not get any pickup at all, where I could not get anyone to pick up the phone and call me back, was the provincial ministry of education, and no one was going to go anywhere with this idea unless the provincial minister of education signed on.

Now we have here in Bill C-8 one of the things I was trying to address in my completely ad hoc volunteer way to try to get something to happen, and we are now approving ventilation for schools. That is provincial jurisdiction. We should have acted on that a year or more ago, and in my opinion, the reason we are approving it now in the federal Parliament, as opposed to much sooner, is that we could not get the provinces on board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the effort and the work that the member, the former leader of the Green Party, puts into her speeches. They are substantial in their content.

I want to address the issue of the billions of dollars that were allocated to the government to acquire rapid tests. That is probably the most important aspect. Getting the rapid tests in a timely fashion was absolutely critical. We saw that in the uptake of the tests in late December going into January. I do not necessarily know the details as well as the member does, but my understanding, in regard to this bill, was to ensure we had them for the months of November to December, and maybe into January. That was my understanding of this specific bill.

Would she not agree the most important thing is that Canada be in a position to acquire the rapid tests for circulation among our provinces and territories?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind words. I am certain, as I am not like other opposition MPs looking for a chance to say, “Gotcha”, that this was done with the best of intentions to make sure we would have access to rapid tests and were able to acquire them.

Our job in this place is to scrutinize spending and make sure that we flag it when we see something a little funny. It is Parliament that controls the public purse, or at least that is the fiction and that is our principle. I am not suggesting the intentions were not the best, and I agree with the hon. member that it is most important to have rapid tests and to be able to buy them when we can. However, I do not think we need to authorize spending for them twice.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her speech. She talked about Kyoto and the fact that different levels of government collaborated.

A significant portion of Bill C‑8 has to do with COVID‑19 measures, and since that is basically a health issue, would it not be easier for the federal government to work with the provinces if the government agreed to their request to increase health transfers?

That would be one less bone of contention, anyway.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is not surprising to hear a Bloc Québécois member express serious concerns about transfers for our public health system.

However, this brings a question to mind. We have recognized that Quebec forms a nation. Why is it so difficult for the Quebec nation, which is part of Canada, to work collaboratively with the federal government, whereas France, for example, is able to work collaboratively with the European Union on common concerns and goals?

It is disappointing, but this is our reality in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the point of jurisdiction and remark that, coming out of 2004, Canada had a model for health funding predicated upon health accords where the federal government played not only an important funding role, but also a convening role. We had provinces that were not told what to do by Ottawa, but they came together with Ottawa to determine common priorities and then a funding structure. We moved away from that under the Harper government and this current government, despite having committed to it, has chosen to not renew that model. That means that we do not have those tables for collaboration on something as important as health funding.

Could the member speak to that model and the role that engaging in that model on an ongoing basis can play when we face emergencies such as the pandemic?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona that I cannot remember a single time when he has said something with which I disagree. Once again, we are in violent agreement.

We need to restart our health accord process. We need to get people to the table. On environmental issues, it may be a little different. However, when engaging with the provinces most successfully in the 1980s, we actually won the battle to stop acid rain with agreements that were negotiated bilaterally. We did one province at a time until we got a deal. We started with the easy ones and worked our way up to the hardest one.

We need viable, collaborative federalism. On health, we need that national health accord. On other issues, we need to just get together and make sense.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I must steal a few seconds from my colleague. I simply want to point out something that the House cannot ignore today, and that is the Acting Speaker's birthday.

[Members sang a song]

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Order. I thank the hon. member, but I must remind the House that, unfortunately, singing is prohibited in the House.

I want to assure the member for Calgary Midnapore that no time will be taken away from her speaking time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I cannot resist noting it is not always prohibited to sing in the chamber. We can, of course, sing O Canada on Wednesdays.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Resuming debate.

I hope we can finally hear from the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore. The hon. member.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot sing, but it was still nice to hear my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, with whom we form the opposition in the House.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-8, of course. This is not long before we are actually going to be presented with the next budget, so I think it is very important that Canadians evaluate the past performance of the NDP-Liberal coalition before deciding to even consider approving the next budget.

I want to start by saying that my colleagues and I, here in the official opposition, have been very positive in our spirit of collaboration in the last couple of years as we have gone through the difficult time of the pandemic, but we also certainly have our limits, as individuals and groups must have their limits, in terms of what they are willing to accept.

I look at the beginning of the pandemic, when we passed, in November of 2021, Bill C-2, the first COVID relief package, worth $37 billion. There was certainly a lot of funding there. We went on to pass other legislation in the House with significant price tags, including Bill C-3, which went through the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That was a $7-billion price tag.

In December 2021, we also had Bill C-8, which we are debating here today, with additional spending of $71.2 billion. These are not small amounts.

I will say that we certainly have done what was necessary throughout the pandemic. Everyone in the House, certainly on this side of the House, supports Canadians and wants to see Canadians get the help they need, but it has certainly become incredibly excessive and even growing, perhaps, with this new NDP coalition. We have to be wary about the items that we are seeing in the new NDP-Liberal coalition, which will cost billions upon billions of extra dollars, potentially.

At the same time that we saw the House helping Canadians, eventually leading to overspending even beyond what was necessary, we can go further back than that to something that I brought up today in question period: the destruction of the natural resources sector. This is something that did not start two years ago. This started seven years ago, when we saw the initial election of the NDP-Liberal coalition government, which continues to play out today.

To start, we saw it in November of 2016, when the northern gateway pipeline was rejected by this coalition. We look to October 2017, when TransCanada cancelled the energy east pipeline project as a result of pressure from this coalition.

This is something that this NDP-Liberal coalition likes to do. They create impossible environments for industry, whereby industry has no other choice but to abandon these projects. Then the NDP-Liberal coalition says that it is not their fault because it was abandoned by industry, when they have made conditions impossible to complete these projects.

We cannot forget January 2017, when the Prime Minister said he wanted to phase out the oil sands. He said, “You can't make a choice between what's good for the environment and what is good for the economy.... We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Right there, we see the Prime Minister had committed to his continued path of destroying the natural resource sector, with the help of the NDP-Liberal coalition. This, of course, led to April 2018, when Kinder Morgan halted the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion because of “continued actions in opposition to the project”, which was not surprising.

In May of 2018, we saw the NDP-Liberal coalition buy the Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion, but it again created impossible conditions for the project to be completed, whereby Kinder Morgan eventually abandoned the project. Once again, the government created impossible conditions for this industry.

Of course, I cannot help but mention Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium, and of course Bill C-69, which were both passed in June 2019 and completely destroyed that sector. We often refer to C-69 as the “no more pipelines” bill.

Therefore, I find it very rich that I hold in my hand here a Canadian Press article from March 20, 2022, which indicates that Liberals may find extra spending room in the budget created by rising oil prices. It is reported that it is a position similar to the one the Liberals found themselves in last December when a rosier economic picture gave the government $38.5 billion in extra spending room. Guess what. The NDP-Liberal government quickly ate up $28.4 billion with new expenditures. This extra funding, as a result of the natural resources sector, could be up to $5 billion, but we know that the NDP-Liberal government will eat that up in a moment before spending even more than that.

In fact, the former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page said, “It would be a policy mistake for the government to assume that higher-than-anticipated inflation will create extra fiscal room which could be used to deficit finance longer-term programs,” many of which we are seeing in the NDP-Liberal coalition. That is very interesting.

We see that the government has a habit of spending any money we give it. It will not pay down the record debt or the record deficit. Instead, it will spend it, so why should we trust it and give it more money? Why should we not look at this upcoming budget with scrupulosity and hesitancy?

More insulting than the government's spending what it does not have, and spending it on the back of the industry that it has destroyed entirely, is that it announced yesterday that now it plans to boost oil exports 5% in an effort to ease the energy supply crisis. This was an announcement that the Minister of Natural Resources made yesterday, following the second day of meetings at the International Energy Agency's annual ministerial gathering in Paris.

He said that Canadian industry has the pipeline and production capacity to incrementally increase oil and gas exports this year by 300,000 barrels per day, comprising 200,000 barrels of oil and 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in natural gas. The Alberta natural resources minister had a response to that. She said:

We can increase production if we can get more infrastructure built and I think that's what was missing in the conversation.... It's really not ambitious to talk about a short term potential of 200,000 barrels when we sit on top of the third largest [oil] reserves in the world.

In addition to that, we have seen a labour shortage. The NDP-Liberal government fired hundreds of thousands of workers when it set out to destroy the natural resources sector, so this sector has been struggling with a lack of workers since last year, according to a Canadian Press story, when rebounding oil prices first spurred an uptake in drilling activity in the Canadian oil patch.

In conclusion, on this side of the House, we have tried to work with the NDP-Liberal coalition. It has shown it cannot handle funds responsibly, time and time again. Now it is turning to the industry it destroyed. Now it has decided it is time to step up given that Ukrainians and Europe are suffering, while Canadians have suffered for a long time under this coalition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish you a happy birthday.

I listened to the Conservatives speak on Bill C-8. I am wondering if they have in fact read the bill or have a sense of what it is about. What we do know is that the Conservatives are voting against the bill. It is not the first time they do not support legislation to support Canadians. For example, the bill ensures proper school ventilation. It ensures the acquisition of rapid tests. It puts in place the 1% annual tax on foreign ownership of properties, which hopefully will help drive down some of the speculation in the cost of housing in Canada.

Can the member explain why she opposes those three policy initiatives, given that this is what we are supposed to be debating today?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have demonstrated, as I indicated in my speech, that we have supported legislation in moments of crisis when it was absolutely necessary for Canadians. What we will not do is give the NDP-Liberal coalition a blank cheque. We will not do that. We are responsible to Canadians to watch the spending of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

If this member is so passionate about legislation that helps Canadians, then why did his government put forward Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which hurt so many Canadians?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague for Calgary Midnapore dealt with the issue of how we finance these expenditures. One of those ways, obviously, is the preferred way of the NDP-Liberal coalition, which is to borrow money and burden future taxpayers. The other, as the member pointed out fascinatingly in her speech, was the increased revenue that is coming in to the federal government as a result of higher oil and gas prices.

I live in a part of the world where we have to burn oil from Saudi Arabia because the coalition decided that it did not want a pipeline called energy east. We also have to burn electricity from Colombian coal in Nova Scotia. That is where we get our energy: from Saudi Arabian oil and Colombian coal, because of the policies of the government.

I would like the member for Calgary Midnapore to please comment on what she thinks about the preference for us to burn energy and oil from places, such as Saudi Arabia, with repressive regimes compared with clean, ethical Canadian oil.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I think it shows how little the government thinks of Canadians that it would turn to nations with dictatorships, that it would turn to nations without regard for human rights, and that it would turn to nations without regard for the rule of law before turning to its own citizens and its own resources to fill these needs. It just shows what little respect it has for Canadians, our resources and, frankly, our livelihoods as well.

It is incredibly disappointing to see this historic action from the NDP-Liberal government. I think we are going to see a lot more of it, given the additional information about the NDP-Liberal coalition that was made public this week.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess my shortest question to the member for Calgary Midnapore is this. Is she familiar with the course of the Kinder Morgan pipeline before the National Energy Board? The National Energy Board refused to hear evidence that it would cost jobs and hurt the economy. The National Energy Board rejected the evidence of Unifor, and said that the NEB was not going to look at the economy or jobs. The proponent from Texas decided it could not make money with the project and eventually laughed all the way to the bank in Texas.

I will cut it short there and ask her this. Is she familiar with the actual history of the Kinder Morgan pipeline?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it has a very interesting history. At the time, I was consul to Dallas, Texas. We actually had an inverse relationship, whereby Mr. Harper was ready to pass any energy project necessary, while President Obama, who was a known ally of the NDP-Liberal coalition, was there to stop every interest for Canada at every step of the way.

Those are my comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-8, which is another massive Liberal spending bill. It is legislation that seeks to spend $71 billion. This is $71 billion in new spending, and $71 billion that the government does not have. That is on top of some $600 billion that the government has spent over the past two years, one-third of which had nothing to do with COVID. This is at a time when the national debt has soared to a historic $1.2 trillion, nearly double what it was in the last two years alone, and here we are with another massive Liberal spending bill.

With billions here and trillions there, one begins to wonder and try to understand exactly what $71 billion is. How much is that? To put it in some context, it equals roughly the amount that the federal government collects in GST revenue annually, combined with the amount that the federal government spends in terms of health care. GST revenue collected and health care spending on an annual basis combined is what $71 billion means.

From the time that the government took office, there has not been a price tag that was too high. There has been no such thing as spending too much. The Prime Minister has spent more than any prime minister in Canadian history. The Prime Minister has added more to the national debt than any prime minister in Canadian history. Indeed, the Prime Minister has added so much debt that we can take all of the prime ministers who preceded him, from 1867 to 2015, and the total accumulated national debt over 150 years does not match the amount of debt that the current Prime Minister has added in six and a half short years.

The government has a spending problem. It has a deficit and a debt problem and, to pay for it all, the government has done something that no previous government has ever done in terms of monetary policy. That is quantitative easing: in other words, the printing of money. What that has led to is the largest increase in the supply of money in half a century. We have not seen such an increase since the early 1970s. What that has meant is more money chasing fewer goods. We know what that results in: It results in inflation. Inflation hit 5.7% in February. It was the highest level of inflation since April of 1991 or August of 1991, but who is counting? In more than 30 years, we have the highest level of inflation. All projections are that inflation is only going to get worse, and rising inflation means higher interest rates. On March 1, the Bank of Canada increased interest rates. By all accounts, there will be further interest rate increases.

What does 5.7% inflation mean? It is significantly above the Bank of Canada's target of 2%. That target was established during the recession of the early 1990s, and for basically 30 years the Bank of Canada held to that target. That target was held until the Liberal government showed up, and we now see inflation at nearly triple that upper target.

It is one thing to talk about inflation in an abstract way, but there is a very real cost for all of this inflation and it is being borne by our constituents: everyday Canadians who are struggling to get by. It is called an inflation tax. That inflation tax has famously become known as “Justinflation”.

Thanks to “Justinflation”, food costs have gone up by 7.4%. That means the average family is going to pay $1,000 more for groceries this year than they did last year. When one recognizes that some 40% of Canadians are $250 away from insolvency, $1,000 puts a real squeeze on millions of Canadians who are going to have to make difficult choices about what to do in order to simply put food on the table.

Gas has skyrocketed 33% in the past year alone. What is the government's solution to this cost of living crisis? It is to double down and pour gasoline on an inflationary fire with $71 billion in new spending. What is that going to mean? It is going to mean more debt, more money printing and even more inflation. Guess what that means for everyday Canadians? It means higher costs for essentials, for everything, and diminished earnings.

Canadians need relief and they need relief now. Instead, the government's approach, on top of taxing them with “Justinflation”, has been to increase payroll taxes. It has increased—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

There is a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The member knows full well, when he is referencing inflation and using the Prime Minister's first name, that we are not allowed to use a minister's or any member's name in the chamber.

As much as it might be cute to say, it does go against our parliamentary rules. Members need to address ministers and members by their riding or by their portfolio.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I would remind members that they cannot refer to a colleague in the House by name, only by their government title or riding.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris on a point of order.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the member for Winnipeg North just wants the word “just” struck from the Canadian language.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I invite the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton to resume his speech. He has one minute and 34 seconds remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has made life less affordable for everyday Canadians, from the Liberal inflation tax to payroll tax increases that came into effect on January 1 to a 25% hike in the carbon tax, which is only going to increase the cost of essentials even more, and then voting down a practical proposal put forward by those on this side of the House to give Canadians some desperately needed relief by giving Canadians a gas tax holiday. The NDP-Liberal coalition voted against it because they want to punish Canadians at the pump.

In closing, let me just say that the government's solution to getting out of an affordability crisis is to spend more. That is the problem. That is what got us into this affordability crisis. In order to get out of it, we need to rein in spending, and as a starting point towards achieving that, Bill C-8 must be defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member says Bill C-8 has to be defeated, and I genuinely believe that the member is a part of that extreme right within his caucus that does want to see government not support Canadians. That is the reality.

When we talk about supports through the purchasing of rapid tests or additional monies being spent for school ventilation or the supports that were there for our seniors in regard to the CERB overpayments, there has been a vast expenditure by the government to support Canadians through these very difficult times of the pandemic.

Could the member indicate to the House if his entire caucus shares the same opinion he has, the opinion that the programs that were provided, the billions and billions of dollars to support small businesses and individual Canadians, was money poorly spent, or is it just he himself who has that belief?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the far-left member for Winnipeg North that much of the government's spending has been poorly targeted.

My friend the parliamentary secretary spoke about supports for small businesses. Well, went it came to the wage subsidy, Statistics Canada analysis determined that big businesses were twice as likely to get the wage subsidy as small businesses. A lot of money was spent; unfortunately, much of that money was directed to the wrong places.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member, I do think the arguments the Conservatives are putting forward with regard to inflation are a bit simplistic. At the agriculture committee right now, we are doing a study on supply chain issues. Witness after witness is talking about the pressures from labour and the lack of reliability in our networks.

Of course there is a war going on in Ukraine, but I would like to ask the member about the inflationary pressures associated with climate change. We know that this is going to give rise to increased conflict around the world. There will be water scarcity. There will be fighting over limited agricultural resources. Oil and gas have always been volatile energy sources.

I would like to ask the member about those inflationary pressures of climate change and the Conservatives' logical fallacy of continuing to pursue fossil fuel development when that in fact is going to lead to climate change, which in turn will increase inflationary pressures on everyday goods and services.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to inflation, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer appeared before the finance committee, he said that all of the stimulus spending provided in Bill C-8 was unhelpful and was no longer necessary. He also acknowledged that the government's deficits and debt were fuelling the fire of inflation.

With respect to the carbon tax, we have now learned, confirmed from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that it is contributing to inflation. It is making life less affordable. It is increasing the cost of goods. That is why we on this side of the House are focused on providing relief to Canadians who need help now by reducing their overall tax burden and allowing them to keep more of what they earn.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague just began to answer the question I was going to ask. I have heard the questions talking about the far right and the far left in response to his discourse.

In the member's opinion, where does the Parliamentary Budget Officer stand in that spectrum between the far left and far right, and what were the PBO's comments on $71 billion of additional spending and its relation to inflation?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer provides objective analysis. The analysis that he has provided is that the current government gets an F when it comes to inflation.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act, 2021. I will say that many of my constituents and Canadians across this nation are concerned with the fiscal policies of the government, and rightly so. Government spending is totally out of control, and Canadians are paying the price. The cost of everything is rising at record rates, inflation is reaching new highs, and the value of one's hard-earned dollar is becoming less and less.

If Canadians thought the last six years of government spending were bad, they are in for a rude awakening until 2025. We found out that Canada has a new government this week, a Liberal–NDP government that Canadians did not want. If the NDP is now in charge of our nation's finances, government spending is guaranteed to reach unprecedented highs.

Financial experts are already sounding the alarm about the consequences of more spending. The director of fiscal and provincial economics at Scotiabank stated, “The finance minister risks further undermining Ottawa's credibility in its commitment to tackling inflation.” I would be interested to know if part of the backroom deal with the NDP was to remove the fiscal guardrails that the finance minister talked about so much.

Canadians expect their government to be fiscally responsible. Bill C-8 has $300 million dedicated toward proof-of-vaccination policy. At a time when provinces are lifting mandates, removing restrictions and giving Canadians control of their lives again, the government wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on more vaccine mandates.

Canada has one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. Every provincial government has been giving control of their lives back to Canadians, but the federal government has no plan to end these mandates. It had an opportunity to do so yesterday. Canada's Conservatives introduced an opposition day motion calling on the federal government to lift all federal vaccine mandates immediately. We wanted to protect the jobs of federally regulated employees. We wanted to enable Canadians to travel freely. We wanted to kick-start our nation's tourism industry. We wanted to enable our goods to move across our national border. Guess what? The Liberal–NDP government did not want to see Canadians regain control of their lives. It voted our motion down.

I think of all the local guides and outfitters in my constituency who rely on American clientele to make a living. Their businesses were completely shut down because of government restrictions. I met with people at North Mountain Outfitters in my constituency, whose business came to a complete stop because of the government. Guides, outfitters and lodge owners contribute immensely to the local economies of rural and remote Canada, but there is no plan to help them or the thousands of outfitters across our nation to reopen.

Bill C-8 also refers to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. Most Canadians know it as the Liberal carbon tax, newly named the Liberal–NDP carbon tax. I should remind this House that the Liberal carbon tax is going up again on April 1, increasing the cost of gas when the cost of fuel is already reaching record highs, but every time Canadians raise their concerns with the Liberal carbon tax, the government tells them off, basically. The Liberals claim that Canadians are in better shape financially from this pricey tax. They say that more money is going back into the pockets of Canadians than into the government coffers.

Every time the government says that Canadians benefit from the Liberal carbon tax, Canadians call it out. They do not buy it for a second. Guess what? Yesterday we learned that Canadians were right. The Liberal carbon tax will leave Canadians worse off. Canada's independent Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report stating that the Liberal carbon tax is a financial burden on Canadian families. The report stated that the majority of households in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario will see a net loss from the Liberal carbon tax. There we have it. The Liberals can no longer hide behind their talking points. Canadians will be worse off financially.

We also know that this financial burden impacts rural Canadians more. Rural Canadians, in particular, know that the Liberal carbon tax unfairly impacts them for simply living in rural Canada, within Canada's vast and beautiful geography.

The government tries to make rural Canadians feel better by giving them an extra 10% back. People are probably wondering how the government determined this number. Does 10% account for the increased heating costs in rural Canada? Does 10% account for the driving that rural Canadians have to do? Does 10% account for the increased cost of transported goods to rural Canada?

That is why I asked the government at committee yesterday what scientific assessment was done to decide that a 10% additional carbon tax rebate accounted for the added expenses of rural Canadians. Guess what? Canadians will never know, because the government admitted that no scientific assessment was completed to ensure that rural Canadians were getting back an adequate amount of their money. Can we imagine that? Once again, rural Canadians were neglected by the government.

Municipalities are also concerned with the financial accountability of the Liberal carbon tax. Canadians may not know this, but the Liberal government applies this tax to municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals. I do not know how taxing a hospital reduces greenhouse gas emissions, but I digress. The fact is that the government promised to return the taxes to municipalities and hospitals, but it has not. To date, municipalities and hospitals in my home province of Manitoba have received no money through the MUSH retrofit stream.

The Association of Manitoba Municipalities raised concerns, but its concerns have clearly fallen on deaf ears. On March 4, the AMM wrote to the government and stated the following: “our members continue to raise questions regarding the lack of communication about CAIF rebates for 2020-21 and 2021-22 for the MUSH sector”.

This is of course concerning, given that the Government of Canada is legally obligated to return these funds to the province of origin. As well, it previously committed to sharing these revenues with municipalities to assist with advancing climate change-related projects. I see why rural Canadians have lost their trust in the government.

Canadians pay attention when any government spending bill is pushed through Parliament. Bill C-8 is no exception. Canadians feel let behind. The cost of living is rising at record rates, and the new NDP-Liberal government will only accelerate this. The Liberal carbon tax is fuelling Canada's inflation crisis and is leaving the majority of households worse off financially.

The federal government has yet to introduce a plan to end mandates and give Canadians back control of their lives, and hospitals and municipalities are paying tens of thousands of dollars in taxes without receiving a promised penny back. God help us all.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the interesting things that comes to my mind in listening to my colleague's speech is the fact that there was a time when the Conservative Party actually opposed the price on pollution. The member makes reference to a carbon tax. The party's most recent former leader, who took us through the last federal election, was actually a supporter of a carbon tax or a price on pollution. However, given the nature of a number of the speeches, can Canadians anticipate that the Conservative Party of Canada is going to be changing again? Instead of supporting the price on pollution, they are now lining themselves up behind, possibly, the member for Carleton, who does not support a price on pollution.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, our party has always stood up for rural Canada. The fact is that rural Canada is paying a disproportionate part of the carbon tax that has been imposed by the Liberals, and they are not even giving it back. The 10% does not even come close to the inflationary pressures they are putting on rural Canadians and small communities, and I will defend that to the end of this day.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this morning, the Conservatives have been talking a lot about inflation.

Inflation may be caused by one of two things: supply or demand. We are more used to seeing inflation due to demand, but many experts agree that the current inflation is caused by supply issues.

The Conservatives have talked a lot about house prices. In the context of a supply-related inflationary crisis, would it be a good idea to bring in measures to create more housing? Could my colleague at least tell us whether he believes that this inflationary crisis is tied to supply or to demand?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, no matter what kind of thing we are trying to build in Canada or what we are trying to move, it all depends on energy. We need energy and there is a massive shortage of energy to get anywhere, not only in Canada but in the world.

For example, anyone trying to grow food right now in Canada needs fertilizer. Fertilizer is made from natural gas. Natural gas has tripled and doubled, and we cannot get natural gas in certain parts of Canada, so we cannot even make the fertilizer in the first place. What is increasing the price of everything is the price of our energy, and it is throwing everything out of whack.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to a remark the member made about lifting public health restrictions. He will know, of course, that when the Conservatives originally had a motion for the government to table a plan, there was an illegal occupation going on in the nation's capital. That is why the New Democrats felt it was appropriate to go against that motion at the time, because we did not think it was appropriate to capitulate to the occupation of the nation's capital.

Subsequently, this week, when the Conservatives brought forward a new motion, it was to lift all public health restrictions. We proposed an amendment to call on the chief public health officer to conduct a review of public health measures, which she said was warranted, and to announce the results of that review and the evidence and arguments behind whatever continuation or lifting of public health restrictions she felt was appropriate. However, we were not able to vote on that amendment because the Conservatives would not accept debate and a vote on it. I am just wondering why that is.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that the provinces have lifted the mandates. We have no restrictions. We can go out this door, and as soon as we exit this building, we can take our masks off. If I were to go to a restaurant, I do not even have to wear a mask anymore. That is the reality of what is going on in Canada, except in this Ottawa bubble and anything that touches federal jurisdiction. That is ridiculous. How do we move forward as a country? That is what we are asking for, or even just a suggestion that we are going toward a goal. That is all Canadians are looking for.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Huron—Bruce will be up shortly to talk to his private member's bill, which is an important private member's bill, and I intend to highlight it through my speech.

It is always an honour to rise in the House and address the concerns of my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

When I first spoke to Bill C-8 at second reading, I talked about the cost of living and inflation, which is a concern that I am hearing about every day from my constituents. They are worried about these record highs in inflation. It has been over 30 years since we have had inflation this high. It is at almost 6%. They are worried about their ability to live with that affordability question, and it does impact rural Canada much more than the rest of Canada, especially our farmers.

I will focus part of my interjection on part 1 of the bill, which talks about the amendments to income tax and income tax regulations, but I will speak specifically to the paragraphs that talk about the new refundable tax credit for eligible businesses and qualifying ventilation expenses made to improve air quality, as well as the second bit on the new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.

Before I do that, I want to again highlight the cost of servicing the incredible amount of spending and debt that we now have as a country. The national debt has doubled in the last six years from about $600 billion to $1.2 trillion. To service that debt is over $24 billion, and that is before interest rates go up. As I mentioned in previous speeches, that is more than the budget for our Canadian Armed Forces. Hopefully, we will, as the government has indicated, see some changes in that budget based on the unfortunate circumstance in Ukraine.

However, the problem with servicing such incredible debt is that it actually puts those social programs that so many Canadians depend upon at risk. As the PBO has outlined, much of the stimulus spending that is included in Bill C-8, approximately $71 billion, is not necessary. We are in a cost-of-living crisis, and we need to make decisions to change that. As has been spoken about before, groceries alone are going up over $1,000. Seniors in this country cannot afford that, and low-income Canadians cannot afford that. All of these products and produce are available here in Canada.

I want to go back to the legislation, specifically to the new refundable tax credit for eligible and qualifying businesses for ventilation expenses made to improve air quality. I brought this up before the bill went to committee and talked about the importance of trying to understand why the government chose the date of September 1, 2021, for businesses to qualify for that credit. As I highlighted before, I have businesses in my area that helped deal with, fight and combat the COVID pandemic by turning their facilities into field hospitals, but while they showed that initiative, and they put out thousands of dollars to make those changes to get ahead of the curve at the time, they do not qualify.

However, considering we are here debating the bill, I do not see the government making those changes, because the Liberals did not make those changes at committee. I would ask why the government is penalizing those small businesses and companies across Canada that did step up to fight COVID-19 and made the necessary changes to make Canadians safer. Why is the government rationalizing and not supporting that? My cynical response is that, if we look at September 1, 2021, I wonder what it was tied to, considering when we had the election this past fall.

The next piece I want to get to is around the Liberal carbon tax, but before I get to that, I want to talk about the green bond framework and the clean jobs training centre, with the caveat that the second one is not clarified yet as I brought it up at committee yesterday. However, my question is this: Why has nuclear energy been excluded from the green bond framework? It is key, and all Canadians should know that nuclear is an essential and important part of getting to a carbon-neutral economy and dealing with climate change.

It is the same thing with the clean jobs training centre. Right now it is not included in supports for getting workers skills training so they can transition to the nuclear industry and we can help get people into jobs that will help reduce our carbon footprint.

I am going to have difficulty getting through my full 10 minutes before I am cut off, but I want to talk about the refundable tax credit and what it would mean to farming businesses. I am actually optimistic that this aspect could provide some support to our agriculture industry and our farmers, especially those who are actively engaged in the management of the day-to-day activities of earning farming income or incurring farming expenses of $25,000 or more. This is a policy that I think would help the farmers in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

I will never stop underlining the importance of our farmers and the essential food they put on the table for not only Canadians, but people around the world. This has been further exacerbated in the last couple months with the war in Ukraine and Russia's terrible actions. Ukraine is the essential breadbasket for Europe, and without food coming out of Ukraine, it is that much more important that we are supporting our Canadian farmers and not making life more expensive for them, because all people around the globe are going to depend upon Canadian agriculture and food. The issue is that, although I am somewhat optimistic and happy to see this refundable tax credit included in Bill C-8, it is only a partial step in the direction we need to go.

In the last Parliament, the Conservatives introduced a private member's bill, which was passed before the House rose, to remove the Liberal carbon tax from our farmers. Unfortunately, because of the unnecessary election last summer called by the Prime Minister, that bill died in the Senate before it could be passed. We need to get that bill passed, along with the new bill of my hon. colleague from Huron—Bruce, which I know will be discussed shortly, because we need to cut the carbon tax on natural gas and propane for our grain dryers and livestock barns. Our farmers are price-takers, not price-makers, and nothing included in Bill C-8 would actually take us to the necessary level. The Liberal plan does not recognize the important role our farmers play in reducing the carbon footprint through carbon sequestration and more in this country.

I will sum up by saying that although there are some aspects in Bill C-8 that I can support, in large part it is not good enough and would actually increase spending for Canadians. I am looking forward to hearing the forthcoming debate on Bill C-234 from the hon. member for Huron—Bruce.

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

The hon. member will have five minutes of questions and comments when we next debate the bill.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 25 consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

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

Madam Speaker, historically, the powers that be have always used crises as an opportunity to build an increasingly unitary government and spread its tentacles. The so-called Canadian Confederation has always been predatory and oppressive.

This was true after the Patriotes rebellion of 1837 and 1838 was quashed by the Act of Union, which was sanctioned following the recommendation of the fundamentally racist Durham report. It was true after the world wars, when taxes that had officially been called temporary became permanent.

It was also true after the 1980 referendum on sovereignty-association, with the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution, which Quebec still has not signed. It was true after the 1995 referendum, when the government unilaterally cut provincial transfers. I remind members that Ottawa used its new surpluses to create a plethora of programs, while Quebec was forced to slash funding for public services.

It would have been really naive of us to believe that the government would not use the COVID‑19 crisis to spread its tentacles into new areas it had no reason to be in.

Budget 2021 gave us a taste of that by setting up a structure of federal intervention in areas under provincial jurisdiction. The Liberal-NDP alliance, the new ultracentralist coalition in power, will be more successful than ever at cloaking its subjugating and imperious ambitions in progressive language.

The 1% tax on underused housing owned by foreign developers proposed in Bill C-8 is a prime example of that.

I want to make one thing clear. This is a good idea in and of itself. I had the opportunity to talk about it a few weeks ago, and I said that it is a good idea on paper, in principle, because it seeks to prevent speculators from buying and selling based on the ups and downs of the market. There is no doubt that real estate speculation is a real problem right now, given that the housing situation is on the brink of disaster.

It should be noted, however, that Ottawa has been shirking its responsibility to provide appropriate funding for the construction of social and affordable housing since the 1990s and that those cuts deprived Quebec of 80,000 housing units. That little dig at the federal government aside, the tax on real estate speculation is a good measure, even if it is a very minor one.

However, just because an idea has the potential to address a legitimate problem does not mean that the federal government should violate Quebec's sovereignty and interfere in its jurisdictions. That is why we are calling this tax the “invasion tax”.

On February 17, 2022, constitutional expert Patrick Taillon explained to the Standing Committee on Finance that this idea comes with some serious negative consequences.

The ultimate goal of this so-called invasion tax is to set some parameters surrounding the right to housing, which is an explicit and exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, and the government wants to do so without any prior consultation or agreement with the provinces.

I remind members that successive governments in Ottawa have boasted about engaging in co-operative federalism, which is a chimera. The concept of co-operative federalism has taken on several names over the years, but it is actually asymmetrical or open federalism. This would not be my choice, as I would opt for independence over unco-operative federalism. This is a particularly centralizing direction for federalism.

Mr. Taillon explained that if this legislation is meant to regulate the right to housing, then it is likely unconstitutional. The pith of the bill goes beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament; it is a provincial jurisdiction.

Ottawa used its usual creativity to try to find a way around the division of powers that it has an obligation to respect, so this is an attempt to disguise a regulatory measure that falls under Quebec's jurisdiction as a tax measure.

This is the very first time that Ottawa has dared to interfere in the area of property taxes by seeking to penalize non-resident, non-Canadian second home owners. If this bill is directly related to the housing act, then we must conclude that it is unconstitutional.

It goes without saying that no one here is challenging the government's right to impose new taxes. If the primary goal is not to generate revenue but instead to limit or discourage certain behaviours related to real estate speculation, then this is more of a regulatory measure than a new tax, and it must be associated with an area of jurisdiction, in this case housing, which has always been governed by the provinces.

Without an agreement with Quebec and the provinces or their collaboration, a federal property tax would compromise the fiscal balance, which I would politely describe as already being fragile. Why would we let Ottawa borrow a tax tool that is not its own from the various local authorities, namely the municipalities and school boards, that need this tool themselves?

That imbalance will only grow in the coming years, especially given rising health care costs that Ottawa is still refusing to finance appropriately. It is important to emphasize that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's Fiscal Sustainability Report, which was released in June 2021, confirmed that the federal government still has financial flexibility, in contrast to the provinces, which have none and are in fact facing long-term viability problems. This really is not the time to be interfering in their business.

History has made it very clear that, once Ottawa gets its hands on tax fields, it never lets go. Been there, done that. Take corporate income tax, for example, which was a supposedly temporary measure brought in after the First World War, or personal income tax, another supposedly temporary measure brought in after the Second World War.

This property tax sets a dangerous precedent because Ottawa will inevitably have to set up various delegation of authority tools and infrastructure to manage it. This tax does not work like other federal taxes, so it will require new systems. As Mr. Taillon explained, once the mechanism to administer property tax is in place, it will be hard for Ottawa to resist the urge to look for more good ideas to fill that space.

Given the new ultracentralist coalition in power, I think I am entitled to feel that this will inevitably hurt the provinces, municipalities and school boards.

My political party proposed a single amendment to address this issue. We tried to find a compromise by proposing that the property tax measures apply only if the province agrees. That would just make sense, but unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois's amendment was deemed out of order by the Liberal committee chair, without even being debated. That is too bad.

In conclusion, taxation powers are directly connected to political sovereignty. In usurping an exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec state, the federal regime is becoming more and more oppressive and Quebec is losing its agency and its power. Independence has its price, to be sure, but dependence is even more costly. This invasion tax is yet more evidence of that.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about similar worries that I have about the continued centralization of government, and he talked about housing, which I am hearing a lot about in my community. The Conservatives have a solution: Motion No. 54. It is asking the federal government to abandon its failed first-time homebuyer initiative, which has only helped 15% of its target.

I wonder what the member thinks about supporting that motion. Also, what is he hearing from young people in his community? I am hearing that young people are starting to give up on the dream of home ownership. Could the member please comment on this important initiative?

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

Madam Speaker, needless to say, the housing system is in crisis. My colleague and I agree that there is a problem and that the solution being proposed is not the right way to go.

However, I think our political parties disagree on whether a real estate speculation tax should be imposed. I personally am in favour of this principle, but I simply think it was introduced in the wrong legislature.

I think my colleague also agrees with me on centralization.

However, our party differs from the Conservatives on another point. The Bloc believes that funding for housing needs to be completely overhauled so that it is not just private developers who benefit, but also community organizations, non-profit organizations and housing co-operatives, because they are the ones that know the real needs.

I also want to point out that the funding still needs to be rolled out. Ideally, that money would be sent to Quebec, and Quebec would take care of it. However, the federal government's withdrawal has deprived Quebec of roughly 80,000 housing units since the 1990s. As long as we pay taxes to Ottawa, we have a right to expect a fair return on our investment.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about jurisdiction. I wonder if he is aware that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared that health care is shared jurisdiction in this country. I wonder if he is aware that the words “health care” do not appear in the Constitution at all. I wonder if he is aware that the only power given to the provinces in our Constitution is the establishment and maintenance of hospitals. Finally, I wonder if he is aware that the Canadian health care system, which Quebeckers and all Canadians treasure so much, would not exist without federal legislation that established five conditions for the transfers of funds.

This is the system that he and the Bloc Québécois want more money for from the federal government. Is he aware that this system is dependent on federal jurisdiction, which ties the money to conditions?

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

Madam Speaker, I am perfectly aware. There is a lot to read and study in the Constitution, which Quebec never signed.

It is also clear that delivering health care is a provincial responsibility, that the legislation governing health transfers to which my colleague referred is not being respected and that adequate funding is not being provided.

I thank my colleague for asking me whether I am aware of all this. My answer is yes, of course.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to add to my New Democratic colleague's thoughts. Canadians, as a whole, recognize and want to see a national government that truly cares, provides for them and is there in a tangible way with regard to health care. That is one of the reasons we have been advocating for national health care standards.

Would the member not recognize that even people in Quebec, along with other Canadians in all regions of the country, want to see a national government play a role in long-term health care and mental health? Would he at least acknowledge that as a fact?

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

Madam Speaker, Quebec has no lessons to learn about establishing a public and universal system. It has been a pioneer in the field. The system is poorly funded, actually underfunded. That is the problem.

That being said, if the rest of Canada is prepared to live with Canada-wide standards or programs and the provinces agree, then let it be on condition that there is always a right to opt out with full compensation, no matter the reason. Accordingly, a province that disagrees, like Quebec, should be able to opt out, take the money, and say that it will adjust its programs appropriately, the way it wants to do it.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise in the House to represent what I feel are the views in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, in eastern Ontario, in response to the government's economic plan. Since it tabled this legislation, which we have been debating over the last couple months, last week's circumstance of the surprise but unsurprising deal between the NDP and the Liberals blew up the fiscal framework, several parts of which are in the bill and are going to be in subsequent budgets over the course of the next couple of years.

This specific piece of legislation has $70 billion in new inflationary spending. One thing I say to constituents very often when we are talking about support for and the funding of various programs is that it is very easy to say that we are going to fund programs A, B, C and D. That is the motherhood and apple pie of our job. The difficult part, which I believe Canadians are paying more attention to, is the financial situation and stability that our country faces.

Every single dollar in this bill, if not every single part of it, is new debt and deficit to our Canadian treasury. Canadians hear the statistic, as confirmed in the bill, that our national debt is now $1.2 trillion and growing, and one of the things we hear about is ideas. Parliament is for proposing ideas, and we are all here to make life better for Canadians. However, like in many of these bills, discussions and debates, putting the paid-for aspects on the Canadian credit card, for lack of a better term, is not talked about by the NDP and Liberal deal.

I have to laugh as I say that. As an aside, we ask if it is a coalition, an agreement, a friendship, a pact or a Kumbaya. Whatever it is, there is a framework and deal when it comes to the fiscal policy of this country over the course of the next few years. I would argue that from a technical perspective, the parties have a right in Parliament to come up with this agreement. I will not deny that. However, I think there is an ethical challenge here in terms of the openness and transparency of it. Millions of people voted for the NDP and did not vote to give the Liberal government, when it comes to committee or other measures, a free pass. Alternatively, there are many people who voted for Liberal candidates across the country who did not agree, on top of already having a deficit, to billions and billions of dollars of additional money.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who does great work, has had a couple of great reports that I think show a few things when it comes to the fiscal framework proposed by the government and NDP team. When it comes to the proposed stimulus spending, the PBO said, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as ‘stimulus’ no longer exists.” He also said, “Yes, they can” in response to being asked if government deficits can contribute to inflation.

Given the bigger picture here when we look at the economic situation and this economic bill, there is a clear contrast between us on the opposition side as Conservatives and this proposed bill from the Liberals and the NDP. There are a few things I want to talk about in my comments today that provide the contrast. Other ideas are better solutions for moving this country forward, getting back to normalcy, getting our fiscal house in order and addressing many of the growing challenges and situations I am hearing about in my riding and beyond.

Housing is an example. I have spoken nearly every time I have risen in the House for the past couple of months about the growing crisis, not only in the housing market but in the rental market in the city of Cornwall, the united counties of SDG and parts of Akwesasne as well. That is a microcosm of what is happening nationally.

What is in this legislation is not a ban on foreign buyers, which was promised. We believe they should be banned for two years. That could help cool the market, particularly in larger cities.

One of the other things we talked about, and a new motion coming up is proposing ideas on it, is the government's proposed fiscal policy when it comes to housing and the first-time homebuyer shared equity program. It has been an abject failure, number one because of the participation numbers in it. The idea that the government would help give shared equity to Canadians to buy their homes may be admirable at face value to some, but all that is going to do is further inflate an already expensive housing market.

If we provide an extra $100,000 or $200,000 to help people afford a home, all that will do is to let sellers know, when there are 13 or 14 people bidding on a house in the city of Cornwall, that they have an extra $100,000 or $200,000 more in leverage to inflate the market. This is more government debt and more government printing. It is not actually lowering prices and making home ownership more affordable. It is increasing debt and increasing prices and not addressing the fundamental aspect.

I have to call out another slap to Canadians, which is the bonuses that were given at the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which were released a few weeks ago. CMHC is an organization that has a literal mandate to make sure Canadians have housing affordability. I do not need to summarize where we are with that in this country. Housing prices, nationally, have doubled. In our riding, housing prices are over $400,000. That has doubled in the past five years of this housing crisis.

The very benchmark of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation is to make housing affordable. The absolute opposite has happened. For more people, the dream of home ownership and affordability is out the window, but CMHC, the Liberal minister responsible for housing and the Liberal government gave $40 million in bonuses to employees at the organization. That is a slap in the face to the 30-year-old who is living in their parent's basement because they cannot afford their dream of home ownership and who cannot afford rent because we do not have supply. I do not know what shows more of the contrast in what we are doing.

The cost of living and inflation is at a 30-year high, the highest in nearly my entire lifetime of 34 years. At the rate we are going, when we get there, we will set another record in the coming months.

When we talk about contrast, I say each time that our job as opposition is to hold the government to account on what they have proposed but also to put our money where our mouth is. If we were on the other side of the aisle, since this is Parliament and we can propose ideas, what would we do?

I have to say, I have been very proud of my Conservative colleagues over the course of the last couple of weeks. They have highlighted a few issues that, I believe, provide a direct contrast with the plans proposed by the Liberals and the NDP.

First of all, we need to get opened back up. We need to end federal mandates, vaccine mandates and travel requirements. We have heard from employers, and we have heard from the travel and tourism industry, that they are very nervous about the year ahead. Based on where the science is at, not where it was two years ago, but here today at the end of March 2022, we can lift those mandates and get our country opened up. We can be back for business. We can be welcoming international visitors safely and smartly and get our economic engine firing at 100% again.

We lost that battle. We proposed that idea and, again, the Liberal and NDP coalition, friendship, team, pack or whatever we call them, did not agree with that.

Last week in our opposition day motion, which was one of the days last week, when we had the debate and then the vote right afterwards, was something we tried to put on record and did get on record. Unfortunately we were unsuccessful, again because of the other parties, but we talked about the high price of gas and many other goods in the country.

There are two things here. Number one is that we asked for a break on GST on fuel. I came into Ottawa last night from the riding. I stopped in Monkland to fill up with gas. It was over $1.70 a litre. I know there are a lot of people in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry who have to drive to work. There is not a subway or LRT option in Monkland or Iroquois or Crysler. I do not think there is one coming anytime soon. Driving a car to get to work or to go to hockey practice is essential when living in a rural area.

We called for a gas tax break. It was voted down. It would not solve the affordability problem, but it could have given some tax relief at a time when Canadians truly need it.

The other problem we have to confront, which the government is not doing through their economic policies, is that the carbon tax is set to increase again later this week. We are saying that, if we are not going to give a break to Canadians at the pumps when prices are high, at least do not increase taxes on everybody on April 1. That was declined.

In a democracy, there are going to be contrasts. Our contrast is quite clear. We understand the cost of living. We understand the need for relief for Canadians. When it comes to housing, we have a fundamentally different approach.

For those reasons, again, I do not support the economic and fiscal update tabled by the government. I have a feeling that with the new deal between the Liberals and the NDP, I do not see ourselves doing so in the coming years either. We will see, here on the floor of the House of Commons, further constructive ideas from Conservatives.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have nothing against the idea of taxing vacant property, especially foreign-owned property, as the underused housing tax proposes, since that helps calm the overheated market.

However, this is the first time the federal government is so directly and so heavily encroaching on provincial jurisdictions—and even municipal ones, in this case.

Does my colleague not believe that instead of encroaching so blatantly on the jurisdictions of other levels of government, the government should instead sit down with the main stakeholders and determine the best way the federal level can help in this particular file?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for his question and his intervention.

In this section, there is a 1% tax on vacated homes. I would use as an example, in the province of Quebec, perhaps the city of Montreal, where housing prices are in the millions of dollars. With no disrespect to the 1%, that could be into the tens of thousands of dollars. I would argue that it does not disincentivize some people, if they are those who can afford to spend $3 million or $4 million to buy a home and leave it vacant. We have asked at different committees what that correlation would actually do to cool the market. It remains to be seen.

What I will offer is an alternative, and I will agree with my colleague. Working with provinces and municipalities, we need to look at banning foreign buyers who are in it for profit and investment from getting into the system. I believe that tool, which is not included, could actually cool the market more than what is being proposed in this legislation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk a bit about the gas tax situation that my colleague referred to. It is a very serious one.

First of all, one of the things that this chamber did do was pass a petroleum monitoring agency. That was passed in this chamber, and it was actually funded. After that, the Harper administration then cancelled it. We had a transparent, independent body to enforce it, similar to what they have in the United States where we actually see rack pricing announced every single week. Therefore, they can track the price of refinement to the pump.

That was one of the big problems about the proposed Conservative motion. There was no guarantee that this would be passed on to consumers. Why did the Conservatives get rid of the petroleum monitoring agency? Why do we have less transparency and accountability for gas pricing than our American neighbours, who enjoy such a privileged system versus us here, especially when many of the Conservatives want to have some type of similar standard regulation?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say two points on that.

Number one, it is one thing to monitor and track pricing, pricing changes and the correlations between them. There is a difference between that and our proposal, which would have lowered the price and taken the GST off fuel as an option, particularly when prices at the pumps are very high. It would have been a tangible, direct way to give back. That is number one in terms of providing relief.

The second item I would argue, and it is our proposal, is to not increase taxes. They do not need tracking or monitoring to know that on April 1 the carbon tax is going to go up again, and it will go up every April 1. We are saying we can pause that. We could stop that increase. The Liberals and the NDP have the opportunity to not increase taxes on April 1. We could talk about speculation and markets and look at observing. We could talk about concrete ways we can actually lower the cost of living and the price of fuel for Canadians during these challenging times.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and talk about the priorities of Oshawa. I get to speak to Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update.

However, first I want to say that we are living in unprecedented times. Last Thursday, I was in Oshawa at the 401 rally for Ukraine. Who would have thought that, in our lifetime, we would be seeing a war in Europe? Certainly our thoughts and prayers are with our friends and families in the Ukrainian community, in Ukraine, Canada and Oshawa. We have more uncertainty with our supply chains, our food, our energy, and it amplifies Canada's weaknesses and lost opportunities, especially in Canada's traditional strengths in energy and food supply. Who would have thought if we had made different decisions, Europe's position could be different right now, but we did not make those positive decisions.

We have more uncertainty. Who would have thought that the Canadian Prime Minister last week was admonished and condemned in Brussels at the European Parliament for headlines around the world? The Prime Minister was called out for engaging in a dictatorship of the worst kind by EU parliamentarians, who warned us about the path of our country and how the Prime Minister handled the truckers in the Emergencies Act. We have more uncertainty. Who would have thought that we would have this NDP-Liberal coalition to deal with the economic crisis, a deal that really puts fear into the hearts of Canadian taxpayers?

That brings me to my speech today and why I cannot support the bill. It does not address the needs and priorities of Oshawa. The bill has seven parts, and none of these parts addresses the needs of Oshawa, but what does it do? It increases spending by more than $71 billion, and that was before the NDP-Liberal secret deal. It means $71 billion more of inflation.

Now our national debt is $1.2 trillion. Who would have thought? Now the NDP-Liberal government is asking for another blank cheque, and frankly, we know this is going to pass because the NDP, as the Prime Minister says, are now going to be supporting “Justinflation”. I would say they are going to be supporting just incompetent spending.

Oshawa's priorities are housing, our seniors and opioids. My office is right across the street from the Back Door Mission, a mission that helps Oshawa's most vulnerable. It has ballooned. We see young people who cannot afford rent and housing, and seniors who cannot afford groceries and gas. In Canada, with all our natural resources in energy, who would have thought that gas would be up 33%, and natural gas and heating would be up 19%? Who would have thought an average family of four would be spending $1,000 more per year this year for groceries? The price of chicken is up 2%. Beef is up 11.9%. Bacon is up 19.1%, and bread is up 5%. Who would have thought in Canada, one of the most blessed countries in the world, under the Liberal government, Canadians cannot even afford the basic necessities.

Last week I spoke to a constituent whose name is George. He needs affordable housing. He is paying $875 per month for an attic apartment, but he is over six feet tall. He has to hunch all day to get around his apartment, and he cannot afford anything more than $600 per month. He is on disability, but he cannot find anything else.

There is no surprise when the Liberals took office in 2015, the price of a house was $435,000. Now it is $810,000. Who would have thought in Oshawa the average house price would be over $1 million? It is up 25% since last year. How can a young person ever afford a home? How can a senior afford to stay in their home? Who would have thought that in Canada, with more land than almost any other country in the world, housing would be so far out of reach for young people? The Liberals just are not listening.

As the previous speaker said, Conservatives are offering solutions. Motion No. 54 was for the Liberals to abandon their failed first-time home buying initiative. We are also launching a housing task force to find solutions, but the country is going in the wrong direction. How are the Liberals going to pay for all this unaccounted spending? The Liberals and the NDP only know one way and that is to increase taxing. With the NDP deal, who are the rich in Canada?

Who would have thought the average home would be worth over a million dollars? According to a CMHC report, the government is suggesting a new tax on homes worth $1 million to $1.5 million. Surprise, surprise. That would be a 0.2% tax per year. On a home worth over $2 million, it would be 1% per year, which on $2 million would be $20,000 more in taxes. For the average homeowner in Oshawa, that would be $2,097 per year or $174 per month in new taxes. How can they afford that?

According to Bloomberg, Canada has the second most inflated housing bubble in the world. Canadian families must spend two-thirds of their gross monthly paycheques for an average home in Toronto or Vancouver. Who would have thought that Demographia would calculate Toronto as the fifth and Vancouver as the second most unaffordable market in the world? The federal government could do something about it. It has jurisdiction for banking rules, mortgage insurance, money laundering and monetary policy. Unfortunately, it is not moving ahead with solutions. It does not want to do anything. It is the party of the WE and SNC-Lavalin scandals. Do members remember Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott and the billionaire's island?

Throughout my speech, members have heard me say, “Who would have thought”, a few times. Who would have thought the current Liberal government could do so much damage in such a short period of time? That is what I am trying to answer, because Conservatives have warned Canadians about this since day one of the current Liberal government. Do members remember the promise on day one of only small deficits and balanced budgets by year four? The Liberals never came close to balancing a budget, even before COVID‑19. They never even intended to.

During the election, the Prime Minister admitted that he does not pay attention to monetary policy and does not even think about it. He likely does not even understand it. What he does understand is modern monetary theory and woke economics: spending forever and printing money forever. This shows no respect for the taxpayer, for the savings of hard-working Canadians, for young people trying to get ahead or for the Canadian dream of home ownership.

Conservatives warned that electing a PM who admires the basic dictatorship of China would be a problem for our democracy. Members should just look at the mandates. They should look at the truckers and the Emergency Act. He is budgeting $1.5—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I know that it is the custom of the Speaker to allow members to not stick to a topic slavishly, in this case Bill C-8, but I wonder if the hon. member will talk about it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Obviously, the hon. member recognizes that there is some latitude in the speeches that are before the House. I want to remind members when they are giving their speeches to make sure they make reference to the subject that is before them.

The hon. member for Oshawa.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member was not listening to my speech. I did talk about the housing issue and the issues that are important to Oshawa. I think they are probably important to her community as well.

Canadians want leadership. The Prime Minister basically said that, even for Canada, Canadians have no core identity. He said he wants to be the first post-national state, and that would be problematic.

We in Canada do not agree with the Prime Minister. We have a proud history and traditions. In our anthem we even say that we are the true north strong and free. That means something to us and is part of our core identity, whether the Prime Minister thinks so or not. We have to focus on the things that bring us together. Electing a party that focuses on identity politics and on our differences instead of on these core values that bring us together would cause problems. We see a Prime Minister who likes to blame the other. He calls Canadians names, such as racist, misogynist and white supremacist. He calls Jewish MPs Nazis. He takes away Canadians' right to work for education. He punishes those who disagree with him and accuses Canadians of having unacceptable views.

The division we see today is a direct result of the government's actions, inactions and the politicizing of things that should not be politicized. We have the best country in the world. We just need sound, honest leadership and we can recover from these problems. Our best days can be ahead of us if we get the right leadership.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot I suggest the member needs to get a better understanding of. Bill C-8 is all about supporting, and continuing to support, Canadians through the pandemic.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we believe the pandemic is still here and caution still needs to be taken. On the whole leadership issue, and whether there is a lack of leadership, I would ask him to maybe reflect on his own Conservative caucus, especially when the Conservatives have made it very clear that they believe all mandates should end, effective today.

I am wondering this. Could the member provide the Conservative rationale on why the Conservative Party here in Ottawa believes all mandates should end today?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question gives us the opportunity to say that the science of today supports it. Every single province and territory, and countries around the world, are opening up and getting rid of these mandates.

It just shows how out of touch the Liberals and their NDP colleagues are with Canadians. Canadians want to get back to work. They want to have the Canadian dream of home ownership, getting a job and getting an education. These mandates are stopping that from occurring.

What we need to do in this place is focus on the needs of Canadians and not the needs of government. We have to pay attention to the needs of Canadians. That is what I am talking about today. I am talking about listening to people on the ground and making sure that we have solid policy so we can come out of this recession as the best country we possibly can. I honestly believe Canada is the best country. We just need good leadership.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague from Oshawa to tell us what the Conservative Party will do about federal interference in property taxes. Does he agree with that?

The Conservatives' position is often ambiguous. I remember that the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, congratulated the government on creating a mental health portfolio, when we know full well that this is a provincial jurisdiction.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. With the federal government, and now with its alliance with the NDP, we are going to see a more centralized and more authoritative government. We are going to see a government that is going to be dictating to provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction in ways that are not going to be helpful to the average Canadian on the street.

The member talks about health care, real estate and property taxes. The real estate market in his riding is different from the real estate market in my riding. It should be addressed more locally and more regionally.

I think the Bloc and the Conservatives are on the same side here. We need to make sure the government does not become the government that the European Union parliamentarians warned us of. We need to hold it to account.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives like to talk about working people, but when it is time to act they side with CEOs. They opposed extending EI for workers and kept stock options for rich CEOs. Canadian workers and communities are hurting. Inequality is skyrocketing and Canadians expect the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, yet the Conservatives are nowhere to be found on this.

Why do the Conservatives prefer to protect the rich instead of making them pay their taxes?

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, that will show a difference between Conservatives and the NDP. Of course, the NDP always wants to tax the rich. If my colleague listened to my speech, who are the rich the NDP is starting to go after?

The new CMHC report shows that a million-dollar home is an average home in Oshawa. The NDP and Liberals just want more and more taxes. What we would like to do, as Conservatives, is create jobs, because jobs are the best opportunity. It is a future where Canadians can afford home ownership, if they have solid jobs and a solid way forward.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in the House again with respect to Bill C-8, now at report stage. I would like to start by sharing that I intend to continue to support Bill C-8, as will my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which she shared when she spoke last week. The bill has much in it that we both continue to appreciate, such as funds for rapid tests, money for ventilation for schools, and delays on loan repayments for small businesses at a time when they need those the most.

With respect to the Conservative motion that is proposing several amendments, I do not intend to support them because they would remove many of these same items, including the school ventilation improvements, the ventilation tax credit for businesses and a tax credit for school supplies for teachers. That being said, I do want to raise a red flag that my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands and several others have raised with respect to the allocation, or even a double allocation, of funds. As she shared, I expect this was done with the best of intentions, but it is also important for us to be mindful of it.

In Bill C-8, there is $1.72 billion allocated for rapid tests. There is also $2.5 billion for rapid tests in Bill C-10. Last Thursday, in the supplementary estimates, we approved the allocation of another $4 billion for rapid tests. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer has called out, it seems to be that there is at least, if not double spending, a double allocation of this $4 billion for rapid tests. Certainly, with respect to Parliament reviewing this legislation, we both see it is important to address this, so that there is some measure to ensure that those funds are only spent once.

With the rest of my time with respect to Bill C-8, I would like to talk about what I see as the ambition gap in this legislation. In the fall economic statement, and in the legislation to bring it forward, there is so much more that could have been done to really meet the moment we are in.

I will start with the housing crisis that many colleagues have spoken about. In Kitchener, it is significant. There has been almost a 35% increase in the cost of housing in the past year alone. On Friday afternoon, I spoke with a neighbour of mine. Nick is a young person who shared with me, as many others have, that not only does he not expect that will he ever be able to buy a home, but when it comes to staying in Kitchener he does not expect that he will continue to be able to afford rent. He was just so concerned. That is as a result of a market that has increasingly become commodified. This is a market designed to provide a commodity for investors, when we should be focused on homes being places for people to live in.

In Bill C-8, as members know, the underused housing tax is being introduced, but it has also been diluted from what we know has worked in other jurisdictions. Vancouver is an example. In Vancouver, it is a 3% tax that applies to everyone. As a result, that measure has started to have an impact. It has reduced the number of vacant homes by 25%. It has reintroduced 18,000 units back on the market and it has generated tens of millions of dollars for affordable housing.

We can compare that with what we know is in this legislation. Not only is it not 3%, but it is down to 1%. I think there are fair questions to be asked about whether, even if it was broadly applied, a 1% tax would meaningfully change the behaviour of those who have begun to commodify the market and pull housing off the market simply to speculate on its value.

It is not only that. We also have exemptions everywhere: on every citizen, every permanent resident and every Canadian corporation. The list goes on and on. I think there are fair questions to be raised. Certainly, on its own, it would not be enough, but would this measure meaningfully shift and be a helpful contribution? At this time, in terms of ambition, this could have been the housing economic statement. It could have been the time we said that we have great ideas that have worked before, such as co-op housing, for example. Back in the 1980s, when we invested in co-op housing, we were able to build thousands of new rental co-op units.

Of course, when that is not in statements like this, it is less and less the case today.

It could have also been the time when we could have said we were going to put in meaningful measures to move away from the blind bidding process and move toward investing in public and subsidized housing with really bold and visionary measures to make progress on the housing crisis. If they are not here, I aspire to seeing more in the budget that we are expecting over the coming weeks.

In terms of this ambition gap, at a time when this House has affirmed that we are in a climate emergency, should not every economic statement focus on taking substantive, transformational action on the climate crisis? I certainly believe that to be the case. In Bill C-8, of course, the word “climate” is not mentioned even once. Instead, we see talk of more and more subsidies for oil and gas. Sometimes they are introduced under different names. The most recent one we are expecting is a new tax credit for carbon capture and storage, a tax credit that some are estimating could be worth up to $50 billion in this new subsidy for a solution that has already been subsidized significantly over past decades and only leads to 0.001% of reduction in global emissions.

As so many academics and scientists have called out, this is not a climate solution, so we need to be mindful of both what is not here as well as what could have been here and should be here going forward. We could take that $50 billion and invest in proven climate solutions, such as incentivizing homeowners to move forward on retrofits to their homes and businesses. Whether it is electric vehicles or high-speed rail, we could be mobilizing funds at the scale of a green new deal and at the pace that scientists tell us is required, and not to hold on to some faraway net-zero 2050 but to address what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us is required, which is the possibility of 1.5°C being the highest increase in global average temperatures at a time when we are already at 1.1°C. Yes, this is an emergency. As a result, I wish every economic statement we see in this House would have a stronger focus to give us the best chance of ensuring that our nieces, nephews, kids and grandkids have the possibility of a safe climate future.

Finally, I will close with respect to another gap in ambition, and that is with respect to mental health. We know the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, the Royal Society of Canada and so many in my community and across the country are calling out to address the significant gaps in mental health. We know there are significant wait times for young people in particular. As is the case for so many challenges we face today, this situation was present before the pandemic and has only been accelerated and made worse. This was another opportunity missed to increase the amount of health transfers from the federal government to equip provinces and territories to have the resources they need. If we are going to say the words “mental health is health”—as we all should, because it is true—then we should also be allocating the funding to ensure that we follow through and that across the country the resources are there to treat mental health as such.

In closing, I will continue to support Bill C-8. While I am disappointed that the ambition is not there for some elements, that does not take away from the fact that there are measures and funding that would go a long way in my community, and I want to continue to see those measures advanced.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about some of the things that he wished were in the legislation. I want to speak about something that I wish was in his speech.

The government has spent tremendously on all kinds of different programs that have added billions and billions to our debt. In fact, our accumulated debt has more than doubled under the Liberals' watch.

I would ask the member if he feels that this spending can continue and if he has any comments at all, any thoughts, on debt and the debt of the country, or if it could just go on forever, in his opinion.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an important question from the member for Saskatoon West, and I appreciate that he asked it.

Absolutely, we need to also be looking at where we can increase revenues. This is why I spoke about the vacancy tax. That is exactly the kind of approach that could bring in revenue to build co-op housing the way we used to; if we did not spend $18 billion in subsidies to oil and gas and if we introduced a wealth tax. Those are the funds we could use. It is important to also talk about revenues as well as spending.

Certainly I would agree with the member that we need to ensure that we can pay for some of these meaningful transformational investments, but budgets are really about priorities, and if we had our priorities in place, we would have the funds to ensure we could follow through on some of these transformational investments.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference at the beginning of his comments that Bill C-8 is all about ongoing support for Canadians, both directly and indirectly, in going through the pandemic. I want to highlight one area, which is with respect to rapid tests.

When the demand exploded for rapid tests back in December 2021, there was a huge need for the federal government to acquire and purchase additional rapid tests, and in a very short window we were very successful in our procurement of literally millions of rapid tests for circulation among provinces, territories and I believe even small businesses in certain ways. I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why it was so important that we have legislation of this nature to enable us to get things such as rapid tests for Canadians.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that before I was here there was plenty of work done in this place to ensure that rapid tests were procured. For my part, the last time I spoke on Bill C-8, I talked about the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and how it has been calling out over past months on the part of businesses that needed a greater number of rapid tests.

I want to again clarify the comments I made earlier. I really appreciate that we need to ensure continued funding for rapid tests, particularly at a time when we are not through the pandemic and when we need to be doing more on vaccine equity around the world in places where new variants can continue to emerge because more has not been done. Certainly I will continue to support measures to ensure that rapid tests are readily available, as businesses and folks in my community have been calling for.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the lack of foresight for VIA Rail and the mixed messages the government is sending right now. Amtrak in the United States got funding for the first time ever to actually increase trackage, including connecting into Canada. What are the member's thoughts on the higher-speed rail that could go through the Quebec City corridor, and why would this government have mixed messages right now when Amtrak is historically investing, including crossing the border at Windsor?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West for his question and for his advocacy, and that of others, with respect to not only high-frequency rail but high-speed rail.

We have had studies in southwestern Ontario that showed both the business case and the massive opportunity when it comes to reducing emissions from transportation, which is the largest emission source in Ontario. I think the most recent study was in 2016. If we are going to make progress, we need to make sure that rail is faster, more convenient, more readily available and a more attractive option than building Highway 413, for example.

I am looking forward to continuing that advocacy with the member and others. We also need to make sure that we hold the government to account with respect to not privatizing VIA Rail as concerns about that continue to be heard in this place.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in the House again.

Today is March 28, 2022, and we are debating the government's fall economic update, an update that was given in the House in December of 2021. Yes, we are actually debating budgetary measures that this government introduced over 100 days ago. In that time, Canada and the world have changed. With COVID, we saw omicron come and go, provincial lockdowns and vaccine passports established and removed, and we are now learning to live with the virus. In Ottawa, we saw the use of the Emergencies Act to call on police forces to crush peaceful protesters under the jackboot of the Prime Minister's basic dictatorship, and another dictator is currently using his war machine to crush our friends in Ukraine.

What are we doing here in this House of Commons? We are debating legislation that, among other things, would allow the government to get rapid test kits for COVID out to the provinces. Well, maybe somebody should tell the government that everyone already has rapid tests—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think that members need to be somewhat careful. In terms of what is appropriate to say and what is not appropriate to say, what it says in Beauchesne's, sixth edition, is that it depends on the context in which something is said. For example, what is happening in Ukraine today is horrific. Describing President Putin as a dictator and then classifying the Prime Minister of Canada in the same line as a dictator might be stretching it.

I would like to emphasize that maybe some members might want to be a little more cautious in making statements in the House that may be highly inappropriate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I will take the information under advisement and look that up. I think this is more a point of debate, but I will certainly do a bit of a follow-up and come back to the House if need be.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, ironically, the very next line in my speech is that “the government really knows how to waste time”. I think that was just a great example of it right there.

I want to assure colleagues that I am not going to waste the time of my constituents in Saskatoon West. I am going to dive into this piece of legislation and speak about why I am voting against it. Then I am going to talk about what matters to the economy of Saskatoon West, which is agriculture and energy, and why this fall economic legislation should have focused on those drivers of our economy.

I need to tell my constituents why I oppose this legislation. I invite all Canadians to go to page 36 of the fall economic update to understand how damaging this legislation is for our country. The government’s own figures show that once this legislation passes an additional $28 billion in debt will be added in the fiscal year ending this week. For the next fiscal year, which starts on Friday, this legislation will increase the debt by another $13 billion.

The government thinks this is a non-event with nothing to see here, but the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has a debt clock that shows our debt. Did colleagues know that the Liberals broke that clock? It did not have enough digits. The clock shows our debt is increasing at $4,500 per second. That means in the minute and a half that I have been speaking, our debt has increased by $400,000. Every 10-minute speech by the Prime Minister adds $2.7 million to our debt. Last year’s deficit added well over $300 billion. This year’s deficit will add another $150 billion and next year is half of that again.

How do governments come up with this extra money? They issue bonds and print money. All economic theory will tell you that printing money increases inflation. History teaches us this same lesson. It could be the hyperinflation of Weimar Germany or the stagflation of 1970s America. Twenty years ago it was the Asian flu, and 10 years ago we had South American governments that were defaulting and becoming bankrupt. Time and time again, when governments print money it results in inflation. Inflation hurts Canadians, especially seniors and those on fixed incomes.

Another effect of money printing is rising house prices. Property prices skyrocket, requiring larger and larger mortgages and putting homeowners under financial stress. That is exactly what caused the 2008 housing crash and the Great Recession. I think most Canadians understand that government spending causes inflation. I think that Canadians also understand that only the Conservative Party can fix the mess caused by the Liberal government. We will fix this one. We will reign in government spending. We will unleash the power of our entrepreneurs and risk-takers. We will multiply the advantage of our resource sector. We will restore confidence in Canada again.

In Saskatchewan, agricultural policy is economic policy, and Bill C-8 does not mention this. Even though I represent a fully urban riding, I know the importance of agriculture to the economy of Saskatoon West. Plus, we all need food and most of us enjoy it too.

There are two main growing areas on this planet. The first is the great plains of North America, which stretch from northern Saskatchewan all the way down to Texas. The second are those in eastern Europe. Putin’s unprovoked invasion and war in Ukraine is destroying the second-largest wheat growing area in the world. We have not seen a disruption of eastern European food supplies on this scale since the Holodomor under Stalin, when that brutal dictator stole the crops of the people and starved millions of Ukrainians to death. Now that we are counting on Saskatchewan and the great plains to feed the entire planet, our farmers will step up to the plate. There is no doubt that Canadian farmers have the capacity to make up the shortfall, but there are problems that our farmers face.

I sat at the environment committee, and I focused on farmers' issues and the harm that the NDP-Liberal government's policies were doing to our farmers. First and foremost is the carbon tax. This tax is adding massive input costs. Fertilizer and fuel for planting machinery is adding significantly to each bushel of wheat. Output costs are going up as well. Fuel for harvesting machinery and transport costs by trucks and train are adding even more dollars of cost per bushel of wheat.

To help mitigate this for our farmers, I asked the environment minister at committee if he would recognize Saskatchewan’s carbon capture system as equivalent to the federal system. His answer was, “That's certainly the intent.” True to form, he then reneged and imposed his own separate system of federal costs on Saskatchewan farmers. The result is more inflation on the price of food.

We will certainly grumble over the massive inflation price increases, but we are a rich country. The people who will suffer the most are in Africa and Asia, the most vulnerable people on the planet. I guess, in the minds of the small cabal of NDP-Liberal politicians that have a power lock on this House, mass starvation is a low price to pay for a carbon tax.

Let us look at the NDP food policy. As I have said, Canada is a global agricultural superpower, but the NDP do not recognize this. Indeed, the NDP's policy statement says the opposite. It says, “We’ll work to connect Canadians to farmers with initiatives like local food hubs, community supported agriculture, and networks to increase the amount of food that is sold, processed and consumed in local and regional markets.”

We might ask what is wrong with that. A Saskatchewan farmer produces tens of thousands of bushels of wheat, and he is not going to sell that at a farmers’ market. How many Canadians do members know who mill their own wheat into flour and then transform that into bread and pasta? If it were up to the NDP, all we would have are community gardens in urban settings that grow food like a few carrots and cabbages. There is nothing wrong with community gardens, but they only feed a small group of Starbucks-sipping people, whereas the Conservative Party has a long history of unlocking Saskatchewan agriculture.

It was under Prime Minister Harper that we eliminated the Canadian Wheat Board, allowing farmers to finally market their own crops. We also gave plant breeders the right to give our farmers access to the most modern crop technology available. All these measures were opposed by the NDP-Liberals. The people in my riding of Saskatoon West need to ask themselves whether the NDP really has an agriculture policy that benefits our province and them.

In Saskatchewan our energy and mining sectors are the two other drivers of economic activity that are not really addressed in this legislation. Last month, I spoke to the importance of these sectors to our province. Energy is 26% of the economic activity in Saskatchewan. In my riding alone, 40 businesses are directly involved in primary energy extraction. Our province produces an average of 500,000 barrels of oil per day, or one-fifth of all the oil consumed in Canada every day, and additionally we have 1.2 billion barrels of oil in reserve.

How is this oil transported? Some of it goes through pipelines, but much of it travels on railways. The NDP-Liberal government has done everything in its power to kill pipeline projects that would safely move oil and natural gas to refineries or tidewater. Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the need for pipelines and the need for Canadian energy.

Right now there is massive global demand for Canadian oil and natural gas due to the war in Ukraine. The price of oil is as high as it has ever been. Russian liquefied natural gas has been cut off from Europe. Our allies in the U.S. and Europe need our energy. President Biden has instead turned to the dictators and despots of Venezuela, Iran and Saudi Arabia for this energy. Why? It is because the NDP-Liberal government is keeping its ideological blinders on and not seizing on this opportunity to move our energy to market.

The people of Saskatoon West have faced a host of issues these past years, while suffering under the yoke of the current Liberal-NDP government in Ottawa. This current legislation promises to add to the crisis of Justinflation. The Bank of Canada admitted earlier this month that the carbon tax is directly contributing to this inflation, which has raised the cost of groceries an average of $1,000 a year. For many people that is simply out of reach, especially as they make trade-offs as the prices of gasoline, clothes, rent, mortgages and other necessities experience record high inflation as well.

There is a strong contrast between NDP-Liberal policies that will pickpocket people and redistribute their money to special interest groups, and the Conservatives, who will allow people to keep their money and let them decide how they want to spend it. Do we want our taxes to rise, or do we want tax cuts to help Canadians struggling to get by? Do we want income splitting? Do we want unrestricted access to EI and CPP payroll taxes to make up government policy shortfalls, or do we want to have rates that keep politics out of those funds? Do we want to pay tax when we sell our houses? Do we want tax rates that are set by G20 bureaucrats or by people in Canada?

I could go on, but my constituents get the point. NDP-Liberals will tax and spend and drive inflation through the roof. Conservatives will always be there to make life simpler for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, there must be some very interesting discussions that take place in the Conservative caucus, from the extreme right to the more moderates. I can tell members I am totally amazed by the degree to which the member will talk about why the government needs to cut back, and it seems to be at all expense.

Surely the member would recognize we have gone through a pandemic and that there was a need to spend billions of dollars to support small businesses, individual Canadians, seniors, people with disabilities, students and many different volunteer organizations. Does he believe that money was well spent, or if it were up to him, would he have made significant cuts in those areas? Did the government go wrong in spending money in those areas?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, there are so many ways to answer that question, but I think I am going to focus on this: Did we need to spend money during the pandemic? We did. Was that money well spent, as the member asked? I would say in many cases it was not. I have seen many examples of organizations that received more money than they needed and businesses that received more money than they needed. We have lots of examples of people who were not even in Canada, inmates and all kinds of things. There was a tremendous amount of money that was not spent correctly.

At the end of the day we have to be very careful with Canadians' money, because this is the fundamental thing: It is not our, us in this room's, money. This is Canadians' money. This is money they earn and spend, and we have to be extremely careful and prudent in how we spend that money. When we put ourselves into debt, we are putting Canadians into debt, and we have to be extremely careful on that as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with care to the member for Saskatoon West's speech and a couple of things seem to be missing. One was any concern about the impact of growing inequality in Canada. Yes, we have a rising cost of living, but it impacts some much harder than others.

Does the member share his interim leader's opinion that things like dental care are not needed or wanted by Canadians?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of dental care, a lot of Canadians have that coverage. Certainly there are some groups that would benefit from that, and that is why we believe that a targeted approach to those who need it is much more prudent.

However, we have to be very careful about how we spend money. We have to use extreme caution in committing to programs that are going to put debt onto our children and our grandchildren that we are going to be paying for and the costs of which are going to be growing and growing over time. We have to be extremely careful. We have to be wise in how we spend our money.

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

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that the member for Saskatoon West suggested in his speech, and he is not the first member in his party to suggest, that Ukraine, or the United States or the EU, has asked Canada to build pipelines. That is not the case. Building pipelines takes many years in this country even if they had the green lights, which they do not. What they have asked for is an increase in supply in the short term and the International Energy Agency has asked for an aggressive plan for reducing demand through such things as cutting the speed limits by 10 kilometres per hour across industrialized countries around the world, improving access to public transit and maybe even making it free.

Would the member comment on the timelines involved to urgently help Ukraine and not put forward the fallacious argument that we need to build more pipelines?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, this really highlights how some MPs lack the ability to understand how the world works and how business works. We do not have to mandate things. We do not have to tell companies or countries to do things. We have an opportunity. We know there is an opportunity to supply oil and natural gas to the world. The world is asking us for this. We need to supply that.

If we allow the market to work as it is supposed to, we would have pipelines that are supplying that oil and supplying that natural gas, taking the opportunity that is there in front of us and creating jobs, creating wealth and creating tax revenues for this country. Because some of us in the room do not understand how the real world works, we get confused and we try to impose things and all of a sudden things fall apart and we are lacking and missing out on opportunities that we could have for the residents of Canada.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, anyone who has shopped at a grocery store, filled up a car, eaten at a restaurant or paid a home heating bill, as I am sure many of us have, is well aware that the cost of living in Canada is in fact going up. It is more expensive than ever. For many Canadians, the burden is overwhelming. That is what I am hearing from the constituents of Lethbridge. They are feeling the pinch in a big way, but what is disheartening is that it did not need to be this way.

We have a problem in this country. We have a really big problem. That problem used to have one name, but now it is meshed together with a hyphen: the NDP-Liberal government. Its policies and the utilization of those policies have an effect on every single Canadian every single day. From coast to coast, Canadians are speaking out about the concerns they have with regard to the expense of living.

Today we are discussing the main estimates, which is a document that outlines a whole lot of spending. The new coalition government has brought this bill forward to seek authorization from Parliament to spend more than $190 billion. Wow. It is easy to speak in abstractions and generalizations, but we have to hone in and talk about the very people who are represented by this piece of legislation. When we do that, we see that the people have a voice that is largely being ignored by current policies.

The NDP-Liberals love to talk about how much they stand for all Canadians. Well, it is not the Canadians who disagree with them and have a different opinion or a different mindset. They are not valuable. They treat Canadians as victims in need of a big government. They do not look at Canadians as capable, hard-working, innovative and creative problem-solvers who are able to achieve success. Instead, the government struggles with a saviour complex. It needs to be needed. It wants to keep the people beholden to it; otherwise, it feels powerless. Numerous policies and handing out massive amounts of free cash keep the Canadian people enchained to the government. It is a form of slavery. It is cruel.

Today's government spending becomes tomorrow's taxes, but tomorrow has arrived. It is called inflation. It is here. The Prime Minister promised to grow the middle class, but in reality his policies are making it more difficult for Canadians to get ahead and make ends meet. Many have come into my office with their heating bill in hand, some even with tears in their eyes because they are overwhelmed by the cost of heating their homes.

Charlie and Emma are two who come to mind. They are seniors with a fixed income. Single moms have come in and talked to me about the costs incurred by filling up their vehicle with gasoline in order to go to work or take their kids to soccer practice or dance. Joe recently came in and had a conversation with me about paying school tuition. He wanted to know if there was anything I could do to help because he actually does not have the money to afford his tuition and eat this month. He has to make a choice. Families are having to weigh whether or not they can afford nutritious food for their families or whether or not they can drive 200 kilometres to see an ailing loved one. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the reality. It is not figurative. It is not theory. This is the reality.

Child poverty is increasing. Hundreds of kids in my riding go to sleep every night with empty stomachs. They wake up in the morning and go to school hungry. My region is one of the most severe in the country.

These are not made up stories; this is real life. These are people being impacted by government policy. To add insult to injury, the government will now move ahead with its punitive tax hike. The carbon tax will rise by 25% on April 1. It is no joke. It is confounding to think that when we face some of the highest costs of living, the government wants to impose yet another tax increase. The Prime Minister has claimed that it is all done for the sake of modifying people's behaviour, as if Canadians have a choice as to whether or not they are going to heat their homes or rural Canadians can choose whether or not they are going to drive to work. Wake up.

Let us talk about farmers for a moment. God bless them. Seriously, God bless them, because we are entering into a time in history when we need them more than ever. Instead of celebrating them and their incredible contributions to this country, the government is choosing to punish them. We are talking about men and women who actually contribute to environmental care through carbon sequestration, science and innovation, yet the government is going to be punitive. It is going to punish these individuals for feeding the world, for taking care of the environment and for stewarding the soil, the land, the air and the water. It is ludicrous. If the carbon tax really is about changing behaviour and about making the environment a better place, then farmers should be rewarded, not punished.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I know that hon. members are anxious to take part in the debate and to ask questions and give comments. However, I would ask members on both sides of the House who have been participating while this member has had the floor to please hold on to their thoughts and comments so they can give them at the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, when my Conservative colleagues and I raise concerns about how expensive life is getting, the government responds by saying, yes, but it has spent so much money and has cut so many cheques. It says, “You get some money. You get some money. You get some money. You all get some money.” It is as if spending money is the measure of success. Since when? Show me the metrics. Show me how government cheques are making life better than a paycheque. They cannot because there is no evidence. It is to the contrary.

When the Prime Minister took office, a typical home cost $435,000 in this country. Do members want to know what it costs now? It is $810,000. That is 85% inflation in just six years. Thirty-year-olds are stuck living in their parents' basement without a lot of hope for their future. Home ownership is out the window. Seniors cannot afford groceries. Workers cannot afford to put fuel in their car. Natural gas for home heating is up by 19%. I know it might be uncomfortable for the NDP–Liberal government to face this, but these really are the numbers. We do not live in an idealistic world. We are beyond the realm of theory, folks.

Since the start of the pandemic, the government has brought in $176 billion in new spending that is unrelated to COVID. The Liberals try to claim that all their spending is somehow making our lives better because COVID made them bad, but $176 billion was spent just for political reasons, folks.

What is the solution? How do we move forward? Well, it is with less government and more Canada. One of the primary responsibilities of government is to facilitate an environment of economic prosperity. This does not mean running our country into the ground through debt and taxation. No, it means putting policies in place that empower the people. Canadians want to be able to provide for themselves by earning a paycheque. However, instead of allowing them to have autonomy over their finances and their livelihoods, the government is butting in by taking money, putting it through bureaucracy, scraping a little off the top and pushing it out the other side. It does not make sense. Instead of promoting prosperity apart from government, the Prime Minister seems keen on ensuring that the only way Canadians can support themselves is with a government cheque. It is wrong.

The NDP–Liberals often accuse this side of the House, which is the true opposition, of being too political when we question this type of stuff, but we are not the only ones doing so. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently reported, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as ‘stimulus’ no longer exists.” It no longer exists, folks, which means stop the spending, stop printing money, stop pushing this country further and further into debt and stop punishing Canadians.

It is not a leader, a political party or the government that is going to restore economic prosperity and future success for this country. It is the Canadian people. This country needs individual Canadians to rise up and strive to reach their greatest potential. For this to happen on a mass scale, we need the government to get out of the way. The Canadian people are the problem-solvers, solution-makers and wealth generators this country needs. When each of us chooses to pick up our load and carry our responsibility forward, the entire nation advances. Let us empower the people.

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to the member speaking, something absolutely remarkable happened in the House. A Conservative member of Parliament stood up in the House and referred to the Prime Minister as a dictator and then went on to talk, in the next sentence, about other dictators in this world, like Vladimir Putin. Not only is that an incredible disservice to the people of Canada, but think of what it means to the people of Ukraine to somehow suggest that the Prime Minister of this country is a dictator and to compare him to Putin and the incredibly audacious things he is doing to the people of Ukraine.

I am wondering if the member can comment on whether she agrees that the Prime Minister of Canada is a dictator in a democratically elected Parliament. We had an election just six months ago. Does she agree with the rhetoric that came from the previous member?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I just did a quick review in the dictionary. According to the Oxford dictionary, a dictator is a “ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force”. There are many Canadians who would hold the view that this applies to the Prime Minister of Canada. It is up to the Canadian people to determine that, and they will be determining that in the next election.

Here is the problem with Liberal logic. The Liberals like to make other people responsible for a problem that is not their own. I am not the one who made the statement in the House. Why am I being forced to answer for it? The Canadian people will answer for it in the next election. Bye.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will wait until my colleagues stop talking as there is quite a lot of chatter.

I admire the member for Lethbridge. However, I find it difficult to follow her logic. In her speech, she stated that spending money is not a measure of success. I agree with her, especially when it comes to oil.

I can tell her that the government bought a $21-billion pipeline, that another $30 billion in support was given to the oil industry during the pandemic and that, year after year, Export Development Canada gives about $15 billion to the oil and gas industry. We know that $78 billion was redirected to this industry in 2018 alone.

Does my colleague agree that we are far from being successful and that this is a waste of taxpayers' money?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are those in the House who like to use these false talking points that the oil and gas industry is highly subsidized and is propagated by the government. It is the other way around. This industry is helping fund some incredible infrastructure within our country, such as hospitals, roads, bridges, recreational centres and high-paying jobs for moms and dads so they are able to take care of their families.

Let us talk about another thing here, in addition to all of that. Let us talk about the fact that oil in this industry has the highest environmental standards in the world when it is developed here in Canada. Hold on. Let us talk about another thing. Let us talk about the fact that it is ethically produced. We have ethics in the country, folks. It is amazing. The same cannot be said for Saudi Arabia. The same cannot be said for Russia. While the government would prefer to prop up those true dictatorships, I certainly do not support that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, while there are a number of issues that many of us would have with what we have just heard in the House, from misrepresenting the carbon footprint of Canada's oil and gas industry to the state of the pandemic, I want to focus on a talking point that the Conservatives love to use: their defence of working people. Every time they have the chance to actually act, we see the opposite. They voted against extending EI supports and sided with CEOs on keeping their stock options. The reality is that Canadian workers and communities are paying the price of crushing inequality. Canadians expect the rich to pay their fair share of taxes, yet the Conservatives are not on that page alongside them.

Why do the Conservatives prefer to protect the rich instead of making them pay their fair share of taxes?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her new role within the government.

Regarding the rich, first let us define that. What does that mean? Is that an individual who makes $100,000 a year? Is that an individual who makes $300,000 a year? How about $1 million or $10 million a year? What is “the rich”? What exactly are we talking about here, folks?

Here is the problem. Most often, the NDP-Liberal government, when it uses this term, is actually talking about those individuals who are incredibly creative, who are incredibly innovative and who have moved forward to take a risk, invest their capital and create jobs for Canadians. It is amazing.

The Prime Minister would like to call these individuals fat cats and tax cheats, but I like to call these individuals entrepreneurs, job creators, wealth generators and Canadians worth celebrating.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We did get a little off-base in our timing here of what questions and answers really should have been. I want to make sure. There are a lot of interruptions here. Let us try to keep things to something sensible, and have good questions and good answers as we have all around.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today representing the people of North Okanagan—Shuswap as I speak to Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures. That was three and a half months ago, and 21 months after the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns.

Much has changed in the past months since this bill was introduced. When I look at sections of this bill, I cannot help but question why the government has been so slow to respond to the pandemic and provide Canadians, and provincial and territorial governments, with the support they need.

In part 1 of this bill, we see one section proposing the introduction of a new, refundable tax credit for eligible businesses to claim ventilation expenses incurred to improve air quality. Why did it take 21 months for the government to offer this support to Canadians and workers?

Part 2 of this bill proposes to implement a 1% tax on the value of vacant or unused residential properties directly or indirectly owned by non-resident Canadians.

Part 4 of this bill authorizes payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purposes of supporting ventilation improvement projects in schools. I hope we can all support measures to protect students, teachers and school staff, but again, why did it take 21 months for the government to propose this measure?

Part 5 of the bill authorizes payments for the purposes of supporting COVID-19 proof of vaccination initiatives. I ask everyone not to worry. I believe that within this too little, too late bill, there may be a timely response in part 6, as it authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $1.72 billion for rapid COVID-19 tests.

I do not want to get too excited about this proposal. I would like to know how many rapid tests Canadians will receive for this proposed $1.72 billion, so that all members may have a sense of what the cost per unit is that the government has negotiated. We still do not know what the cost per unit is that we paid for vaccines. Perhaps someone on the government's side could provide this information in today's debate, because my constituents and I, and many other Canadians, would like to know.

We are now months beyond the introduction of this bill and many more months beyond the point in time when Canadians, families, employers and schools needed timely, improved ventilation and access to rapid testing. Both as a Canadian and as a member of the House, I have to say that the government and its leader have let Canadians down. Why did the government wait until December 2021 to table these proposals?

When it was apparent that the Prime Minister would not recall Parliament for some time after last year's unnecessary election, I initiated consultations with representatives of indigenous, provincial, regional and municipal governments in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap to receive their perspectives on the needs and priorities of the communities we represent.

This bill could have helped Canadians and those communities as they worked their way through the challenges of COVID-19 had these proposals been tabled sooner. Rapid COVID-19 test kits could have helped to prevent the spread of COVID-19, especially in workplaces. Supports for improved ventilation systems could have also made workplaces safer for workers, and schools safer for students, teachers and other staff.

Unfortunately, like much of the government's response to the threats facing Canadians and the global community, this bill was too little, too late. Over 18 months ago, Conservatives were calling on the government to make rapid tests available to Canadians so that family members could see aging parents in care homes.

We called for more rapid tests so parents could have an alternative to keeping their children in isolation, home from school and out of other activities. People have missed work and businesses have closed because workers had to isolate, not knowing if they were positive or not. Others have lost their jobs and may not be able to return. All of this has impacted the hard-working residents who live in those communities I mentioned.

The timely provision of rapid tests could have saved jobs and businesses, and here we are today debating $1.72 billion for COVID-19 tests, over a year and a half after they were needed. How many family members have suffered anxiety, stress and mental health issues because they did not have timely access to testing? This is a number we may never know, but it is safe to say it is a significant number. I believe we all hope that the people in our communities will never endure those anxieties and uncertainties again.

Much of what I am speaking on today is about preventive and pre-emptive steps the government should be taking in order to avoid higher costs and to confront damages after they have been inflicted. In many of the consultations with the community leaders I mentioned, there was a common theme: the need for timely preparation for and prevention of known and likely threats and disasters, whether it be enhancing protection perimeters of communities against threats of wildfire and enhancing flood protection systems, or building more reliability into transportation and infrastructure, such as the Trans-Canada Highway from Chase, B.C., to the Alberta border. Residents and communities expect and need their federal government to be proactive and invested in prevention. Time is of the essence.

As for part 2 of this bill, does anyone in the House actually believe the 1% tax on absentee foreign owners will address skyrocketing housing costs in B.C.? Since 2016, the price of an average home has ballooned from $476,000 to over $811,000 today. This increase has been propelled by more factors than foreign buyer pressure alone. The government must take the necessary steps to look at this in its entirety, and the housing crisis, and develop proposals for a holistic response to deal with it. Increasing real estate prices are part of the inflation wedge that is expanding the gap between Canadians already in the market, who have housing access, and Canadians still trying to raise a down payment while clinging to the shrinking hope of owning their own homes.

I pray that it is not too late to curb the rising inflation for young people, such as my constituent Ryan, who lives in Vernon. He and his family are desperately trying to save for a down payment to purchase their own home instead of renting part of a home from their parents. Like many communities across Canada, communities in the North Okanagan—Shuswap need increased housing inventory to meet the needs of residents, especially those at low and medium income levels.

When I look at this bill, I am also disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance failed to recognize the need for enhanced mental health supports. With all of the money her government has printed and spent over the past two years, one would expect some recognition of the mental health needs of Canadians, but this bill has none.

I would be remiss if I did not say that I speak today not out of personal concern for myself, but out of the concern I have for the young people of today and future generations who will be left to pay the interest on the debt the government is amassing under a short-sighted leader who only looks at today or the next election rather than at the long-term future of Canadians.

I call on the government to change its ways and embrace the notion of prevention. In the months and weeks leading up to the pandemic, the government ignored warnings from the Department of National Defence and the National Research Council. Prevention can save costs. Prevention can save lives.

In closing, I would like to thank the elected representatives across the North Okanagan—Shuswap, who I work with on an ongoing basis for the benefit of the constituents we represent, and the people of the North Okanagan—Shuswap.

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

Mr. Speaker, for Canadians watching at home, Bill C-8 was the fall economic update. We are almost through March right now. There are important measures in this legislation that matter to farmers. I know my hon. colleague has farmers in his area, in the interior of British Columbia. There are elements around rapid testing. There are a lot of different measures in this bill that matter, and it is the fall economic statement.

Can the member tell the House when he expects the Conservative Party will actually stop speaking to this bill and let it be called to a vote so we can get those measures to Canadians and to his constituents accordingly?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked when we will stop speaking to the bill. I would never encourage members of the House to stop speaking about a bill as significant as this, with billions in spending, no accountability and coming from a government that let the priorities pass on for months before it even introduced it. Therefore, I will take no lesson from this member about when we should and should not speak about a bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I had a bit of a hard time following my colleague's speech. He is worried that the government is not taking care of the debt for future generations. I think that is important too. He talked about the housing crisis and said that the tax on unused properties in Canada is inadequate. I completely agree with him.

I often hear the Conservatives criticizing what the government is doing on the housing file, but I do not hear them proposing a whole lot of solutions. In a study a month or two ago, Scotiabank, which is supposedly one of their friends, said that there is a shortage of 1.8 million housing units in Canada to address the crisis.

My colleague pointed out that housing prices have doubled since the Liberals took office, but accessibility also includes the availability of more housing. What solutions does the Conservative Party propose to address this shortfall of 1.8 million housing units in Canada?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a drastic shortage of affordable housing, and housing of any sort, across this country. That is because people have flocked into the housing market as an investment. They have not seen the investment in rental housing being as productive as it used to be, so we have seen a reduction in rental housing in some areas. In consultations with elected representatives in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap a couple of years ago, I learned it had been decades since there was a fourplex built in one community because of zoning issues. These are issues where we are all going to need to work together with all levels of government to identify what it is we can do to create more housing for Canadians. It cannot be simply government alone.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to follow up on that, the hypocrisy is that, in the past, governments, the Liberals and the Conservatives, talked about government getting out of the way of getting action on things, including housing and so forth. The 1% tax is not seen as sufficient, so regarding inventory, what exactly would the Conservatives be involved in? What would they encourage and what specific things would they do with respect to the private sector? I think that is important. Some of the party members are saying we have to get out of the way and others are saying we have to do more than this, so what exactly would they do more of?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously housing is top of mind for many members and, I think, for Canadians right across this country. Incentivizing the construction of residences, whether single-family or multi-family apartment buildings, is where the federal government can make a difference regarding that growth in new inventory that is desperately needed across the country.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's fall economic and fiscal update.

To better understand the economic pressures that Canadians are facing, we need to look at the data. We have the highest rate of inflation that we have had in a generation. My children are all adults now and do not know what inflation is. It is at 5.7% at the moment, and that means that, on average, everything is going to cost every Canadian citizen almost 6% more today than it did a year ago. If we look at industry-specific statistics, it is much more challenging than that.

For any young families in my riding of Langley—Aldergrove, part of metro Vancouver, who are prospective first-time buyers, the news is not good at all. Single family houses are up 42%, condos are up 39% and townhouses are up 35%. Frankly, it is becoming unrealistic for young families to even believe they are ever going to own a house.

I was talking to Alison in my riding just the other day. She and her husband are both earning quite a bit of money. They have managed to save up a really good down payment. They pre-qualified for a mortgage. They are doing everything right. About a year or a year a half ago, they got into the market to bid on a townhouse. They lost out to a higher bidder. They tried again on a second townhouse. The same thing happened, and they lost out to a higher bidder. They did that 10 times in a row. The tenth time, they bid way over asking price thinking that they would for sure get it. Again, they were outbid by a higher bidder.

I was talking to Alison and she asked what they were doing wrong. I said that she was not doing anything wrong and that she was doing everything right, but that there were economic forces at play that were beyond the ability of ordinary Canadians to deal with.

This is what the Vancouver Sun said just this weekend about this topic:

Young, educated, urban Canadians have [many reasons] to be angry...with Ottawa for the ways it has worsened the housing crisis.

[The Liberal government] has three times campaigned, with apparent earnest emotion, on promises to provide affordable housing. And each time, [it] has reneged.

Canadian housing is now 100 per cent more expensive than when [the Liberals] first took office in 2015.

That is the legacy of the Liberal government, that housing prices have doubled in the time it has held office.

One of the failed programs of the Liberal government is the first-time homebuyers incentive. That is the program that says the government would own a piece of the equity stake in the home of any first-time homebuyers who use the program. Happily, very few people have actually used the program. I was talking to a mortgage broker who works in my neighbourhood, and he explained to me why the program is a failure. It just does not work, certainly not in my riding where houses are as expensive as they are.

Mortgage Professionals Canada, a very credible organization, has said this about the housing affordability crisis: “If we had historically equally considered the demand-side and supply-side policies, we probably would be in a far better position”.

I would just summarize this part by saying this: Is it not a fresh idea that we are going to look at basic economic principles? That is where the government has failed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for his intervention. There will be about six and a half minutes left when he gets back to this matter.

During the last couple of Statements by Members, it has been getting pretty noisy in the chamber. I am hoping that members could keep their conversations outside in the lobbies, and as they come in, they could listen to these great statements that members are giving.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update. We are talking about the economic pressures that Canadians are feeling, which are today at a generational high of 5.7%. However, if we look at industry-specific statistics, it can be much worse than that.

We are also talking about housing. The cost of housing, in the time the Liberal government has been office, has doubled. That is the legacy the government leaves behind when it comes to housing. Despite all of its programs designed to make housing more affordable, or maybe because of all those programs, the cost of housing is skyrocketing and it is becoming impossible for many young families to get into their first home. It is a deep concern.

We are urging the government to abandon its programs, like, for example, the failed first-time homebuyer incentive, and to instead look at the basic economic principle of supply and demand. That is the principle that says if an economy is not supplying the goods and services that people need and in the amounts they need, nor the types of product they want, there will be inflation. That is exactly what is happening in Canada today. We have so many young families that want to get into their first home. We have record high immigration, and we all need a place to live. We also have a shortage of rental stock in our growing cities. Coupling that together with unprecedented spending by the government during the pandemic, borrowed money and printed money, we have a perfect storm. We have too many dollars chasing too few goods, and that is what is causing inflation.

I know the governing party has now adopted the Conservative policy in its platform of increasing housing supply. Well, that is a really good idea, and I have a few specific, concrete ideas focusing on my riding of Langley—Aldergrove that would help to increase the housing supply.

First, let us get the SkyTrain built from downtown Surrey to downtown Langley and encourage local governments to open up new areas of land for urban redevelopment.

Second, let us speed up the approval process for new developments so that Canada is the fastest place to get an approval. Investment dollars will come flowing into our economy.

Third, let us create balanced communities and more jobs close to home. Again, I am going to focus on my riding. We need better transit links to Gloucester park in the north part of my riding. We also need better transit links to Campbell Heights industrial park in neighbouring south Surrey. This is what I am hearing from businesses in those areas. They say they cannot get workers.

Fourth, let us train our young people to have the skills and knowledge that employers require. Let us also get more immigrants in. Let us speed up the credentialing approval process, particularly for the trades so we get more immigrants knowing how to build houses so they can build the cities they are going to live in. If we do not solve the housing affordability crisis, we will not be able to tackle inflation.

I am hearing from many people in my riding who are concerned that the government is dismissive about the inflationary pressures they are feeling. They hear the government saying that inflation in 2022 is only transitory because of COVID-related supply chain disruptions and it will all be gone soon. The government also points out that inflation is a global phenomenon. I suppose the implication is that there is not much it can do about it. It also says that even though inflation is at 5.7%, it is not as bad as the rate in other countries, the implication being that there is probably not much it has to do about it.

People in my riding are very concerned. I was talking to a farmer just the other day who is deeply concerned that inflation is becoming embedded in our economy and is not just transitory. He pointed out that the cost of delivering his specialty products from Langley to Calgary has doubled from $3,200 per truckload to $6,000. That is if he can even get truck drivers, because there is a shortage of them, and if he can get trucks, because there is even a shortage of trucks.

There we go. We have a shortage of workers and equipment. We also have ever-increasing energy costs and an increase to the Liberal government's carbon tax coming at the end of this week. All that leads to inflationary pressures.

It is time to unleash the power of the free market again so that our businesses can make more, produce more and pay more wages to more workers, because there is nothing better for the economy than workers taking home a good paycheque. This is what a Conservative government would do. We would unleash the powers of the free market to solve these economic problems and find a much better balance. That is the balance we are looking for, and sadly Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update from the government, is missing that mark.

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

Madam Speaker, it has been a couple of times today that I have heard the Conservatives talk about “unleashing the power”. The last time I heard that phrase was from the member for Carleton, so I am going to assume those who are saying “unleashing the power” are referencing their hopeful candidate for the leadership.

I would hope members of the Conservative Party would unleash the power of support and recognize good legislation when they see it. Bill C-8 would continue to support Canadians in all regions of our country. It would do that through things such as a housing tax on individual foreign investors, which would help with house speculation, and through supplies of rapid tests and support for small businesses. All of these types of wonderful supports are within this legislation.

Can the member unleash his free mind and tell the House that he will vote in favour of these types of supports?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about these wonderful programs. Well, we have not seen them. We are talking about the first-time homebuyer incentive, and it is a complete bust. It does not work in my riding. People have to earn more than the maximum amount set out in the program even to afford to buy a house, so it is another example of a failed program. We are just asking the Liberal-NDP government to stick to basic economic principles.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke a lot about the housing crisis. It is something that impacts my riding of Victoria in an extreme way. Blind bidding has been driving up the cost of housing. Unfortunately there is nothing in the bill that would combat blind bidding.

I am curious if the member agrees that the government should be implementing policies that would really help first-time homebuyers and that would stop the rising cost of houses from escalating even higher.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would support any programs that are effective in helping first-time buyers get into the market. It can be very challenging and very intimidating for first-time buyers to bid on a house. I have talked to many people in my riding who are desperate to get into a house, but they keep getting outbid by investors and they fail to buy the home they want. Yes, I would support anything that would help first-time buyers.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the divide we are seeing between rural and urban Canada. The constituents in my riding note the carbon tax right now. We look at this bill and there is really no relief for people who are just getting by. In my riding people have to drive everywhere. We do not have the option of a subway or public transit. We have a great first nation in York—Simcoe, the Chippewas of Georgina Island, that has to use a diesel ferry to go across. There is no electric ferry. They have to use airboats to cross the ice in the winter for safety to get kids to school. There are no alternatives for that.

I wonder if my colleague could speak to that.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to focus on my riding again. The western part of it is highly urbanized. I talked about the SkyTrain coming to Langley. It is going to help the people living in those urbanized areas. The people in the eastern part of my riding need to drive on the Trans-Canada Highway, and it is completely clogged up. To those people at home, I am also advocating for the expansion of Highway 1, because I recognize that not everybody lives in cities. I also recognize that many Canadians have to drive to work, have to do groceries or have to bring their kids to hockey, for example, so relief at the pumps is absolutely needed.

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

Madam Speaker, today the government is printing and spending money at a rate never seen in our nation's history. This is plain. Never before has the government spent so much so quickly, not just during the pandemic, but from 2015 to 2019 the Liberal government borrowed $100 billion when, in the 2015 election campaign, the Prime Minister promised small incremental deficits and a balanced budget for 2019.

During the pandemic, Canada has borrowed more money than it has in its 155 years through 23 prime ministers. This year alone, the government printed $300 billion. Where did this money go? It is simple. Just like a Will Smith slap, it was gone.

A lot of money was spent with little investment. After $800 billion was spent in the last six years, we do not have more ICU or hospital beds that would help in future pandemics, allow much-needed surgeries to take place or stave off any more unneeded lockdowns. Our military is in shambles, and we need new equipment, and more investment in Arctic defence and our navy.

We have a broken immigration system, with which we cannot currently fill the more than one million jobs in this country that need to be filled in order for businesses to grow. These are the businesses that pay salaries, payroll taxes and corporate taxes; generate GDP, which contributes to federal taxes; and make the stuff that will hopefully quell inflation. We have the biggest single housing crisis in the world, with a growing homeless population. We have an outdated strategy, and we are lacking innovation in this country.

Not only are we losing out in immigration, but other countries are poaching our talent from here at home. We have not invested as much as we need to in R and D. We are not seeing IP and patents generated here as well as they are in other countries, and we cannot get our Canadian energy, whether it be from Keystone XL or especially LNG, to Europe and the rest of the world. All at a time when it has to still buy it from Russia and Putin, fuelling the war machine devastating Ukraine.

It is quite simple. By having a government spend rather than invest, it has put Canada on a race to the bottom. We are headed for more disaster when we fail to invest in Canada, our children and our future, and continue to spend to satisfy today. By spending and not investing, it is Canadians who are hurting, Canadians such as my constituents in Bay of Quinte, who are having trouble pinching loonies and toonies together to pay for groceries, heat and gas for their fuel tanks.

They also have an incredible debt load that is compiling on its own. Do members know that, in all of the nations of the G7, we have the worst personal debt for our families in this country? They are racking up lines of credit and credit card bills, and putting a lot of money on themselves, just the same as the government is. The result is higher interest payments for them, payday loans they cannot get out of and having to decide how to pay bills this month and next. They are having trouble because the money spent may have been cheap and it may have been easy, but that easy and cheap cash is fuelling inflation, as more money chases fewer goods. These are all points that have been made clear on this side of the House again and again.

We are heading for more spending with the NDP and Liberal merger. Where spending is concerned, with the NDP and Liberals put together, we have not seen anything yet. There is a saying that goes, “Money is only important when you don't have any.” Neither the Liberals nor the NDP believe we are out of it, never mind that the clock is ticking, literally. The national debt clock is fast approaching $1.2 trillion, but, hey, what is $1 trillion anymore? We certainly know $1 million for a house is nothing now. I have a couple of statistics. That is $31,000 per man, woman and child in Canada. For a family of five, that is $155,000 that they now owe for the debt in Canada.

Let us look at what we are borrowing every day. Every day we are printing $391 million to cover the debt, when this country needs to pay its bills today. Let us look at what is eclipsed and what the interest payments are for the debt. What does it cost us to pay for the debt? It is now $40 billion. When we think about investments, would it not be nice to have $40 billion more for health care, to create more beds and ICU beds, or to pay doctors and nurses, or to make sure we have what Canadians need just to have a universal basic income that we so pride ourselves in?

The Liberal-NDP merger has been said to be giving fits to the finance minister because the already outlandish spending is set to increase oh so very much more with universal basic income, free pharmacare, free dental care and on and on. Members can imagine that perhaps even Oprah Winfrey will make an appearance to the House herself, saying, “You get a car. You get a car. Everyone is going to get a car.”

There is far more importance today. Success is where preparation and opportunity meet. For our investments, for a better tomorrow, for our children, for our children's children, we need to learn the difference between spending and investing, and make sure that we invest in Canada's future. Here is the kicker: Some of that investment may actually be free.

Number one, we need to stop the spending spree. There will be a windfall for the federal government this year, and do members know where that windfall will be from? It will be from oil, and Alberta itself may be able to balance its books for the first time postpandemic. The federal government needs to put some of that money into debt repayment, and while we have too many problems to put the brakes on spending, it needs to spend more wisely than ever before.

Number two, we have to grasp that we cannot have everything. If we are going to make Canadians choose between groceries and rent, then we must choose those investments with extreme caution. Canadians choosing whether to put their kids into hockey or swimming know that they cannot have everything. They need to make choices, and the government needs to make choices as well.

Number three, we need to invest in those of Canada's strengths that will provide a return on investment. Housing includes working with the provinces to double our building of new starts, and it includes increasing our skilled trades in Canada by investing in our immigration system. It is terrible that, right now, across Canada, we cannot fill a million jobs, and when the immigration minister talked about this, he, in effect, said that it is broken, and they are putting $85 million into it, but they are not sure if they are going to have many skilled labourers at all coming into this country by the end of the year. Every minute that we wait to fill these companies and they sit empty or are not able to produce the things that provide money for this country, we are failing those businesses. We are failing Canada to be able to make money on its own and quell inflation.

We need to look at food production in Canada now that Ukraine and Russia have decreased theirs. Ukraine provides over 20% of the world's wheat and 9% of the world's corn. A bigger problem for Canadian agriculture is that 80% of fertilizer currently comes from Russia, and that 80% of fertilizer is nitrate, which helps us grow our corn. If we are out of nitrate and we do not have that fertilizer, we are in big trouble for producing the food that we need, not only for our own country, but also for those across the world. The simple solution may be to ask farmers to produce 10% more this year to ensure that we are making our own fertilizer, and ensure we are helping farmers as much as we can to produce the things they need to feed the world and feed Canadians.

We have to increase our output of Canadian energy, especially our nuclear energy modular units. Canadian oil is much better than unethical oil from other parts of the globe, and if we make it cleaner, we should be promoting it more steadily.

When it comes to GDP, few Canadians know that, after real estate and manufacturing, mining, gas and oil comes third, providing 585,000 jobs and over $190 billion in direct and indirect taxes a year. In comparison, a country that I really love, South Korea, which is the size of the rock of Newfoundland, has the same GDP as Canada, and has manufacturing and innovation replacing those oil and gas revenues Canada enjoys. However, that innovation and manufacturing is worth almost three times what Canada does. If we are going to start replacing that, we need to increase innovation and we need to increase manufacturing.

When we look at South Korea and the examples it provides, it has Hyundai, LNG and Samsung, things that Canada needs to start investing in if we want to ever start bringing in royalties, increasing the GDP and jobs, and investing in Canada and Canadians. We need to start paying for the things we want. As deputy critic for innovation, science and industry, I would hope that for Canada's future we look at this kind of investment for Canada to succeed in the future.

Jim Balsillie was in the SRSR committee this week talking about what Canada needs to do in order to start capitalizing on intellectual property and ensure that we have an advanced and growing the economy. Do members know that the OECD has predicted that Canada, from 2020 to 2030 and the next three decades after, is going to have the worst performing economy of all the OECD? It is absolutely deplorable, and we have to ensure now that we are investing. We have to fix this economy and get to the future.

Simply, on the struggle Canadians are going through today, with inflation and the housing crisis, we have to invest in Canada's tomorrow. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Let us invest in Canadians. Let us invest in Canada, and let us get going for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to this member talk about Canada's GDP. Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 countries right now. We are actually bettered position to come out of the last two years of the pandemic as a result of having that debt-to-GDP ratio. We are in the best position to come out of the problems that we have had over the last two years.

More specifically, with respect to the member's comment about investing in new technologies, I could not agree with him more. We need to do more right now to make sure that we get those new technologies in Canada so that we become exporters of that technology. I do not see a lot of new technology when it relates to oil and gas. The Conservative Party of Canada refers to anything energy-related as oil and gas being the only options.

Would the member not agree with me that there is a lot of potential and there are a lot of opportunities in renewables and sustainable development as technology that we could start exporting to the world?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is my neighbour down the road on the 401.

I have to agree, there are technologies, but I actually disagree because we have technologies in oil and gas. We have carbon capture elements in the oil sands right now and are doing an incredible job. Ontario is launching small modular nuclear reactors, which are emission-free. We are looking at many different things.

If we could do what the Ontario Liberals did 20 years ago with LNG in China, we could reduce the world's emissions by up to 50%. We have great Canadian energy and renewables, and we also need to look at the oil and gas sector. It is really important.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, personally speaking, I have never seen the federal government start to encroach on the jurisdiction of Quebec or the provinces and then express regret and step back.

I get the impression that by encroaching on the property tax domain, the government is putting one foot in Quebec's taxation jurisdiction, and the next step will be to dance on the grave of provincial fiscal jurisdictions.

I would like my colleague to tell me if the federal government should refrain from encroaching on this, the last untouched area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

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

Madam Speaker, I do believe in jurisdiction. The federal government should stay in its lane and the provinces should stay in their lanes. The federal government's job is to help the provinces ensure that they are successful, that they have the resources they need and that we are moving in the right direction by making money and having taxation. They are responsible for their needs and the government should be responsible for its needs.

Absolutely, I agree. Let us just keep the federal government moving on ensuring it is doing its best to invest in Canada and that the provinces are doing the same for their constituents.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are often talking about government spending, but they do not talk a lot about government revenue. Fiscal responsibility requires us to think about both. However, the Liberals and the Conservatives have voted against a wealth tax, and they voted against taxing the biggest corporations. They vote against making sure the wealthiest pay their fair share.

Why do the Conservatives continue to talk about cutting programs for the most vulnerable and, instead, protect the profits of the wealthiest?

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

Madam Speaker, I am a Conservative and a business owner as well, so I not only sign the back of a cheque, but I can sign the front of a cheque. I know a couple things. I know that businesses, when given extra taxes, find ways to pass those costs down to consumers.

I am not saying we should cut any programs for the vulnerable. I am just saying we have different programs that increase the GDP and increase the tax that Canada has to pay for those programs. I do not think we need to be wastefully spending and causing more inflation for those programs. We need to find ways to generate that, and that means investing in Canadians and investing in Canadians businesses. They then pay taxes and that pays for the rest of it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I might say that the member's family is a very attractive and nice group.

We have heard a lot from this side about climate change, but given the fact that emissions have increased every year the last seven years, is it not just a bunch of hot air?

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

Madam Speaker, we had some great plans in the last election that talked about consumers having choices that better their backyards. People want to buy electric cars, and they want to be able to choose different forms of energy to heat their homes, but right now when they go to the gas station, they only get the one choice. They can purchase electric cars, but they are expensive and we are not making Canadian cars in Canada. Canadians need to be able to make choices. They want to better the environment, and we have always believed in helping them make those choices.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the great people of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, and I am grateful to also be able to have people attend the debate in person in the House. I have my family on Parliament Hill with me here today, so it is fantastic to have people in the gallery to see and hear the important work we do in this place.

Before getting into more detail on this particular bill, I just want to make sure that we keep in mind a major concern for our public spending going forward. When this bill was debated here last time, we did not realize that it would be the last Liberal spending bill for the next few years. Since then, we have seen that the Liberal minority government has made an official deal with the NDP to act as an artificial majority until 2025.

In a certain way, calling it a Liberal-NDP coalition gives it way too much credit, because the NDP as an opposition party is selling itself short as much as it is selling out. Giving away opposition power over a minority government to bring stronger accountability to Parliament without getting the perks of officially working in cabinet means the New Democrats will miss out on a promotion while protecting and getting used by the Liberal establishment. The NDP is a party that came to this Parliament in fourth place, and now it seems clearer than ever that it will not address the priorities of Canadians in years to come.

As one Liberal MP quietly told the media, “Already the Liberal Party has been too far left.... Now, it's official, we have joined this ultra left.” The article continues, saying, “MPs interviewed for this article said they were not against the idea of an average Canadian getting free dental care or pharmacare, but said their main concern is that after hundreds of billions of dollars of spending during COVID, it would be imprudent to embark on endeavours that will only add to those costs.”

Despite our best efforts here as the official opposition, which we are not going to stop, the Liberals are going to have their way with the NDP at the expense of Canadians. In speaking to those same Canadians, I will start with a number: $30,964. That is the share of national debt right now of each and every Canadian. Let us take that for a moment. Every hour our debt rises by $16 million and currently we owe over $1.2 trillion.

We can talk about millions here and billions there. The number is so big that it starts sounding meaningless and easy to tune out, but that is exactly how risky our situation is. Who really has millions or billions to drop, adding up to trillions? We do not, and that is before another $70 billion that this current bill we are debating here today wants to add. Then, right away, there is going to be another federal budget, no doubt introducing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars more of federal spending, as if the Liberal obsession with failing to spend money effectively was not making it bad enough for people already in their everyday lives.

On Friday, the carbon tax will be going up yet again. That means the exact opposite of what we asked for on behalf of Canadians, which was to remove the GST on fuel temporarily, in our last opposition day motion. Instead of going down, gas prices will be going up, unfortunately, on April 1, and unfortunately that is not a joke.

When people roll up to a gas pump they are greeted with sticker shock. Across the country prices are ranging anywhere from $1.60 all the way up to two dollars a litre. That is not high enough, apparently, for the NDP-Liberal government, because is that not what this is all about? For an oil-exporting country, there is no reason for it. We need to harness oil and gas capacity and increase their production to meet demand and lower prices. We could do this by reducing the regulatory burden, building pipelines and increasing our refinery capacity. It could have helped our friends in Ukraine and all of Europe as well. These are common-sense solutions that do not involve spending $70 billion and would actually help hard-working everyday Canadians.

People are also greeted by record-high prices and empty shelves in grocery stores. This is the result of poor infrastructure and no plan to fix the shortage of truckers that exists here in Canada. Before our vaccine mandate, the industry was already short over 18,000 truckers, and because of those mandates an additional shortage of 16,000 truckers is where the shortage is now.

I recently spoke to a senior in my constituency who relies on a health product that is only sold at Walmart. For years he has been taking this product and it has kept him healthier during COVID. Unfortunately he can no longer find it back in Saskatchewan. Upon further research and after contacting Walmart's distributors, this constituent found out it is having difficulty getting the product up to Canada, but particularly struggling to get it into western Canada. The NDP–Liberals voted down our Conservative motion on that issue too.

Instead, they want to spend $37 million to extend mandates for another three years. It is time to end the mandates, no matter what flimsy justifications the health minister pretends to give. The Liberals laugh and call us names instead of fixing people's problems. Canadians are ready to get our country open, to get our country back and to be able to travel across the country without having to deal with mandates. We heard today in question period of people trying to go to see loved ones but unable to do so because of the mandates that are in place. Canadians did and gave up so much over the last two years. I recognize that a lot of it over a period of time was necessary, but Canadians are ready. It is time for the government to lead. It is time for the government to do what is right for Canadians. It is time to end the mandates.

It gets worse for everyone again, with the upfront cost of living, transport or the carbon tax through something like agriculture. I have heard from countless farmers in my riding who have shared how much of a burden the federal carbon tax is on them, for starters. Thankfully my colleague from Huron—Bruce has tabled a private member's bill that would exempt Canadian farmers from the carbon tax when using propane or natural gas for drying grain or for heating their barns. On top of this, producers are dealing with record-high input costs on their farms. A local farmer recently shared with me how fertilizer has nearly doubled in price, which is proving to be a huge burden for him as he prepares for the spring plant.

Another farmer told me that, after last year's drought, many have found themselves in a position where they are importing feed for their herds all across North America. This is proving to be very costly, without even mentioning the cost of machinery or seed. This is leaving many producers in a position where they are losing money on the cattle they are raising. We are now heading into another planting season, and we are all holding our breath and praying that we might have a good and fruitful year.

This is the reality for our farmers. Coupled with record-high input costs, our farmers need all the support and help that they can get. We need to help them so that they can have a robust agricultural sector. We need to remove the red tape and increase our domestic production to bring down the cost of food for all Canadians. I am from the area of the country where the Palliser Triangle is. We farmed right in the heart of it, and we were able to produce all kinds of fantastic crops in an area where it was previously said no human being should even be attempting to live, let alone grow the food that feeds the world, which we do at an exceptional array down south.

Why has the government completely forgotten about the Canadian people who are struggling? Gas, groceries and rent are all going up and people's wages just simply are not matching up to this increase. People are having to decide between filling up their vehicle or putting food on the table. It is very shameful. It is very unacceptable.

Financial struggles do not end there. We currently have a housing market that is exploding. We are seeing record prices and competition that have resulted in it being extremely difficult for first-time homebuyers to enter the market. Once again, Conservatives have called on the government to implement common-sense solutions that can better address this issue. Simply increasing supply will do a lot to calm down the market. For that reason, we have called on the government to leverage our federal infrastructure in an attempt to increase supply. On top of this, we need to remove the red tape that is withholding the industry from simply building more houses. Conservatives have also called on the government to address the issue for first-time homebuyers by fixing the mortgage stress test, in turn making it easier to purchase their first home. It is not too late for the government to implement these measures that would actually have a real impact for hard-working Canadians.

The NDP-Liberal government has gone on a spending spree, claiming to help with COVID by spending over $541.9 billion. However, it is important to note that $176 billion is completely unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unacceptable that millions of dollars are still unaccounted for. We have been seeing multiple examples of the Liberals padding the pockets of their closest friends. On top of this, the Prime Minister wants to print billions of dollars out of thin air.

Today I have outlined some of the issues that are facing everyday Canadians and some of the practical solutions that the government could implement to help them. I look forward to questions and answers.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I go to my riding, Mirabel, I meet with mayors there. They tell me they want to diversify their revenue sources and are concerned about the future of the federal gas tax fund because the transition is coming.

When I chat with municipal administrators, they have no interest in seeing the federal government interfere in their area of taxation. I wonder if the same is true in my colleague's province.

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

Madam Speaker, I meet with quite a few mayors and people who work for rural municipalities as well about having the feds encroaching on their jurisdictions. We see GST is also being applied to the federal tax as well, which does not make any sense and is a big complaint a lot of people have. The City of Swift Current, for example, had to increase a line item in their budget to adjust for federal things that are completely out of the municipality's control, an additional $500,000 this year in spending. That is completely unacceptable.

We need to make sure that we have a focused government that is not directly impacting and raising costs on Canadians at a time when inflation is at the highest that it has been for decades. It is time to get spending under control. It is time to quit printing money, so that we could get things back under control and let our municipalities do what they do best.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, as someone who also represents a large farming region, we know that the cost of fertilizer as we go into the planting season is top of mind for many farmers. We know there have been recent policy considerations by the Liberal government to increase the costs of the inputs in fertilizer production in an effort to reach their climate change goals. We know that these increased inputs are really going to make it difficult for us to grow food, especially in a world where we are looking at nearly a quarter of our wheat and other cereal crops being taken out of production due to the war in Ukraine.

I am wondering if the member could talk about fertilizer, the government's flawed policies and the need for a better approach for our agricultural sector.

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

Madam Speaker, fertilizer is definitely a very big issue. It is very much top of mind.

We could look at the costs and how expensive it is right now to get the fertilizer that is required for people who did not prebuy. For people who are looking to buy right now, that cost is exorbitant. It has gone up exponentially. It is having a severe impact on what farmers are going to be able to do this spring as they plant.

It is important to note that farmers have always led the way in innovation. There is a lot of talk these days about 4R and the importance of that. That is something that has been implemented on many farms, if not almost all farms in western Canada over the last couple of decades. It is not something that is new. It is not a new concept. Using variable rate is something that has been in place for a very long time. With the right place, right time, there is a lot of innovation that has happened already, and now we are seeing the government trying to take credit for it, which is wrong.

We need to give farmers the credit they deserve. We need to recognize the fact that they are doing what is in the best interests of the land, because without the land, they have no income. They take care of the land. By taking care of the land, they take care of the air that is around them. With farming practices, the way they have changed and evolved, emissions from farming have gone down exponentially over the years. In fact, there are several private sector studies that show that farming is actually a net-negative industry in the Prairies with the amount of carbon that is sequestered in the land, but also with the way the farming practices have changed. We have already done a fantastic job. It is time to look at the real science around here.

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

Madam Speaker, the member represents a beautiful part of the country with some spectacular native grasslands. He touched on farming, and I just want to give the member some time to maybe expand on his comments about using native grasslands and conserving native grasslands to have carbon sequestration and to preserve biodiversity. This is the most endangered ecosystem in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, it was a pleasure to serve with the member on committee in the last Parliament. I really appreciate his question, because it is important to know that great water and grazing practices are extremely important to the survival and the revitalization of our native prairie grass. We saw in Grasslands National Park a number of years ago that there was a move to remove all grazing from the park. The problem was that the species at risk left the park too, because there is a very important relationship there between keeping grass grazed and providing the protection that those species at risk need from the predators that are trying to get them.

When it comes to species at risk, the grasslands and grazing practices are so important. They sequester more carbon. They do a better job of that, and the biodiversity that exists there is better supported when we have modern grazing practices, not by removing them from the land.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the cost of everything under the NDP-Liberal government is getting too damn high. Today we are debating Bill C-8: the government's fiscal update from this past December. December feels like a lifetime ago for me, and I know it feels like a lifetime ago for millions of Canadians. A lot has changed since then, and the tack taken by the government in this legislation shows just how poorly prepared it is for the new reality that we live in, which has changed from just a few months ago.

The reality is that inflation is at record highs not seen in over 30 years, and not in my lifetime. The reality is that commodity prices, such as oil, natural gas, copper and steel, just to name a few, are hitting record new highs when adjusted for inflation. These highs in many ways are somewhat beneficial for parts of our economy, but also threaten other parts of our economy and the world economy.

The reality is that Canada's real estate sector is probably the most overvalued asset class anywhere in the world. Canadians, especially members of my millennial generation, are either priced out of the housing market altogether or have become so over-leveraged in the effort to get that first home that they are putting themselves in serious financial danger, particularly with rising interest rates. If we see a correction in our real estate sector, it is going to be tremendously bad for members of my generation who are just getting into the housing market for the first time.

Given the challenges that I have outlined, I would like to think that the government would want to make an approach and an effort to help Canadian families through this difficult time, but the fact is that as of April 1, only a few days away, the NDP-Liberal government is pledging a further increase to the carbon tax, from $40 a tonne to $50 a tonne. That is a whopping 25% increase, and this price increase will result in more taxes on Canadian families and small businesses at a time when they simply cannot afford them.

The government has told us many times to wait a minute: the carbon tax is revenue-neutral, and all funds that have been collected are returned to the provinces and the people they are collected from. However, we heard testimony recently from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that has indicated the carbon tax's effect on the total economy means that six out of 10, or about 60%, of Canadian families are worse off because of the carbon tax. We are seeing that, out of the funds that are collected, only about 90% of the total is being returned directly to families, and over the past number of years several provinces have been significantly shortchanged in what they were supposed to get.

The government has been bragging about its new plan for the climate action incentive rebates, saying that it is moving from a one-time annual payment to quarterly payments. I am going to list just why that is not something that one would really want to be bragging about. Folks in Alberta and other provinces who used to get their full climate action rebate after they filed their tax returns are now having to wait several more months just to get that one quarterly payment. I understand that there might be a benefit in stretching the payments out into four quarterly payments throughout the course of the year, but what we know in this highly inflationary environment is that the value of a dollar today is very rapidly diminishing.

By spreading this payment out into quarterly payments, the government is actually nickel-and-diming Canadians. It is helping the government's bottom line because it is able to print those dollars at full value and then, over the course of the year with these quarterly payments, it is paying Canadians less money in real value than if it had just issued them a one-time payment. With inflation roiling, this whole shell game about moving from a single climate action incentive payment to quarterly payments is really diminishing value for Canadian families. It is time for the NDP-Liberal government to stop shortchanging these families and show us the money.

I will move on to what is happening around the world and how the government is not preparing Canada now, and has not prepared Canada for the past six years. Our European allies and our allies around the world are struggling with their dependence on Russian oil and gas. The Minister of Natural Resources said the government can only offer a measly 300,000 barrels a day of additional production. That is to offset nearly 10 million barrels of lost Russian production.

We need to revise the meaning of a drop in the bucket and put Canada's name right in there, because it is simply not enough. Meanwhile, for the past six years under the Liberal government, Canada has failed to complete a major pipeline. We have failed to construct a single liquefied natural gas export facility on our coast, and permits for new oil and gas projects have been stalled indefinitely. I think of the Teck Frontier mine, for example.

Another example that is more current is the critical Bay du Nord project that is absolutely vital for the economic health of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is oil that, in the words of the previous minister of natural resources, who is from Newfoundland and Labrador, is the cleanest in the world. It is also oil that would not require the construction of new pipelines, because it is literally on the water. It is a no-brainer, yet the government continues to dither on approving this critical project.

We have inflation. We have more taxes. We have projects that are not being approved. They are not moving forward or not being approved at all. Now, we have this unscientific Liberal-NDP vaccine mandate that is really starting to bite our economy.

Farmers across Canada, including in my riding, are starting to enter the very busy shipping season, with a lot of our exports heading south to the United States. From before the pandemic until now, the rate to move these goods by truck has nearly doubled. Those farm families who can actually get people to move their products are lucky because it is very difficult to even find a trucker. There was a shortage of about 18,000 truckers before the pandemic and that number has exploded. There are about 16,000 additional truckers we have lost because of vaccine mandates.

A lot of unvaccinated truck drivers are solo truckers from the United States who Canadian farmers have come to depend upon to move our goods during this busy time of year because of our integrated supply chains. Instead, because of our border mandates, these truckers are choosing to stay home. It is costing our economy hundreds of millions of dollars. I come from a farm family, and this is a very real reality that families are facing. These truckers are not coming up from the United States. We are not getting our products moved south of the border. It is a real fact on the ground.

The food security of our North American supply chain has been put at serious risk. The cost to produce fertilizer is skyrocketing. The government has even announced plans, as I said earlier, to make it more expensive to produce fertilizer. With nearly a quarter of the world's wheat and other cereal crop production at risk due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, what the Government of Canada is doing is simply reckless and irresponsible. The world not only needs Canada's energy; it needs Canada's food. We have the ability to be an agricultural superpower, but instead the NDP-Liberal government wants to manage the decline of some of our most important traditional industries.

I understand that members of the government have said they do not want to take lessons from Conservatives, but they do not need to take lessons from Conservatives to look at what people are doing in the provinces and in countries around the world that are even more left-wing than the government. Spain, for example, just announced today that it was cutting the fuel tax on gasoline by 20 cents, meaning 20 cents to the euro. We have the NDP provincial government in British Columbia that announced a rebate for families to help them out at the pumps. It is temporarily cutting fuel taxes because it recognizes that, during this inflationary period, families are hurting. It is offering families further rebates on home heating. We are seeing that in Alberta. It is especially suspending further tax increases such as we will see on April 1 with the Liberal carbon tax.

Families cannot afford these tax increases on food, home heating and transportation fuels. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to use the windfall that it is receiving from these high commodity prices and from its inflationary spending to lower taxes on families. We know that the cost to service this increasing debt, and to pay down this debt in the future, is only going to be a further burden on Canadian families.

It is time to use whatever resources we can to help Canadian families with broad-based tax relief: not boutique tax credits like we see in this bill, but broad-based relief that we know will disproportionately help low- and middle-income earners. We know that cuts to fuel taxes and cuts to consumption taxes have a bigger impact on family budgets for those who make under $50,000 or $100,000. Conservatives are focused on delivering tangible benefits for these working-class Canadians who are increasingly struggling and living paycheque to paycheque.

In closing, Bill C-8 has failed to provide the targeted tax relief that families need at this time. It has failed to speed up these resource projects. It has failed to deal with high inflation. That is why the Conservatives cannot support it.

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

Madam Speaker, if I understood the member correctly, he said in his speech that Canada is being impacted negatively by the vaccination mandate to cross the border, but he is completely washing over the fact that both Canada and the U.S. have the exact same requirement. Canadian truckers would not be turned away or have a problem with a Canadian border officer as they would have already entered into the United States by showing their proof of vaccination to the U.S. border officer. Likewise, a U.S. trucker leaving Canada and going back into the States would have had to show proof of vaccination.

It is the exact same rule on both sides of the border, so how can he suggest that one side of the border is being affected negatively and the other is not?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reality on the ground for farmers is that these vaccine mandates are causing problems. The member across can point and blame other jurisdictions all he wants, but the fact is that the current Liberal government has not taken leadership on it. It has not called the White House. We know that, in the United States, there are exemptions for companies with under 100 workers. We see that the truck drivers in the United States who are not vaccinated are not going anywhere. They are not coming to Canada like they used to, to ship our goods to the producers in the United States who need these goods. Instead of pointing the blame and trying to hide their own responsibility for this problem, maybe the government and the Prime Minister should pick up the phone, call the President and try to work out a solution so we can get our economy moving again.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about tax exemptions and things like that. There are some very inexpensive things we could have done to help the labour market, for instance.

In this bill, there is absolutely nothing to help our businesses get workers. If my colleague went out in the field a bit, he would be saying the same thing: All our business owners are struggling to find employees.

We could have created a tax credit for people 65 and older who want to keep working.

I would like his thoughts on that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We are seeing a labour shortage all across the country. There are a lot of jobs available for people, but we simply do not have people either applying for them or available for those jobs. I think the government must do what it can to encourage people to get off the bench and get back into the workforce, whether they are new retirees or young people who are not sure about the first kind of job they want. We need to look at getting everyone participating in the market. I have talked to so many small business people who, if they had put out a sign in front of their business five years ago, would have had five people walking through the door ready to work, but now they are really struggling to find the labour they need. We know this is causing massive issues for our overall economy, and especially for our local small businesses.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments about agriculture. I represent Holland Marsh, the soup and salad bowl of Canada, and would like to say how important food security is now and moving forward. When we see the rising prices of fertilizer, can the member speak to how this will affect crop yield, with farmers not planting as much of their farm as they should be? How critical is this input to farmers in Canada?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member who represents the soup and salad bowl of Canada. I like to think I represent the little potato part of Canada. Maybe the Prime Minister should give it a visit.

We know that, with the cost of fertilizer, the input costs are going through the roof. The government's climate policies are really increasing the cost of this, and we know that historically an increase in the cost of food is the number one cause of social unrest. Luckily, we are blessed to live in a country such as Canada. I do not think we are necessarily going to have a shortage of food, but we are looking at countries around the world that are facing food insecurity. Canada cannot afford not to produce food because these countries desperately need it.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to talk about Bill C-8, an economic and fiscal update tabled in December of 2021.

Before I get to the crux of my speech, I want to point out that this bill would add an additional $70 billion of new inflationary fuel to the fire we are seeing already with our public finances. Inflation was at 5.7% in February. We are seeing supply chain shortages and labour issues, and the list goes on and on. We are now seeing a jaw-dropping $1.2 trillion of national debt. Housing prices are up 25% from last year. The average typical home, when the Liberals took power, was $435,000. Now it is $810,000. That is having real impacts.

The carbon tax is having a massive impact on people all across my riding. Of course, it is a rural area and a lot of it is cottage country, but it also has agriculture, tourism and manufacturing. The list goes on, but for the most part, people have to drive to get to work. These manufacturers have to import parts to make their components and to make their goods. We have seen continued price increases along the supply chain as a result of the carbon tax, among the other challenges industry is facing right now.

It is not going to get better, unfortunately. Some experts and media sources are saying that the new deal between the Liberals and the NDP could add an additional $15 billion to $20 billion of government spending over three years and upwards of $40 billion in 2026-27, all of this while we have basically printed money, which is causing a lot of this inflation, and there is no end in sight. That has a real impact on people on the ground.

I want to start now by reading some of the emails I have been receiving from my constituents who are just struggling beyond belief to deal with the increased cost of living.

This one comes from Colin. It reads, “Prime Minister, now is not the time to hike the carbon tax again. Canadians like me are already getting hammered by the highest inflation in decades, which drives up the cost of everything. The crisis in Ukraine has increased the price of oil and gas, driving up anything that requires oil and gas to produce or transport, which is basically everything, and now the carbon tax is going up again on April 1.” He says, “It is the worst April Fool's Day joke ever, and Canadians simply cannot afford this one-two punch.”

Clayton's email reads, “Thank you for taking the time to read this email. Question: Have there been any thoughts or talks of reducing the carbon tax that is skyrocketing on fuel used to heat our homes? We use propane as our main source of heat, and the price of filling our tanks is getting out of control.”

This one is from Colin: “My landlady and I are both on a fixed income. She is 81 years of age. We use heating oil, and the current bill, including GST and carbon tax, makes the price of heating oil $1.65 per litre, which is more than the price of a litre of gasoline.” Their bill is now $250 per month more than last year. That will total about $1,250 more for the season, and that is if they are lucky. Colin writes, “We have to start cutting back on groceries to cover our heating bill. This is unsustainable and, to be frank, downright”, and we can insert an unparliamentary word here. He continues, “There should be some support for folks like us in this situation, and we have not drawn any support from the COVID payouts. Please help.”

This one is from Brad: “I am very concerned about what my family and I are going to do with the current cost increases. I make a fair wage and I work hard for it, as does my wife. Seeing fuel prices today reaching $1.84 per litre in Peterborough, we are unsure how we are going to choose between getting to work every day and putting food on the table for our family. I can't even imagine how people working two or three minimum wage jobs are going to cope. I beg of you to do your best to get us some relief. With gas taxes and carbon tax, it is making it impossible to stay afloat. The current carbon tax rebate is a joke. We have spent that already on propane and heating costs and fuel since January 1. This winter, our propane heating costs have increased at a tremendous cost due to the carbon tax.”

His latest propane fill is $600, and $120 of that $600 was a tax. Then we have the tax on the tax. He writes that food prices are going up and he does not see how he can possibly keep up with this.

I will keep going. I will read a message from Shawn. He said, “Here in the city of Kawartha Lakes, we are looking at a housing crisis. We are seeing, in my area, a lot of people moving up from the city now that a lot of people are working remotely and seeing the advantage of working from paradise.” I do not blame them; it is paradise. However, it is causing a major problem with the supply and demand equation, not to mention the $400 billion that I talked about earlier. Allowing all this money to be put in the atmosphere is helping to cause this unfortunate situation. He writes about different methods that he could talk about to get housing built. Not only that, they are talking about whether it is sustainable for their kids and whether their kids will be able to afford a house going forward.

I will read two more, because these are really important. I really did not get to my speech, but that is okay; these are important.

I am going to talk about Steve. He does construction, excavating and landscape work in Haliburton. Their company will have to increase their rates 27% just to stay afloat. Also, he is concerned about the larger jobs that he has not completed. Some he started last season; he got about 75% of the way last year, and now he estimates that the costs for material, wages, fuel, etc., will be up over $5,000. Now Steve has to eat that cost, because that is not what the quote read. The customer might not pay it. Sadly, he writes, it is not even worth his fuel, but he has to finish the job and lose money just to save his reputation.

I will read this last one because it is actually quite moving. It is from David, who wrote, “I am a 69-year-old Canadian retiree living in Highlands East, finding it more difficult to live week by week in the amount of ridiculous inflation caused by reckless Liberal spending.” That is all the more reason to stop funding some of the priorities that the Liberals have decided are priorities and to take a look at how seniors are struggling to get by. David continues to write, “This scares my wife and I to death, perhaps having to live in a 200- to 300-square-foot box in a hospital-like setting and paying approximately $4,000 rent a month, and that's not even reasonable.”

That is just a small number of the sad and very real stories I am hearing from constituents right across this constituency. We have heard struggling stories like that all day from constituents, regular Canadians, who are struggling to get by.

We have called for relief from this carbon tax. We are talking about how the carbon tax is affecting the farmers we are dealing with in my area, and others who are trying to figure out how they are going to manage these increased prices when they are talking about drying and about fuel for other methods. Everything has a cascading effect. If anyone has gone to the grocery store lately, they would have seen that the price of groceries is absolutely out of control. It is absolutely sad to see this.

We saw the same plan here in Ontario. The same thing happened when the Ontario Liberals decided to mess around in the energy sector and started picking winners and losers in the energy market. We saw energy poverty. We saw more people relying on food banks than ever before. They could not afford their electricity bill because the government decided that it would start to allow massive subsidies for energy that did not meet the massive demands for energy that Ontario needed. Even when it did, then the excess energy, because storage capacity is not where it should be, although it will be someday, was sold to various states for pennies on the dollar, especially New York and Michigan. Our businesses would therefore actually be subsidizing their competitors through their lower cost of energy.

We need more sources of energy. We need to stop the spending. We need to look at ways we can grow the economy and start building things, and have low taxes, less government and more freedom.

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

Madam Speaker, we have been listening to Conservatives talk all day about everything that they are going on and on about that does not have anything to do with Bill C-8.

Bill C-8 is a support package. It is the fall economic statement that is meant to deliver supports to a lot of the people that the members on the other side of the House keep referring to over and over. This is not about inflation. It is not about the price of gas. It is not about a whole bunch of stuff, other than supports that are in a bill that was introduced back in December. The only party that is still talking to this piece of legislature right now is the Conservatives. Every other party has stopped debating it. The Conservatives are clearly just trying to stall time in order to just drag this on and on.

My question is quite simple, and I have a lot of respect for this member. When does he think that the Conservatives will finally let us vote on this very important piece of legislation that would provide supports to Canadians?

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

Madam Speaker, this is our job. We are legislators. We are supposed to be criticizing. We are supposed to be talking about how we can improve pieces of legislation. I will not stop talking about this issue and the causes of inflation when we are talking about a bill that is adding an additional $70 billion in new spending.

I have just gone through how printing money and expanding the money supply is hurting everyday constituents and how the carbon tax is hurting everyday constituents. I am getting email after email and phone call after phone call from real people who are struggling because of policies brought in by the government. No, I will not stop talking about it, especially when this legislation is terrible.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. An hon. member wants to ask a question.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, usually the other parties accuse us of picking fights, but apparently it is not the Bloc this time.

Here is my question relating to my hon. colleague's speech. In the economic update, the government held the Canada health transfer to the legal minimum, which is 3%. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this is the absolute minimum and that the Canadian provinces and Quebec have been asking for significantly higher health transfers for a long time. An increase is overdue and would be perfectly reasonable following this kind of pandemic.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a point we have brought up many times. This was a pandemic that required health care to kick into high gear. We have seen that happen in every provincial jurisdiction. The one thing that did not happen was increases in health care transfers to the provinces beyond what was already previously budgeted for. We also saw that a third of the COVID spending that the government put forward did not have anything to do with COVID, but was only couched in the language of COVID. If it was truly a pandemic of health care resources, which I agree it was, why was health care not the number one item increased in the spending priorities of the government during the pandemic?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I had the pleasure of visiting his riding last fall at the peak of fall colours, so I can appreciate where he comes from.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Lake Simcoe.

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

You have thrown me off there.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, I come from a riding where tourism is a huge part of the economy, as does he. What does the member think of the government's misplaced support or lack of support for tourism when the latest tourism support program does not include companies that are seasonal? Canada is all about seasons, with the fall colours and then the winter, yet people and businesses whose work is seasonal in nature could not even apply for this support program.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for coming to Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock. I know the member for York—Simcoe was really putting in a plug, so maybe next time he can visit that area and see the beauty that his area has to offer.

The member is absolutely right that the tourism and hospitality sector has been severely hit. Tourism is number two in the economy in my area. A survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business shows that a massive number of businesses right across Canada have taken on severe debt just to keep going. One of the issues in travel and tourism, especially in Ontario, is that when we are running a tour, we do not always get the money until the tour goes. We need to look at restrictions at the border to allow international visitors to come back again. There is a lot more the government could be doing to help the travel and tourism industry.

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

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country, Canada-U.S. Relations; the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove, Infrastructure; the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, COVID‑19 Economic Measures.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to get up on Bill C-8 and talk about some of the financial expenditures the government has made and some of the ones it is talking about in this bill.

I want to recognize that this is the first time I have been able to get on my feet since the announcement of the Liberal-NDP coalition. I know those in the sea of orange that I see across the aisle are still adjusting to being new NDP backbenchers. I know that is going to be difficult with the NDP prime minister we have now. I would say that this will be a big impact on the way the government spends going forward, and we are talking about Bill C-8 right now, which is in addition to the economic and fiscal update of 2021.

Let us just say that we, as Conservatives, are opposed to Bill C-8 because it has another $70 billion in inflationary spending. We know that every time the government goes to the money presses and prints a whole bunch of new $20s, $50s, $100s, thousands, millions and billions of dollars, it drives up inflation in this country because we have too much currency in circulation. We also know that, during this pandemic, out of all of the COVID spending we have had, $176 billion was not even related to the pandemic. There is $176 billion that has gone into Liberal pet projects and that has increased our national debt to where it sits today at $1.2 trillion. We are talking about a national debt that is now almost double since the Liberals came to power in 2015. That is beyond belief and something I do not think any of us ever expected.

We know that we are sitting in a world today where we are seeing hyperinflation caused by everything from supply chain disruptions to Russia's war in Ukraine, something that is very near and dear to me with family and friends back in Ukraine dealing with it, knowing that there are going to be extra costs and burdens that we have to carry as a country to help out the people of Ukraine, those fighting the war against Putin and those fleeing the violence, the carnage and the atrocities being committed against the people of Ukraine.

Every dollar that we spend today is precious. We have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayer to ensure that their money is being spent wisely and that we are making the greatest benefit to society here in Canada and around the world. That is why investing in everything from national defence to humanitarian relief efforts, to what we do at home to make life better for Canadians, is important. Unfortunately, that has not happened under the Liberal-NDP government.

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

You've got it right, the Liberal-NDP.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I'll say the NDP government, just for the benefit of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I will talk about how his NDP government has been irresponsible in how it spent the money and how there has been so much money thrown into circulation it has created hyperinflation.

The biggest impact is, of course, on housing. We have seen housing prices increase by 85% in Canada in the past six years. A house that was worth $435,000 six years ago is now worth $810,000. That is the average price in Canada. For those of us who own homes and are going to sell down the road, that is great, but for my kids, for the generation of twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings who hope to have the ability to buy a house, just as we did when we were in our twenties, they cannot afford it now.

There is the extra stress test that has been put in place by the government, which banks now use on new borrowers, and they cannot even get a mortgage. We continue to see inflation eat away at their take-home pay. That goes to everything from housing to what we are seeing in food and what we are seeing with gas prices now. A lot of that, of course, is related to sanctions against Russia's oil sector. Oil and gas in Russia have to be sanctioned and sanctioned hard.

We also know that gas prices here are laden with taxes, especially the carbon tax, which is going up on April 1. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report just documented that Canadians, especially rural Canadians and western Canadians, lose big time with the carbon tax. In Manitoba, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that the carbon tax costs an average family an extra $1,100 a year out of pocket, and they are not getting money back. It is $1,100 out of pocket, and that is on top of the food inflation that we are seeing right now that is already up, this year alone, $1,000 per family. We are talking $2,100 because of excess inflation, especially on food, and $1,100 on the carbon tax. Rural Canadians are hurt even worse, because we have to drive to get anywhere.

I have an agriculture background. My brothers, my son-in-law, my daughter, they are all farmers. They do not get any tax breaks with the carbon tax. To dry grain, they have to pay the carbon tax, and it runs into tens of thousands of dollars a year. That takes money out of their profit margin, but it also drives up the cost of food. It exacerbates food inflation.

We just heard from a couple of members who spoke before me, talking about the concern about food shortages. In Ukraine, we are talking about the bread basket of Europe. Here we have a real food crisis on the horizon. If Ukraine does not get its crops in the field, and it is very doubtful with the war going on that it will, there is going to be such a shortage of corn, wheat, sunflower, canola and soybeans. It is going to short the entire world market. We need to step up and do even more, just as we did in World War II when Canada produced even more wheat and fed the world. We are going to have do this again.

The carbon tax, on everything from propane, natural gas and diesel fuel, along with the impacts of higher fertilizer prices will impact input costs. I do not know if members on the NDP-Liberal government side realize that the number one ingredient in making nitrogen fertilizer is natural gas. Those companies that produce nitrogen fertilizer have to pay the entire carbon tax, and they are getting nothing back. That is all passed on down to the farmer. Now we have Ukraine and the sanctions against Russian fertilizer, which produces nitrogen and phosphorous and potassium, which is going to be in even more short supply.

Even though farmers are going to see higher commodity prices, we know that the higher input costs, largely created by excessive government taxation through the carbon tax and other means, will drive down the profit margins. Instead of enjoying higher commodity prices, they will still be struggling to get by day to day.

In Bill C-8, there is some money in here that is doing things we have to call into question. There is $300 million out of the consolidated revenue fund to support more COVID-19 proof of vaccine initiatives. There is no plan or description on how that $300 million is going to be spent. There is another $1.72 billion for more COVID testing. Again, there is no description. Is this another Frank Baylis situation, where we have Liberal insiders and Liberal friends getting sole-source government contracts and making millions and millions of dollars? We are spending $300 million on proof of vaccination programs. Why? Mandates are coming off. The restrictions in all the provinces are ending, and here we are going to invest more money into more federal proof of vaccinations.

The government should really start listening to Canadians and listening to the provinces. It is time to actually start taking off these mandates and allow people to travel again. It is time to remove the trucker mandate, because that is something that was never required to happen in the first place. It does not protect public health in any way, shape or form. All it did was create the protest and ultimately hurt supply chains again.

I am glad to be able to stand here and say I am opposed to Bill C-8. I am glad to join with my colleagues in pointing out all the difficulties that it presents and how this undermines our economy here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, since we are on the topic of not talking about the bill, I thought I would ask a question that does not have to do with the bill.

This is about the F-35 announcement today. This member and I sat on the defence committee together for quite a while. He fought long and hard for the government to invest in the F-35 fighter jets. I am just curious. Is the member very happy or ecstatic with the news that he received today? I would like to give him the opportunity to rise in the House and thank the government for following through on his suggestion.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the question and acknowledge that he recognizes that I am the biggest proponent for the F-35 and have been for a long time. It is better late than never that he showed up to the party. I can tell him that this is the right plane for our Royal Canadian Air Force. This is the right plane for our NORAD mission. This is the right plane for our NATO mission, and it is the right plane for the Canadian aerospace sector.

This is a serious investment and one that should have happened six or seven years ago. Instead, the Liberals played politics with this until now when they realize it is the only choice. I will call it the Liberal government because members dithered and delayed on it, but nonetheless I am glad that the NDP government made the right decision.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, last weekend, I attended the Trois-Rivières book fair, where I met people who asked me what is happening with the budget.

It seems to me that this budget signals that the government is tired. It contains very little to address the labour shortage and mismanages supply problems.

One issue I care about, which we will talk at length about but is nowhere to be found in the budget, is the fight against tax havens. What does my colleague believe could be done to step up the fight against tax havens? At present, there is nothing in the budget about that. What can be done to crack down on people who use tax havens?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with the member on the ethics committee since I joined it a month ago. I know that this is something that he has personally been championing for many years, even before he entered politics, to ensure that we have accountability in government and that we have the proper processes in place to do those audits and find those that are trying to hide their money, whether it is in offshore tax havens or by other nefarious means. We believe that we have to have a fair tax system here in Canada for all Canadians, and that means that those who are tax cheats need to be found out and ultimately those monies have to be repatriated here to help the Canadian financial system.

I am looking forward to the fact that we are getting very close to a new budget, and I am hoping that the NDP finance minister will be coming forward very shortly with her budget so that we can actually see what the plans are of this new NDP-Liberal coalition, where that ultimately will take the finances of the nation and how they are going to crack down on those who are hiding their monies in offshore tax havens.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing in the bill on EI reform and we know that workers are struggling. We know that self-employed workers need benefits when they lose their income. I am curious if the member agrees that EI reform is desperately needed in this country.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Liberal backbencher is going to have a chance and opportunity to discuss that with her caucus colleagues very soon. I know this is something that does have to be reviewed, and I am hoping that we will see something in the future to ensure that we address all the problems that are out there in the shortfalls happening in the EI system.

All of us as members of Parliament witness this and hear from constituents all the time about how they have fallen through the cracks. Especially during this time of COVID, there were too many industries where people did not qualify for either CERB or EI because they were not in industries that were recognized and properly funded by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for bringing attention to how the appalling and immoral Russian aggression in Ukraine could affect world food supplies. One of the things I learned recently, and I would like to have his comments on it, is that fortunately, because we can store corn, barley and wheat, there are large stockpiles. The Food and Agriculture Organization looked at that, although some do it disproportionately, maybe in China.

I am wondering if he has looked at that in terms of that we are not starting from zero. If we do not get the seeds in the ground, we still may be able to feed people, but how do we get it distributed to the people who need it?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is taking an interest in this because these are very troubling times. The last thing we want to see is famine, hunger and starvation across the planet.

Although there is some hoarding by certain countries in their own coarse grain stocks, whether it is rice, wheat or corn, we also know that the coarse grain stocks and carry-overs we have right now are at some of the lowest points that we have seen in the world in history. On any given day, the actual amount of food that is on supply is only about a 30-day window. That really is how tight stocks are. By taking a country like Ukraine out of the equation, it can have a serious impact. Of course, it is going to go to the highest bidder in a lot of cases, but this is why we need organizations to step in to ensure humanitarian relief is there for those who cannot afford it.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here in the House again today rising on Bill C-8. As members are aware, Bill C-8 is an omnibus bill and a large piece of legislation, so I will spend my time focusing on several elements of it, particularly with respect to the carbon tax. However, before I do that, I think it is important to put down the context for Bill C-8.

From the time it was initially introduced to where we are right now, things have changed dramatically. Canadians are finding it harder and harder to get by. They are challenged to put gas in their tanks, feed their families and get through these cold months of early spring. The reason is that there has been profligate spending by the Liberal Party, and this unnecessary spending is being put right on the backs of Canadians.

What happens when we spend and spend is that the money has to come from somewhere. Either it has been coming from the taxpayer directly or it has been going to our loans. For people who are not aware, through quantitative easing we are actually borrowing money from ourselves, which is challenging because where is that money coming from? Well, the Bank of Canada is printing that money. It is a basic concept of economics that where we have more of something it is worth less, so what we are getting by having our printing press on overdrive through quantitative easing is more and more currency. There is $400 billion of extra currency out there, and we have driven down the value of money in our country. Not surprisingly, shock upon shock, guess what? We have inflation, which means the value of goods is going up and the value of money is going down.

Scotiabank is saying that we may in fact face inflation of up to 8% going forward. Let us put that in context. We call this the “inflation tax” because what it is really doing, just as sure as income tax or sales tax, is taking value from the taxpayer and putting that value into the vaults of government. To give members an idea, at 8% inflation, a Canadian earning $40,000, such as a single mother in Cobourg or Port Hope trying to get by earning a bit more than minimum wage, is going to be paying $3,200 in extra inflation tax just this year. Imagine a couple earning $50,000 each, and let us say they have a family four. That is $100,000 total. As we know, with housing prices and everything else going up, that is not a tremendous amount of money to get by on. They are going to be paying an additional $8,000 in inflation tax at 8% interest. This is robbing Canadians of the value of their labour and they are working so hard. The billionaires and millionaires will get by, but for those folks at the lowest rung of the economic ladder, those who are struggling, this inflation tax is enough to knock them down into poverty.

Then we exacerbate that problem with the carbon tax. I had the opportunity to ask the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, some questions about inflation and about the impact of the carbon tax. Surprisingly, he did not know what the impact was when I asked him. However, he wrote back to the finance committee and said that, at the time, nearly 10% of inflation was caused by one tax: the carbon tax. Imagine that. We have income tax, sales tax and taxes on tax, but just one tax, this carbon tax, is responsible for 10% of the pain being inflicted by the inflation tax.

The reality is that the purpose of the carbon tax is to increase the cost of certain goods and services that emit high amounts of GHG so that people will not want to buy them. We then push those individuals into buying lower GHG-emitting goods and services, which in itself is not a bad thing. The challenge, though, is that it is often a fallacy, because there are no other options available. As I said earlier, a single mother earning $40,000 a year simply cannot afford to buy a $50,000 or $100,000 Tesla. It is the equivalent to saying, “Let them eat cake” when we say to buy an electric vehicle.

For farmers, this problem is particularly acute, and for many of them, at least at this point, there are no alternatives. We are starting technologies for electric tractors, which is great, but they are not there yet, so when we increase the carbon tax on propane, natural gas and other fuels, we are putting that directly on our farmers.

One particular example I have is with respect to propane and natural gas. I had the great privilege and honour of introducing Bill C-206 in the House last Parliament, and what that called for was an exemption for farmers, not just on gasoline and diesel, as that already exists, but on cleaner fuels as well, like natural gas and propane. That gave farmers a full exemption, because they do not have the ability to use other technology right now. It does not exist. We listened to expert after expert at the agriculture committee, and they said there is not a commercially viable alternative to fossil fuels when it comes to drying grain or heating livestock barns. We live in a cold country, as we know. Those who do not know that should walk outside here in Ottawa. We need clean Canadian energy to allow our farmers to be competitive.

Bill C-8 offers a rebate to farmers instead of an exemption, and this rebate is a step in the right direction. However, I remember being in this very House about a year or two ago when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said the cost of the carbon tax is not a serious issue for farmers. Well, the farmers disagreed. They rose to the occasion and we were able to bring the discussion to Ottawa. We said that it is an issue and that farmers are paying tens of thousands of dollars. However, as is often the case, the new NDP-Liberal government is up here a day late and a dollar short, because this rebate only covers a very small amount of the cost. It is incredibly inequitable.

Let me explain what I mean by inequitable. Of course, this country is very different climate-wise, region-wise and even farming-wise. The type of farming someone does in Victoria, B.C., is much different from the farming someone does in St. John's, Newfoundland, and all parts in between. The system set up with Bill C-8 is one size fits all. It says that depending on expenses, the government will give a certain amount of a carbon tax rebate. That is a terrible proxy. It makes no sense because the expenses for farming in Victoria, B.C., will be different from those in Regina, Saskatchewan, and Northumberland—Peterborough South. We are just grabbing this one-size-fits-all solution. What I can guarantee will happen is that farmers will have no choice but to be in high carbon-intense areas of farming that will receive minuscule rebates, whereas other areas where carbon is not as important in a particular industry may receive higher rebates. We are creating inequity because the calculation in Bill C-8 makes no sense.

Here is a better idea. My colleague from Huron—Bruce has reintroduced the new and improved Bill C-206 as Bill C-234. It says we should just give them an exemption. That way they get 100% of the dollars they spend on propane and natural gas back in their pockets. It is a broader discussion we need to have. We need to decide whether we can trust Canadians with their own money.

Members will remember that back in the Paul Martin era, the Liberal government, now the Liberal-NDP government, famously said that if we leave Canadians alone, they are going to spend their money on beer and popcorn. This reeks of that. It reeks of this conversation. Why would we not just allow them to exempt that money instead of transporting all of it to Ottawa, since, shocker, some of it gets lost and stays here in Ottawa? Why would we not just leave it in the jeans of our farmers, instead of having that money go to Ottawa, where some of it will be left over, and then having a small portion go back to farmers? I will give an exact equation. A farmer in Manitoba would pay $9,000 in carbon tax and will get $3,000 back, whereas under Bill C-234, they would get all $9,000 back. I believe in the individual—

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

We will have to continue on with questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, in listening to the debate today, I would like to emphasize that Bill C-8 encapsulates these issues primarily: school ventilation, proof support for vaccinations, rapid tests, the first annual tax on foreign home ownership and support for small businesses. That captures the essence of the bill, yet we have the Conservative Party talking about all sorts of other budgetary measures.

This bill has been before the House for a great deal of time. The Conservatives are saying they want to continue to debate it virtually indefinitely. That is fine. They can continue to do whatever they want. Can the member explain to those who might be interested in the legislation itself why the Conservative Party would oppose the measures being proposed to support Canadians in all regions as they continue to go through this pandemic?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is not surprising that the NDP-Liberal government would forget farmers. If the member would look at subsection (d) in Part 1, that is exactly what it talks about: It talks about the farming rebate I was just talking about for 10 minutes. I am not surprised that he would forget them, but for me and for our party, our farmers are important.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, every day for some time now, the Minister of Health has told us that he has spent $63 billion or $75 billion. The exact figure does not matter. What does matter is that not once has he said that it is a one-time expenditure, not a reinvestment in health care.

I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with me that the government should make unconditional health transfers to the provinces.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a troubling development that the new NDP-Liberal government seems to focus, more and more, on centralizing. It is taking money and the rights and freedoms of Canadians, of Quebeckers, and transplanting them into Ottawa. Yes, I stand with my friend against centralization and I stand for Canadians and individuals across this great land.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned farming in Victoria, British Columbia. In my riding of Victoria, we have an incredible urban farm called the Mason Street Farm. Jesse Brown and the nursery manager JJ have been doing incredible work. JJ is actually moving on to do further work on food security.

If we want to support farmers across Canada and if we want to protect food security, we need bold climate action. I wonder this. Can the member comment on the need for bold climate action to support farmers?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think I would agree with the member in saying that no one is more committed to our fight against climate change than our farmers. They are the ones who live on the farms. They are the ones who will be most affected by climate change. I am willing to sit down and talk to her about climate change and fighting climate change any day. I can tell her that with the Conservatives there would not be seven years of hot air and missing targets, as the current Liberal government has done.

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

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more about the important role that farmers play. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he agrees that we need to pay for the ecological services that farmers perform: for instance, not cultivating areas of wetlands, pulling back and protecting hedgerows, using low-tillage or non-tillage methods and doing things that sequester carbon in the soil.

Does he agree with me that we should pay farmers for sequestering carbon in the soil and protecting biodiversity?

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I join this member in wishing her Green Party colleague all the best as he has recently been diagnosed with COVID. I would ask her to tell him that we want him to get better soon so we can continue to argue about fossil fuels.

I would agree with the hon. member, but with this caveat. Instead of taking money to give to Ottawa and then giving it back, why do we not just leave more money, but acknowledge the work that farmers are doing to fight climate change and soil erosion by having the government get the heck off their backs?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-8. It is the fiscal and economic update, and I will be spending my time, as many of my colleagues have been, talking about inflation.

Inflation is probably the greatest challenge our country is facing at this moment in time, due in no small part to the fact that the government has basically written itself a cheque for $400 billion. It then brought that cheque to the bank, deposited it in its bank account, and proceeded to spend the money. That money was basically created out of thin air, and now we see this new influx of cash cascading through the economy. We see it in the rising of prices of all kinds of things, clear across the country.

Why should we care about inflation? We hear from the Liberals all the time when they say, “Well, it is happening all around the world. It is not just something that is happening right here in Canada.” That is all true. A little bit of the problem is that we are unable to then measure what inflation is actually doing. If we are floating down the river and somebody is floating a little faster than somebody else, it may actually feel as though one is getting ahead of another who is floating a little slower. That is the problem we have. When the whole world is experiencing inflation, we cannot measure what the inflation looks like here in Canada effectively.

We often measure our inflation or relative inflation against the American dollar. We say that our Canadian dollar is worth 78¢ to the American dollar, and that is a decent measurement of our currency. However, if the American dollar is being devalued and the Canadian dollar is being devalued at a similar rate, that percentage might actually stay the same, in terms of the 78¢ to the American dollar. If inflation is running at the same rate, we are not going to see a big change between the two, because we do not have a fixed point we can measure up against.

The devaluation of our dollar is what happens when there is inflation. When our dollar is unable to buy the same amount of goods as it was capable of buying before that, that is a devaluation.

One of the things that I use to measure inflation and to measure effective currency exchanges is the Big Mac. McDonald's Big Mac is sold around the world. We can see the relative value of one's money by seeing what the Big Mac is worth around the world, everywhere one goes in the world. For me, that is my quick check to see what a dollar is worth. The relative price of a McDonald's Big Mac around the world gives one a measure of what one's dollar is worth.

When we see that the value of the Big Mac, or the price of the Big Mac, is going up right here in Canada, we know that our money is worth less. We see that in housing prices. If one's house has appreciated in value over the last couple of years, as many Canadians' homes have, it is because of, one, more demand for the house or, two, the dollar now actually being worth less. The house did not change. The house is still the same house one bought several years ago. If one is a Canadian that happens to own a house, that is an advantage at this point of time, but it is still the same house. The fact that it has doubled in value or gone up by 50% is a measurement of inflation. It does not mean one's house is now suddenly worth more. It just means that our dollar is worth less, so it takes more dollars to buy the same house.

What does that mean, particularly now that we hear about how the government seems to be oblivious or does not seem to take this as seriously as I think it ought to, in regard to the whole issue of inflation? Members of the government will say, well, it is just a matter of fact, it is happening around the world and there is not much we can do about it.

There are a lot of things the government could do. First of all, it could stop printing money. Second, it could show some fiscal restraint. Many times when we ask in this place about what the government is doing about a particular thing, its members stand up and tell us how much money they are spending on the thing.

When it comes to housing prices, we say that housing prices are getting out of control and government members stand up and say, “Yeah, we know and that is why we are going to spend this much more money on housing affordability” or when we say that taking care of children is getting more and more expensive in this country, they say, “Yeah, we know and that is why we are going to spend this much more money” on that particular thing.

I am from a Dutch family and the Dutch are notorious in terms of their money management. If one is getting the same thing for more money, that is not a good deal. If one gets the same thing for less money then one is doing a good job. That is what is going on in this country. Government members say that Conservatives were obviously not managing that particular issue well because they only spent that amount of money and we are spending this amount.

Border controls are a clear example. When Conservatives were in charge of this country, we did not have a massive influx of people running across the border. We were managing our border. We were keeping our border secure. It did not even cost us that much. Now we have a steady stream of people running across the border. We could say that this perhaps is a problem. There is a front door to Canada. People are welcome to Canada. If they just apply through the normal channels, people are welcome to come to Canada. What is happening now is that the government says this is obviously not a problem because it is spending x number of dollars on border controls. If we have a bigger problem and we are spending more money on it, that to me is not good value for the money. That is another area where we see the government spending more and more money to achieve less and less.

The Liberals may say it is all fair and nice for me to say as I am a Conservative with my own arguments. They will make their own arguments and say that they are here to fight climate change and all those kinds of things and that costs money so they have to spend money. That is fine if that is the argument they want to make.

Why should a person whose number one concern in the world is climate change and the environment care about inflation? I am going to make the argument that they should care about inflation because runaway inflation drives short-term thinking. To pull this to an extreme, in Germany after World War I, they had runaway inflation, like unheard of inflation. Folks were demanding that they get paid by lunchtime so that they could run to the store to buy a loaf of bread, because if they got their wages later, the price of the loaf of bread would have gone up by the end of the day. People demanded to get paid for their work in real time and turned that cash into a tangible asset in about the same amount of time. That drives very short-term thinking.

We see that happening here in Canada right now as well. Everybody is trying to turn their cash into something. They are trying to take their earnings and turn them into a hard asset so that they do not lose the value of their money. They do not lose the value of their effort. Real estate is an example. Folks across the country have turned their earnings into real estate. It drives the fact that we do not save for a rainy day. We do not think about the future. We want to get our earnings into a tangible asset by any means possible. If someone is able to afford a house, that is a good place to do that, but if one is unable to afford a house, one buys other things in order to manage that. Runaway inflation drives short-term thinking.

Climate change and the environment, all these things, are pressing issues, but they are all issues that are somewhat long term. There are a lot of studies around the world that point out that the net worth of the population must reach over $5,000 U.S. before people start to care about the environment and things like that. There is a correlation between one's net worth and inflation that drives long-term thinking. We should be thinking about those things. If we are going to drive inflation up wildly, people are less likely to look further into the future. They are going to think about turning their earnings today into tangible assets in real terms. That is a reality. I hope I can make that argument to folks who are concerned about the environment to say that runaway inflation drives short-term thinking. If we want to make it so that our country thinks about things in the long term, we have to get this inflation under control.

It looks like I have to wrap up. I hope to have many questions so that I can continue on some of these issues.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has put a great deal of focus on the issue of inflation. In that regard, I believe it is appropriate for us to take a look at what is happening in the United States and the European Union. In both situations, Canada's inflation rate is less than theirs. To try to give the impression that inflation is not an issue outside of our border I think is somewhat misleading.

By the way, I did a quick Google search regarding the Big Mac, which is still cheaper in Canada than it is in the United States using American dollars.

It seems to me that the Conservatives are off base with Bill C-8 in terms of its many benefits, including to our farmers, and I do not understand why they are voting against it. I have not heard a substantive reason, other than the fact that they really do not understand the bill.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member understood my speech, because the point I made was that when the entire world is suffering from inflation, there is no standing-still point, no reference point. When all of the world is experiencing inflation, we have a hard time judging what our inflation actually is.

There are some really exciting things happening around the world, particularly with Bitcoin, which may be the instrument that will enable us to measure what a particular country's currency is doing relative to inflation, because Bitcoin is tied at 21 million total, so it is not inflationary, unlike other currencies. There are some really cool things that are happening around Bitcoin and inflation, and I hope we will be able to continue that discussion as well in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I usually enjoy his interventions. They are articulate and meaningful and offer good arguments. I have a lot in common with him.

He raised several very positive points. He pointed out that spending a lot of money does not equate to being effective. That is something we should bear in mind and repeat more often to keep the Liberal propaganda from taking hold.

There is another piece of Liberal propaganda that we must watch out for. The Liberals promise a lot of things by saying they will spend a lot of money, but we often realize three years into a program that only 10% of the money has been spent. Even though the announcement seems promising, the Liberals spend only one-tenth of what they promised.

Then there are promises that are slow to be fulfilled. Just look at the fight against tax havens, which has not started yet.

However, the bulk of my colleague's intervention focused on inflation, and that is what I will ask him about. Government intervention to address inflation is not easy. It is something very complex.

My colleague spoke a lot about housing, and I think it is an area where we could intervene more, in building social housing, for example, to increase supply and meet the high demand.

I would like my colleague's point of view on the need to quickly build and invest—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. There is not a lot of time left.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his question. He obviously did listen to my speech, and I appreciate that.

On the housing aspect, I am very much in agreement that there is a need for more supply. I have driven across this country several times to drive here to Ottawa, and there is an immense amount of lakefront property in this country that is undeveloped. I would recommend that perhaps we start selling off some lakefront property and get some more housing built, particularly once we get to Kenora. From Kenora to here, I can tell members that there is an endless amount of beautiful lakefront property that is probably valuable. We might be able to raise some tax money off of it and build some beautiful housing all across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I take issue with the member's comments about climate change being something we can put off. Climate change is not something we can put off. We have to act now, and we have to act boldly. Any investment we make into fighting climate change now will be well worth that investment, because it is going to cost us 100 or 1,000 times more if we wait 10 or 20 years, and we will be worse off besides.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that I did not get my point across as well as I had hoped I had.

My point was that when there is wild inflation, people do not think about the long-term effects of their spending, so if we can bring inflation down, people will start to invest their money in longer-term things. We need to invest in and think about climate change and the environment in the long term. There is no doubt that there are consequences to our immediate actions, but if we are all worried about our money being devalued in the moment, we are not going to spend it on things that are further in the future; we are going to spend it on things that are tangible in the moment.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and add my voice to the report stage debate on Bill C-8. Here we are on March 28 debating the so-called fall economic statement, which was tabled just before Christmas, three full months after the summer election. That election was supposedly called to establish a mandate for an urgent, transformational, once-in-a-lifetime moment. I do not agree with the rationale that was offered for last summer's snap election, that it was a transformational moment, but what has been transformational is what has happened since this bill was tabled and during the more than three months during which this bill has been debated and studied.

It might not be reasonable to have expected the government to have taken an invasion of Ukraine into account when it tabled Bill C-8, but Vladimir Putin has long threatened Russia's neighbours, including Canadian friends, such as Ukraine. Putin's Russia has also long been a threat to Canada's Arctic lands, Canada's territorial waters and Canadian airspace. There is nothing in this statement that will address the now critically urgent need to prepare for our own self-defence and to increase our capacity to provide all forms of aid to our friends and allies. Financial aid, humanitarian aid, logistical aid and, yes, lethal military aid are all urgently needed by Ukraine.

Since this bill was tabled, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the government's military capital spending, including its 2017 strong, secure, engaged funding announcement, is hopelessly behind schedule. In other words, even the spending that has been approved and authorized by Parliament is not being spent. The PBO went on to point out that more money will probably still be needed in addition to what has been approved to meet the goals of existing capital procurement. This is a critical failure of government at a time when Canada's ability to defend itself and support its allies is at the most urgent point that it has been in decades. I am pleased that the government has reversed its earlier positions and finally announced that it will buy the F-35s. That is good. Now it should buy ships.

Canada was a founding member of NATO. It is our principal alliance and it has secured our peace since 1949. We have an obligation to it to increase military spending to 2% of GDP, yet we cannot even get our act together to spend the money that Parliament has already authorized. Russia is not going to wait for us. China is not going to wait for us. The time to act is now, and there is nothing in this bill that will fix systemic failures in Canada's long-broken defence procurement system.

Also, since this bill was tabled, the true structural nature of Canada's inflation crisis is becoming increasingly clear. When I spoke on this bill at second reading, the most recent report said that the average Canadian house price was $717,000. That is about 14 times the annual earnings of an average Canadian worker and absolutely unaffordable for a typical Canadian household, but now, just within the last couple of months, new reports show that the average price is now $100,000 higher than it was when this bill was debated at second reading. Just moving from one stage of debate on this bill, the price of a home in Canada has gone up $100,000.

It is certainly not just housing that has gone up. Groceries continue to go up and, of course, the price of energy has also gone up. The war has enormous effects on the price of energy, but the government must take responsibility for its role in the inflation crisis. The government is charging ahead with its annual carbon tax increase set to take place this Friday. Gasoline is already over $2 a litre in some parts of Canada, and the government will push gasoline prices higher, along with the cost of home heating.

Since this bill was tabled, the Bank of Canada has published research confirming that the carbon tax alone is responsible for 0.4% inflation. While the bank's target rate is 2%, the actual rate is now just under 6% and the carbon tax, one single piece of government-engineered inflation, contributes 0.4% of that inflation. The government should be fighting against inflation, not explicitly contributing to it with punitive and increasing taxes.

The real shame of the global crisis of affordable and reliable energy, given the situation with the degree to which many parts of the world rely on Russian imports, is that the current government has done everything it can to prevent Canadian energy from reaching foreign or even domestic markets. Canada could be doing its part to keep the price of energy under control by replacing Russia's exports, but this bill is a continuation of the government's anti-energy, anti-Alberta agenda. We now find ourselves in an inflation crisis exacerbated by both high energy prices and a punitive domestic carbon tax.

It is not just the carbon tax going up this Friday. This Friday is also the day that the tax on beer, wine and sprits will automatically go up and further fuel inflation. We will not see this tax increase in this bill, because the excise escalator is an April Fool's gift that the government announced in budget 2017 that keeps on giving every year, which raises taxes without a vote in Parliament. There is no bill and no vote, but a tax increase nevertheless.

Another thing that is not in this bill is any demonstration of short-, medium- or long-term fiscal discipline. The endless deficits, enabled by monetary expansion and increasing taxes, mean that inflation will make life increasingly unaffordable for Canadian families. Again, I will refer to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose recent report confirms that the conditions for the withdrawal of stimulus spending in budget 2021 have been met, yet the spending continues. The Liberals laid out criteria to withdraw the stimulus, and then they got rid of the criteria and just kept the spending in this fall statement.

The bill contains $70 billion in inflationary new spending on top of $176 billion in extra non-COVID spending that the government has run up. It would bring Canada's debt total to over $1.2 trillion.

I remind the House that the government was teetering on the brink of a recession with a horrifically blown deficit projection, even before Covid struck. The government blew all of its fiscal credibility long before COVID. It has ignored every single fiscal anchor, guardrail or election promise it has made on deficits. Now, against this fiscal backdrop, the Liberals invited the NDP to abandon its opposition role and join the government in a de facto coalition.

I can already hear the howls of protest. I can hear the desperate explanations. I imagine New Democrats saying, and we have heard it before, that just because they have entered an agreement to support the government on all confidence and supply votes until October 2025, that the government has agreed to brief them on any such potential motion before it is made public and that they have promised to snitch if they get wind of opposition procedural tactics that might slow down the government's agenda at a committee, it does not mean it is a coalition. They will say that none of them is in cabinet, so it is not a coalition. They will ask whether I passed political science 201, and say it is not really a coalition.

We will let Canadians be the judges of what is really going on here. They can call it whatever they want, but the really sad part about what we have seen here is that an opposition party is now supporting the government rather than opposing it. This comes at a time when the current government increasingly fails to govern competently and transparently, which takes us right back to the beginning and the circumstances around which this bill was tabled.

This bill was tabled just before Christmas, and in the briefing on the fall economic statement the PBO told us:

This year both the Annual Financial Report and Public Accounts were published on December 14, 2021, the latest publication since 1993-94. Comparatively, Canada was among the last of the G7 countries to publish their [reports]....

Canada falls short of the standard for advanced practice in the [IMF] financial reporting guidelines, which recommends that governments publish their annual statements within six months.

...the delay in the Government's release of its audited financial statement undermined [Parliament's] ability to meaningfully scrutinize proposed Government spending.

This matters because it is symptomatic of declining basic government competency. We have a government that needs to be challenged by a loyal but vigorous opposition, which will challenge the government to better serve Canadians. Instead, it is emboldened by the defection of the members of the NDP caucus to the government in support of this tired and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. I do want to remind members, especially parliamentary secretaries, that instead of heckling or thinking out loud they should hold onto their thoughts quietly until it is time for questions and comments, which it is right now.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, in our view, Bill C-8 represents a significant encroachment on provincial tax jurisdictions. This new tax on underused housing infringes on the property taxation jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment at the Standing Committee on Finance. We asked that Quebec and the provinces be given the right to opt out, so that the provinces could tell the federal government not to encroach on their areas of jurisdiction.

The Liberal committee chair of the Standing Committee on Finance ruled the amendment inadmissible, which meant that it could not even be debated.

Does my colleague think it would have been a good idea to give the provinces the right to opt out on property taxation?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member seemed to refer to something that happened at finance committee. I am not sure I caught exactly the piece of tax legislation that he was concerned about for provincial jurisdiction, but provincial jurisdiction is something that Conservatives always respect. We respect the Constitution and the delineation of provincial responsibilities. I am not certain I have a specific answer to his question, but I certainly believe in provincial jurisdiction.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments made by the member today and I cannot help but once again reflect on the fact that no Conservatives who have spoken, at least in my time listening to the debate today, have actually been talking about the substance of this actual bill. Nonetheless, I know it is so important for them to keep debating this as they are the only ones in the House who are still going on about this. I would hate to think that this was done with the intent of trying to delay passage of the bill.

In the interests of continuing to debate this and to give them more opportunity, I am wondering this. If I were to move a unanimous consent motion that we sit until midnight in order to allow Conservatives to keep speaking and debating this, would the member support that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know that I would object, but I cannot speak for all the members in the chamber, so he is welcome to try that on.

He must not have listened to much of my speech, because I spoke about a number of things that the bill does and a number of things that the bill fails to do. I drew attention to the way the bill withdraws the criteria around the continuation of stimulus spending. The Liberals just dropped that and then continued with $70 billion in non-COVID additional spending. I did not get to that in my speech for lack of time. I will not support the bill. I do not think any of my Conservative colleagues will. We have no confidence in the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to hearken back to the finance committee where we passed an amendment to the bill, in respect to some of the money that is being disbursed, for quarterly reporting on how it was spent. That was exactly in response to the comments by the PBO that the member cited in his speech about the late filing of public accounts.

We had proposed another amendment on the rapid test purchases. Because it was asking for information from the provinces on how funding was spent, that particular one was defeated not with the help of the NDP, who in fact moved that amendment, but with the help of the Bloc at committee because the Bloc did not agree the provinces should report on how the money was spent.

I want the member to know that we continue to care about how the public's money is spent, and we are actually proposing solutions to ensure that there is good scrutiny of government spending on this side of the House.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think I caught a question there, but I will respond to the member's comment. He is a thoughtful member. I have served at committee with him before and I know that he is a champion of transparency and accountability from government. I certainly hope that he will continue to demand that, even as his party is choosing to support the government through until 2025.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak again on Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update, particularly because since I last spoke on Bill C-8 on February 4, the housing crisis, the inflation crisis and the cost of living crisis have only gotten worse for Canadians.

When I spoke in early February, the inflation rate was only the worst in 20 years. Now it is the worst in 30 years and getting worse by the day. When I spoke in early February, the average home price in my home communities of the Hamilton and Burlington area was around $1 million, and now it is up 10% further, to $1.1 million and growing. This is a great failing of not only the fiscal update and economic statement but of the government overall when it comes to managing public finance and its impact on the economy and these issues.

The cost of living crisis is spinning out of control. What is driving it is more spending. We know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as was previously alluded to by other speakers, including the one who spoke previous to me, was asked about the proposed spending that was contained in Bill C-8, and the response was, “It appears to me that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as 'stimulus' no longer exists.”

Further, when asked at the finance committee, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that all of this deficit spending does contribute to inflation, which is why the $71.2 billion in additional spending proposed in the economic and fiscal update 2021 is just adding more fuel to the fire of inflation. It is going to make matters worse.

We all know that gas, groceries and home heating are all going up, and that is exactly the wrong direction for Canadians who are struggling to pay their bills each month, including those in my constituency. We know there was a report that the average family would pay an extra $1,000 for groceries in 2022. I fear that realistically it may be more than that.

Staple foods that we produce here in Canada are up. Chicken is up 6.2%. Beef is up almost 12%. Bacon is up over 19%. Bread is up over 5%. What does Bill C-8 do to remedy this situation, rather than exacerbate it?

As was alluded to by the previous speaker, we are just four days away from more tax increases. On April 1, we will all be paying more at the pumps and other tax increases will take effect, such as the excise tax escalator that was referenced, and yet the new NDP-Liberal government voted down a sensible motion by the Conservatives last week to provide relief to Canadians by putting a pause on the GST at the pumps.

What also worries me is the interest that is accumulating on all this massive debt hole that has been dug. How many more billions in interest are going to be accrued, especially as interest rates increase? Would it not be better to spend that on hospital beds or other investments in health care, or infrastructure, or on properly equipping our armed forces at a time of heightened security concerns?

As I alluded to earlier, the housing crisis has been engulfing Canadians for some time now, and there is no relief in sight. There is certainly no relief in Bill C-8.

Just down the road from where I am sitting right now, down the road from my constituency office, there are hundreds of new families moving in every month. They are leaving Toronto in search of a more affordable life here at the western edge of the greater Hamilton and Toronto area, except that housing prices are skyrocketing here too. Like so many other Canadians, they are mortgaged while at the same time being squeezed by inflation.

In fact, the average family in the greater Toronto or Vancouver area spends about two-thirds of their gross income to meet monthly payments for an average home. How can families juggle this and the price of groceries? How can families juggle this and nearly $2 a litre at the pumps as they commute to work to pay that mortgage, while at the same time that gas is going to be taxed more this coming Friday?

There is no real plan by the government to tackle housing inflation. Prices have doubled in Hamilton since the government came to office, and there is no plan to address the supply crunch.

In the Hamilton area, we need 110,000 new homes built, of all shapes, sizes and affordability ranges, just to keep pace. Housing inflation is also inflating rents in our region. How can a young person save for a home when the cost of their rent is sky high and is, in fact, often more than they might pay in a mortgage payment down the road? It is a vicious cycle, which has meant that 50% of Canadians under the age of 40 have given up on the dream of home ownership, and that is sad.

Canada has long been a land of opportunity for so many around the world to look to. People seek to immigrate here for a better life for themselves and a better life for their families, yet they arrive here and find they cannot afford to live. The housing is too expensive and inflation is going up, and that is what we are experiencing right now.

It is having a devastating impact on all Canadians. Take Lucia and her husband, for example. They are seniors living on a fixed income in my riding. Unfortunately, they must rely on the generosity of family and friends to help them with housing costs because they cannot afford housing or rent. It is out of reach for them. What is the government doing to help with this housing inflation so that seniors like Lucia and her husband can find houses they can actually afford?

Similarly, Roseanne is a well-educated young woman in her thirties living in the Upper Stoney Creek community within my constituency. Roseanne is saddened by what she sees among her peer group. She wrote to me recently and here is what she said: “For many years now, I have watched as my friends and colleagues have left Ontario for greener pastures in the west, or for a chance to enter the housing market in the east. Over the last two years, however, I have now witnessed a mass exodus not just from Ontario, my home province, but from Canada altogether.” This is not right. Young people are tired of living in their parents' basement. Where is the plan to fix this?

There is also Heinz, who is a senior living on a fixed income in Flamborough. He has written to me a few times, and each time he showcases me his home heating bill. The totals are astronomical. They are going up a couple hundred dollars, month over month, over the winter, and the taxes on that home heating are adding insult to injury. Inflation is robbing Heinz and seniors like him of their golden years. Plus, rapidly rising prices of groceries are only making this worse.

Where does it end? When do we focus on the economy and growing it, rather than growing the debt and deficit?

Back in December, the OECD released a report that said Canada would be among the worst performing economies in the industrialized world this decade, and worse than perennial underperformers like Italy and Greece. Perhaps it is even more concerning that this report also indicated that it foresaw a further two decades of weak growth. I wonder why this is not raising more alarm bells. How does $71 billion of more spending, how do more taxes and how does more debt turn this around?

The economic and fiscal update and Bill C-8 do not fix the housing crisis and do not cool the inflation crisis. Nor do they help people from my communities, like Lucia and her husband, Roseanne and Heinz, with the cost of living on a daily basis. That is why I stand with my Conservative colleagues and oppose this bill.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about the impact that the bill will have on his constituents. I really appreciate him talking about the impact it will have on young Canadians and their ability to access some of the things they feel are important, like their first home.

I am wondering if my colleague can expand on what he is hearing from his constituents and on the impact this increased spending is going to have on the cost of living, inflation and certainly the ability to access a first home.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly the most common question I get as a new member of Parliament from young Canadians who are frustrated that they cannot enter the housing market. When it is $1.1 million to buy a starter home in the Hamilton area and it has gone up $100,000 in the last month, they are further and further away from their dream of home ownership. It is extremely frustrating. At the same time, they are paying more at the pumps to commute to their job, usually in the greater Toronto area, which is also a huge frustration for those young people.

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

Madam Speaker, back to that last question and answer.

Can the member tell me where in Bill C-8 it talks about the issue he just addressed? The question from the previous Conservative member asked specifically how this bill would be affecting people trying to buy a home. I am just wondering if the member can point out for me where in the bill it actually talks about that.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we are having a discussion about the fiscal update and economic statement. If we are going to talk about the economy, we need to talk about the things that are affecting Canadians very directly, and top of mind is the cost of living, which is exhibiting itself in the cost of groceries and housing in particular.

All of the people whom I have cited, plus many other examples that I could bring forward, want to know what the government is doing to make their life more affordable.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

The Liberals are doubling down on their first-time homebuyer incentive, which is something that was introduced a couple of years ago, but it has helped less than 15% of its stated goal. Now, Conservatives have brought forward Motion No. 54, which would help increase supply.

Could my colleague explain to the Liberals and the NDP why it is so important to let these failed programs die and reinvest that money so we can actually increase the supply for young people and seniors to have a safe place to live?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa knows that the other end of the GTHA is experiencing some of the same market dynamics as we are here in the Hamilton area. Motion No. 54 is the right initiative because it addresses one of the key problems in the housing market, which is supply. I referenced the fact that here in Hamilton, and I have spoken with the Realtors Association of Hamilton-Burlington, we are short 110,000 homes just to catch up. I know that across the country we are short over a million, half of which are in Ontario, so that is a big gap to make up.

Motion No. 54 looks to address the heart of the issue rather than the failed programs. When 15% over that many years is all that has been achieved, we are moving at a snail's pace. Frankly, what new graduate or young person, who is paying rent and cannot save up, is going to have that amount of money in an RRSP to withdraw from to invest in the first-time homebuyers program? It is just does not work.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour always to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Foothills and, in my role as shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, to speak on behalf of farmers and farm families across Canada.

We are talking about Bill C-8. There is one key element of Bill C-8 that I want to address today and discuss. That is the sharp contrast between what the Liberal government is proposing in its carbon tax rebate for farmers and what Conservatives are proposing in the private member's bill, Bill C-234, brought forward by my colleague from Huron—Bruce. We have seen a very sharp response from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that certainly counters the claims that have been made by the Liberal government.

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

All of us in this room who have farmers in their constituencies have received carbon tax bills from our constituents. I have had bills that have gone from a few thousand dollars to tens of thousands of dollars in one month, depending on the size of the operation. Therefore, to say that this carbon tax rebate is going to be revenue-neutral is misleading Canadians and certainly misleading farm families. We know now that the carbon tax is disproportionately more punitive on rural communities and especially on farmers.

If that were not bad enough, we have seen already that the carbon tax has been quite punitive on farmers. We saw the numbers that have been put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The average farmer paid about $14,000 in the first year of the carbon tax. That went up to $45,000 last year, and this is going to go up again on April 1.

What is that going to mean, moving forward? MNP has stated that, in the canola industry alone, the carbon tax of 2022 cost about $71 million. By 2030, that carbon tax as it continues to increase is going to cost the canola industry alone $1.7 billion. Those are funds that are not going back into investments in technology and innovation. They are not funds that are going into the local rural economies. That money is going directly into Liberal government coffers and is not going to be redistributed, as the Liberals have claimed that it would be, to the farm families who are having to pay that.

This is unsustainable, especially with the precarious situation that Canadian agriculture already faces with skyrocketing input costs on things like fertilizer, herbicides, diesel, propane and natural gas. Farmers are also facing very critical supply-chain problems and a crisis in labour supply. All of these things are having a compound negative impact on Canadian agriculture. It is almost nonsensical at this very tenuous time, when there is a global food shortage looming as a result of the conflict in Ukraine, that the government would continue to add to that burden by increasing the carbon tax on Canadian farmers.

One of the other issues with it that was highlighted by stakeholders is that there are no viable alternatives presented in Bill C-8. I would invite some of my colleagues to come to rural Canada and see exactly how things work. A Canadian farmer cannot haul cattle with an electric car. It is physically impossible. A Canadian grain farmer cannot move his grain from the farm to the terminal on the subway. My riding is 25,000 square kilometres. Public transit does not exist. It certainly does not exist for the average citizen, but it definitely does not exist for a farm operation that needs to move product and drive very long distances to deliver its product to market and that needs to drive a tractor to spray and plant and drive a combine to harvest. There are no alternatives for these things. They have no choice.

However, we have seen that they have managed and worked hard to improve efficiencies: their carbon footprint has gone down substantially as a result of modern technology and innovations such as zero tillage, precision farming and 4R nutrient stewardship. They have gone to great lengths to ensure that Canadian farmers are doing all they can to protect their environment and their soil, but government policy needs to be based on reality and the realities that Canadian farmers and farm families are having to face every single day.

It is even more frustrating for those farmers who are investing money each and every year to improve their operations, because they are the frontline stewards of our environment. I would say that is known around the world, as Canadian farmers are world leaders when it comes to environmental sustainability. Looking at the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the carbon tax, it clearly states that the carbon tax does not even reduce emissions. It does not force people to reduce emissions because there are no viable alternatives when it comes to our ability to reduce emissions on farms.

In fact, I would argue that it is quite the opposite. There was a study done by the Keystone Agricultural Producers two years ago. The report noted that agriculture has about 100 megatonnes of emissions a year, which has remained quite stable despite a massive increase in yield, so we are doing much better with much less because of our commitment to efficiency and sustainability. However, reading further on, what is very important in that study is that not only do farms emit about 60 megatonnes of C02 a year, but they also capture 100 megatonnes of C02 a year in carbon sequestration by taking care of the land. When that product leaves the farm gate and goes into the market, not only is agriculture already net-zero, but it is actually a 30-megatonne carbon sink.

If that is the case, as agriculture stakeholder groups have said in their data, why are they not being celebrated or encouraged to continue on with the work that they are doing? Instead, we are doing exactly the opposite by punishing them with the carbon tax. They now clearly know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that they will not be made whole: This is going to cost them money. That is money that they should be able to keep in their pockets and reinvest into their operations, reinvest into new energy-efficient equipment, and reinvest into more efficiencies in terms of agronomy, drones, precision agriculture and those types of things. When we take tens of millions of dollars out of farmers' pockets, it makes it very difficult for them to do that.

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

Unlike the Liberals' carbon tax in Bill C-8, Bill C-234 has almost unanimous support among agriculture stakeholders, including the Agriculture Carbon Alliance, which is a coalition of 14 different national farm organizations that represent 190,000 farm businesses and more than $70 billion in cash receipts. I think that is pretty critical, when all of those groups are supporting our approach to reducing emissions compared with the Liberals' obviously failing option. I will give some examples. Mary Robinson, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, is in support. The Agriculture Carbon Alliance is supporting it. Jan VanderHout, president of Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, has given notes of support.

In conclusion, to have these stakeholders and our farm families across Canada supporting one direction in addressing emissions that is in complete contrast to and opposite from what the Liberals are proposing in Bill C-8 is, I think, something we need to listen to. Getting money back into producers' hands as quickly as possible is more beneficial, and it is more effective in reducing emissions, becoming more efficient and continuing to ensure that we can not only feed Canadians but carry that burden of feeding the world as well.

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

Madam Speaker, the member, in his speech today, talked about how “government policy needs to be based on reality”. My question to him would be what about the reality of climate change? What about the reality of the fact that half of the OECD countries have some form of price on pollution? What about the reality that the top economists throughout the world say that carbon pricing is an effective tool at curbing its usage.

What about the fact that the member for Durham, when he was leader of that party, was in support of a price on pollution? What about the fact that Patrick Brown is a fan of carbon pricing? What about the fact that Jean Charest was in partnership with Dalton McGuinty and the premier of California to bring in cap and trade, a form of pricing pollution?

I wonder if the member could speak to those realities.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us talk realities, as my colleague likes to say. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was very clear. The carbon tax is not revenue-neutral, as the Liberals claimed it was going to be. This is going to cost farmers. Most importantly, let us talk reality. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also said the carbon tax put forward by the Liberals does not reduce emissions. If we are going to base these policy decisions on science and data, the data clearly says it does not reduce emissions. All it does is cost farmers money and increase inflation.

We know what we have put forward will reduce emissions because farmers are already doing it. We have seen a 60-million megatonne reduction in carbon emissions from farmers. Why have they done that? They have done that because it is the right thing to do. They have done that by reinvesting in their farmers with innovation and technology, not by being forced to do so by bad Liberal policy.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Foothills for his speech. I think he realizes the NDP is supporting Bill C-234. He comes from one of the most beautiful ridings in the country. It is almost as beautiful as mine. What it does have is some of the most fabulous native grasslands in the country.

I used to serve on the board of the Nature Conservancy of Canada. We did a lot of work in that area, working with ranchers to help conserve one of the most endangered ecosystems in the country. It was valuable to have ranchers on side to help us with that cause. Could he expand on that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will not get into arguing with my colleague about which riding is nicer. He brings up a very good point. I always appreciate the opportunity to highlight that yes, in my riding, I am the heart of cattle country and Alberta beef. We also take a lot of pride in the fact that we are protecting one of the most endangered ecosystems on planet earth and that is Canada's grasslands.

I know Canadians find that somewhat surprising at times, but the grassland ecosystem is more endangered than the coral reefs and the rainforests. It is so critical that our ranchers and our livestock producers take care to protect that grassland. Once it is gone, it is irreplaceable. It is so important for carbon sequestration and for carbon sinks that we protect that land so it is not developed for urban sprawl or any other options. It is critical that we protect that diversity.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is really important, and I agree with my friend from South Okanagan—West Kootenay, that we need to emphasize the carbon sequestration potential of grasslands and the preservation of grasslands. I do not want to get into a full debate on carbon taxes with the hon. member because Bill C-8 does not mention carbon taxes, except for trying to give farmers more of a rebate.

I also support, as does the hon. member who just spoke, the private member's bill to take the carbon tax off grain drying. The carbon tax program that the federal government put forward does exclude farmer's use of fossil fuels in the engines of cars and tractors, but not the grain drying. I think that was an oversight.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank my colleagues from the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party who are supporting our private member's bill in exempting the farm fuels from the carbon tax, because it is so important that farmers are able to keep that money in their pockets to reinvest in ways to be more efficient and more sustainable. I want to thank my colleagues around the House for supporting that bill. I wish the Liberals would find it in their hearts to do the same.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I remember how it felt to buy our first home, to take the keys and walk through our front door. It was a modest and older home, but it had character and all kinds of potential. For young people, owning a home is often seen as a key to the next chapter of their life story, which a lot of times includes starting a family and putting down roots in a community, a community where they contribute to the social and economic fabric while building lifetime friendships and family memories. Quite simply, a home is considered a really important part of realizing the Canadian dream, but that dream is in jeopardy. In fact, it is in crisis. An entire generation of Canadians is being left behind and worse off than their parents’ generation with the government’s constant raising of taxes, printing of money, spending money it does not have, raising inflation and orchestrating a housing crisis.

I am humbled to be able to speak on behalf of Canadians who are being left behind by their federal government while so many others, namely, the rich and well connected, are getting further and further ahead. That is why Conservatives are so concerned about Bill C-8, yet another tax-and-spend bill that adds more inflationary fuel to the fire. Despite elements of the bill that are supposedly meant to address some of the underlying causes of this crisis, they are completely dwarfed and overshadowed by the $70 billion of new inflationary spending this bill proposes, $70 billion on top of $176 billion in new spending brought in over the past two years that has been entirely unrelated to the pandemic. That is also in addition to the $400 billion in new cash that has been printed over the same two years, cash that is chasing fewer goods and driving up inflation.

These choices have only helped to bring our national debt to an astounding $1.2 trillion and counting. For the sake of our country, spending of this kind has to stop, but numbers such as these are unfathomable to average Canadians. What does this inflation crisis really mean to them? Here is what it means. It means that 60% of Canadians are concerned they might not have enough money to feed their families. The government appears to take no concern with the fact that the average person will need to spend $1,000 more in a year to simply feed their families.

While that is insignificant to many who sit in the House of Commons, that is simply outside the margins for most Canadians. That is why many have no choice but to change their buying habits, moving to less healthy choices and discount brands, or cutting back on food significantly. At the same time, one cannot even begin to provide nutritious food for one's family if one cannot get to the grocery store, and that is a real problem, especially in rural Canada.

Sixty-eight per cent of Canadians are worried they cannot afford to fill up their cars any longer. The government likes to shrug off the blame to current world events, denying the layers of carbon tax, compounded with GST, that it has been punishing Canadians with several times over and is disproportionately punitive on families, low-income Canadians and seniors. We are just days away from yet another increase in the carbon tax that will add 12¢ to every litre of gasoline.

As the official opposition, we have devoted entire days of debate on this matter alone and have asked the government to give Canadians a GST holiday on gas, but to no avail. In its first act as a coalition government, the NDP-Liberal government voted our motion down. Even the NDP is not interested in giving Canadians support, a break at the pumps, in these extraordinary times. Therefore, what would make anyone believe that this coalition will follow through with relief for first-time homebuyers? Why should Canadians trust them, especially when the relief is not enough in light of the insane prices in the housing market today?

When the Prime Minister took power, the cost of the typical home was $435,000. That has since ballooned by over 85%, up to what I believe is $810,000 now, with inflation of 25% and more in just the last year alone. As politicians, we can cite these numbers all day long, but real empathy and meaningful action only comes from hearing the effects of this affordability crisis on everyday Canadians, so let us shift the focus back squarely on housing.

The average family must spend two-thirds of their gross income on monthly payments for the average home in Toronto or Vancouver, some of the world’s most unaffordable markets, 66% of their gross income. Meanwhile, any financial adviser worth their salt will tell young buyers that monthly housing costs should not exceed 25% to 30% of take-home pay. Otherwise, owners run the risk of living house poor. On Vancouver Island, I know that rent prices have soared out of reach for low-income and young Canadians. Even with the savings for a down payment on a home, there are no homes that young families can afford. They are being outbid by hundreds of thousands of dollars above the asking price.

British Columbia's Minister of Housing states that the province has been told to prepare for 100,000 new British Columbians every year for the next three years. That is about one-third of Canada's total immigration target. In the last three months, 24,000 new Canadians have arrived in B.C. Compounded by population growth within the existing population, pressure on housing supply is only going to get worse. The minister was clear that a dramatic increase in new builds is needed in short order. Also, the effect of offshore investment in Canadian land and real estate is making affordable housing an impossibility for young families.

Closer to Ottawa, a friend put a bid on a new home right here in the nation's capital. Another buyer offered $10,000 more than the asking price. This individual took a deep breath and matched it, only to learn that in response the other individual offered $90,000 higher.

Another couple I know locally has been diligent at putting away every dollar they can. In fact, they have now saved an amount for a down payment equal to the full purchase price of the husband's childhood home in 1999 prices, but they are still unable to find a home in Ottawa without living house poor. The most affordable options would place them more than an hour out of the city, away from their places of employment and the opportunities and services that the city provides.

It is not surprising, then, that Ontario has seen an exodus from the province in the last year. In 2021 alone, 108,000 individuals left for other provinces. That is the highest level since 1981, and it could be because the average price of a home in the greater Toronto area climbed 31%, to $1.2 million—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have to interrupt the member. She will have three and a half minutes the next time that this matter is before the House.

The House resumed from March 28 consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, while the housing crisis is national in scope, regional spikes like the one in Ontario are the reason so many are actually calling Saskatchewan home now. I know of many retirees who cannot afford to remain in Ontario.

One couple, for example, planned a short visit to Saskatchewan but ended up staying permanently. Then they invited their children to bring their families to Saskatchewan. They had six months to live with their parents while they found employment and a new home. Others have also come to Yorkton—Melville from British Columbia and Quebec. Nonetheless, prairie affordability is being threatened by growing inflation, incredible debt and a punitive carbon tax that is definitely costing rural Canadians far more than they are getting back.

Although I love my province and the amazing people who live in it, I do not desire to see other areas of the country suffer from the poor choices of the national government. I want to see Canadians, regardless of financial ability, free to settle anywhere in this beautiful country, but let us face reality: Canadians now have a new majority government in Ottawa.

The survival of the old Liberal government, which initially tabled Bill C-8, now officially relies on the support of a party that has even more reckless intentions to run up debt and does not care how much money it has to print to do so. Unless this political love affair falls by the wayside, Canadians are stuck with this new reality for the next three and a half years.

Despite indifference on the other side of the House, Conservatives will be present ever day to offer solutions to this affordability crisis. For example, Bill C-8 proposes a 1% annual tax on the value of vacant or underused residential properties that are directly or indirectly owned by non-resident non-Canadians. In Calgary, I personally know of a family that rented in a subdivision that is completely owned by a Chinese investor who has never set foot in Canada. Conservatives would have banned foreign investors who are not living in or moving to Canada from buying homes for two years. We also proposed encouraging foreign investment in purpose-built rental housing that is affordable for Canadians. We will also continue to push the government to remove the gatekeepers to development and get shovels in the ground.

Canada's housing crisis is fuelled in large part by the choices of the federal government. It can choose to let the builders build or it can continue to stand in their way. It can choose to rein in spending and lower taxes or continue to allow inflation to spiral out of control.

The government is letting down young Canadians. The new generation of first-time buyers is not looking for flashy slogans, hashtags or photo ops; it wants concrete action from this new NDP-Liberal majority government to address the crisis. The first logical step would be to withdraw this irresponsible bill, which would only put the Canadian dream of ownership further out of reach for young Canadians.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member could expand on affordability. I know I hear from my constituents, almost on a daily basis, of taxes increasing. We know we just had the carbon tax increase here on Friday, and also the excise tax on alcohol. I was wondering if she is hearing the same thing from her constituents on the other side of the province of Saskatchewan about affordability and the cost of living and how it is affecting them.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, absolutely I hear about that constantly every day. The thing that frustrates my constituents so much is that the government absolutely refuses to listen to the truth about the circumstances they are facing. The increase in the carbon tax, and inflation especially, is causing everything to go up. Of course, the ability to afford a home has become a scenario in which people are house poor if they do take that step and spend so much of their income on a house that is really, truly unaffordable.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, like the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives often champion Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction and generally oppose federal interference in areas under their control.

Bill C‑8 would see the federal government claim a piece of the property tax pie, which is under municipal jurisdiction. That kind of interference is new. What are my colleagues' thoughts on the Liberals' interference in areas under municipal jurisdiction?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that the current government is very self-serving in the way that it is choosing to work with our provinces. It takes advantage of the provinces' need for funding and truly is putting them in a place where it is either the government's way or the highway. This is not acceptable. I am very proud of Saskatchewan and its government in its ability to run our province in its own areas of jurisdiction, and we certainly, as Conservatives, support that.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatchewan for her speech. In her riding, like mine, the carbon tax is an issue that many Canadians are talking about in terms of affordability and the cost of living.

One of the things I would like the member to comment on when we talk about the government's economic record and its fiscal plan, albeit from this fall looking ahead perhaps to the budget even this Thursday, is the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that this tax disproportionately impacts rural residents more. It has cost them out of pocket and it is costing families and businesses, and that ripple effect is adding to an already difficult cost-of-living issue here. Could the member take this opportunity to perhaps share the context in her part of the country? Whether in my riding in eastern Ontario in the city of Cornwall or in some of the more rural parts, what I think I am going to hear is that we have very similar challenges and similar frustration on the part of many Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that observation and that question.

One thing I have learned as a member of Parliament that means a great deal to me, and I share this with my constituents here in Saskatchewan, is that the majority of the GDP of this nation is created in rural Canada. We are rural, and the issues faced by members of my communities who are facing this carbon tax resonate completely with rural Canadians across this country.

This government does not understand that dynamic, and the punitive measures it has put in place are not revenue-neutral. Certainly I know that my constituents are paying far more into this carbon tax than they are getting back, and it is more punitive towards rural Canadians.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolutely wonderful opportunity to be able to rise today and deliver some remarks on Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act, 2021. It is kind of ironic, as I was reflecting on this over the weekend, that I am delivering remarks on the fall economic statement in the spring, but calendars are clearly difficult, and perhaps calendars are hard for the government as well.

Many of my colleagues on this side of the House have highlighted challenges. I want to thank the member who spoke just before me, my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, who really highlighted some of the struggles that are faced in rural Canada when it comes to pricing. That is something that is very true, and I would expand it to not just rural Canadians; it is a major struggle for anyone who lives outside of a major centre.

In my riding of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, we do not really have a choice, in many cases, to stay home. I was talking to a few of my colleagues. In my world, everything starts at three hours. It takes three hours to get from Fort McMurray to Lac La Biche and another two and a half hours to get from Lac La Biche to Edmonton, so that is five and a half hours. It takes four and a half hours to get from Fort McMurray to Cold Lake and it takes a couple of hours to get from Cold Lake to Edmonton, so it really does not matter whereabouts we go: It is at least a few hours. That is not even including the more isolated communities in my riding, such as the community of Fort Chipewyan. That is one that I am going to talk about in a bit more depth.

Fort Chipewyan is a truly stunning place. If anyone has not had an opportunity to go to Fort Chipewyan, I highly recommend they take a trip. It is truly breathtakingly beautiful. It has the Canadian Shield, the great and powerful Athabasca River, Lake Athabasca and so many opportunities to explore the outdoors. However, it also has some struggles, because it is primarily without roads. It relies on ice roads through the winter as its main supply line. That means that a lot of organizations have to get their groceries and all their supplies for the entire year delivered in a short window of time while the ice road is open. Otherwise, they are relying on barges or flying equipment in. As members can probably imagine, all of those options are quite expensive.

When we have a government that continually raises the carbon tax, such as the one we have, one of the struggles is that the cost to transport those goods rises, and then the cost to sell those goods has to rise. Otherwise, the business owners or the organizations have a shortfall. They can only operate under a shortfall or in a deficit for so long before it has some major impacts. I know that the government does not necessarily understand that reality when it comes to budgeting, but most Canadians understand that they really do need to balance their budget or there will be some long-term complications.

In Fort Chipewyan, as inflation is going up and the carbon tax is going up, people are seeing substantially higher grocery costs, which is making it quite a struggle for many of the families to get healthy food options. Unfortunately, as members who have travelled through the north might be aware, it is the perishable goods and healthy food choices, including fruit, vegetables and dairy, that tend to be the most expensive in those communities. Therefore, when it comes to anything that is perishable, the inflationary cost is substantially higher because of the additional time to get there, and the community is really having to struggle. In fact, just last week some of the indigenous leaders in the community talked about the global food crisis having a huge impact on the residents in the community of Fort Chipewyan.

It is not just an issue in Fort Chipewyan. We see this as an issue in most of our rural, isolated communities. Further away, the communities of Conklin and Janvier are at least 90 minutes from a grocery store. There are convenience stores in those communities, but to get to a real grocery store, people in Janvier have to go at least 90 minutes to Anzac or 90 minutes to Lac La Biche. As fuel prices continue to skyrocket because of the carbon tax, those families see fewer opportunities to get to the grocery store and to buy those healthier food choices. What they are also seeing is that it is having a huge inflationary impact.

In fact, the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, recently said that it appears that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as stimulus no longer exists. What we are seeing is just the continuous spending of money. The government is spending and spending without actually looking at what this increase in spending is doing to average Canadian families.

This is part of the struggle. Families in my riding are finding it harder to make ends meet. There have been reports that have come out saying that the average family of four will see an additional $1,000 added to their grocery bill. I was thinking about this over the weekend because when I come to Ottawa, even if I go to the most expensive grocery store around, groceries are still less expensive than at the cheapest grocery store in Fort McMurray.

I was really thinking about this. We keep repeating, on this side of the House, the fact that groceries are going up by an average of $1,000 for a family of four, but now I am really curious. I am going to try to do some calculations on my end, because I would not be surprised if the average family of four in my riding actually saw a substantially higher amount because of the inflationary impacts and because of the inflation of food prices. These are coupled with more carbon tax, and all that ends up doing is raising the cost of everything.

One of the big challenges I think members opposite do not necessarily understand when they raise the cost of carbon taxes on so many of these goods is that, in communities such as Fort McMurray or Fort Chipewyan or other communities throughout most of northern Canada, we cannot just put goods in a warehouse. We have to heat the warehouse, because otherwise the food will freeze and then it will no longer be nutritional and healthy and safe for families.

On the flip side of that, we have midnight sun in many northern communities, so we need to have air conditioning through the summer. Otherwise, we will have a struggle where the food will go bad: It will spoil.

As the cost of heating and cooling buildings increases, so will the cost to have those business owners get to a place of balance. I think this is one of the big challenges that we face right now.

The government continues to spend money, but it is not really looking at how this is impacting families in the north and how this is impacting families in isolated communities all across Canada. It is so much larger than just the families in my riding. It impacts any family that has to travel for anything. I know many members on this side of the House, and I would assume many members on the other side, have to travel a couple hours or more in order to get to doctors' appointments, children's sports competitions and different pieces along those lines, or just to visit friends and family. I think this is one of those challenges that, as we see gasoline prices continuously increasing, families cannot necessarily cope with. They do not have the opportunity to print money like the government does.

Those real impacts and those real choices are really a struggle. As a fun piece, I think it is something that our communities really need to understand, and we need to make sure we are doing what we can to have families be able to afford nutritional food. This is especially true throughout the north.

I would welcome all members of the House to vote against the bill, because all it is going to do is raise the cost of everything.

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

Madam Speaker, I have heard my colleague speak before, clearly and evocatively, about the travel distances within her riding. We had an exchange some time ago about bus service, and she mentioned that Red Arrow is still servicing communities within her riding.

I am particularly interested to see, in the budget on Thursday, a commitment to help rural and remote communities have access to affordable, reliable and safe public transit, even in remote areas. This was required in the recommendations of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry.

Does she share those concerns?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising that issue. She highlights the fact that a huge disparity exists between rural and urban Canada, in this and so many other ways. One of the things we have not seen from the Liberal government to date is that recognition and understanding that rural Canadians have a host of different challenges. Rural Canadians need to be supported because rural Canada is where we create the wealth for all of Canada. I often say that when Fort McMurray works, Alberta works, and when Alberta works, Canada works. That is so true, but I would expand that a bit further. It is all of northern Canada. We contribute to the GDP of Canada at far higher rates, and we need to have our just part.

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

Madam Speaker, this economic update is a masterpiece of vacuousness. There is not much in it.

As members of the Bloc Québécois have said many times, however, it does contain a major development worth noting, and that is an attempt by Ottawa to meddle in property taxes, something that it has never done before. That is extremely serious, even though we must admit that real estate speculation is a real problem and that something must be done about it.

I think that the real problem with real estate is that more investments are needed. Ottawa has backed away from the construction of social and affordable housing in a big way. Do our Conservative colleagues believe that more money needs to be invested in the construction of such housing?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague pointed out one of the problems that we have here in Canada, specifically the fact that we do not have enough affordable housing. However, we cannot build more affordable housing when it is more expensive to build.

Inflation is having a real impact on people who are already struggling to make ends meet. We need to work together and really figure out what is important. One thing that is extremely important is controlling inflation.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the critical points around the challenges people face in northern Canada. They are very similar challenges to what the people in my communities, and where I come from in northern Manitoba, are facing. I know that so many people where we are feel that they are paying more than their fair share of taxes and that they are contributing more than their fair share, yet they are looking at the richest among us in our country get off without paying what is due. The reality is that the Conservatives have not sided with us in calling for the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. That money would then be reinvested in our communities.

How does the MP feel about the fact that the Conservatives refuse to make sure that the richest among us are paying their fair share?

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, effectively, on this side of the House, we believe that Canadians need to be able to afford to make ends meet. Right now, with inflation at a generational high, families are having a hard time making ends meet. We have asked, time and again, for simple solutions to help families make ends meet, whether reducing the GST on gasoline, removing the carbon tax increase or doing other simple things that would make a difference in average Canadians' lives today or tomorrow. However, the government, and the NDP partners in their marriage of time, have voted against those common-sense solutions time and again.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, as we have been hearing over the last couple of weeks especially, across the country, Canadians really are feeling the squeeze. Their budgets are being stretched further and further, and for too many, their pocketbooks simply cannot keep up. Inflation has ballooned to record levels and costs are skyrocketing.

Canadians need some financial relief, and this is something that we on this side of the House have been saying and asking for on their behalf. However, those who are desperately looking for a break will not find it here in the legislation before us. The Liberal government is asking Parliament to approve significant spending through the bill. In fact, in all, the fall economic statement and the fiscal update add $70 billion of new spending to the books, which will, in turn, fuel inflation in this country and send it to even higher levels.

This government's tax-and-spend agenda hurts our economy and it hurts Canadians. Just last Friday, we know that Canadians were hit with the latest Liberal tax hikes: The escalator tax on alcohol went up, and the failed Liberal carbon tax went up by 25%. That is an extra 2.2¢ a litre, bringing the carbon tax to 11¢ a litre. Of course, that is on top of the already high gasoline prices. The carbon tax is adding to the costs of groceries, home heating and everyday essentials that Canadians need and rely on. It is contributing to the inflation in this country, and in doing so it is actually punishing all Canadians. It is even more punishing for Canadians on fixed incomes who, frankly, can afford it the least.

I hear from my constituents on this issue all the time. I have received countless copies of energy bills from my constituents, who are anxious and distressed about the impact on their bottom line. Simply put, my constituents cannot afford this Liberal carbon tax, and they certainly do not accept this Liberal government's tired old talking points that they will receive more money back than they pay through the climate action incentive rebate. This government's math simply does not add up, and my constituents know that.

We also know that the Bank of Canada recently revealed that the carbon tax alone has increased inflation by nearly half a percent. That is, in essence, an additional tax on everything, and this government cannot simply ignore it when it is considering the cost of a carbon tax on Canadians. In fact, we all know now that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that, contrary to what this Liberal government says, most households subjected to the Liberal carbon tax will, in fact, see a net loss. What is worse, this tax punishes Canadians while failing to accomplish anything for the environment. On top of that, it is even more punishing for rural Canadians, such as my constituents in Battlefords—Lloydminster. Farm families and farm businesses know that all too well. Their bottom line has taken a massive hit specifically from this Liberal carbon tax. The cost of business is going up, but they cannot pass those costs along. It is shrinking an already very slim profit margin.

While this legislation might seemingly acknowledge some of the hardships that are faced by our farmers, it fails to actually acknowledge the Liberal government's contribution to these hardships. The bill also fails to deliver a common-sense solution of simply exempting farm fuels from the carbon tax.

The reality is that our farmers are always looking to improve the efficiency of their operations. The agricultural community has developed and adopted modern technologies to reduce their carbon footprint and to protect our environment, which takes investment on their part. We know that the carbon tax is not accomplishing anything for the environment, and it would go a lot further to leave more money in the pockets of our farm businesses so that they could reinvest into what would work best for their own operations.

As our farmers face massive carbon tax bills on farm fuels including propane and natural gas, typically used in grain drying, I had hoped to see a full exemption on farm fuels in the fall economic update, but surprisingly that is not what is contained in the bill. Fortunately, a private member's bill to that effect has been brought forward by my colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, and I hope that all members of the House will stand up for our hard-working farmers and support Bill C-234. Our farmers, as I have said, make tremendous contributions to our environment, our food security and our economy. We cannot take that for granted.

We need to ensure that the economic agenda of our country is working toward opportunity and a prosperous future for all Canadians. That is what is problematic with this legislation, and more generally, I would say, with the fiscal mismanagement of the Liberal government. This many years later, it really does seem like the Prime Minister still thinks and believes that budgets will balance themselves. However, we cannot dig ourselves out of a hole.

The Liberal government continues to spend money that is not there to fund its partisan-driven agenda. We know that since the start of the pandemic, the Liberal government has brought in $176 billion, not million, in spending that is completely unrelated to COVID-19. Our national debt is over $1 trillion. The Liberal government rarely talks in millions anymore and announcements in the billions have become more commonplace.

The finance minister certainly does not talk about what Canadians are paying to service that debt, nor does she acknowledge her government's contribution to rising inflation. Unfortunately, ignoring these factors does not negate their existence. With the federal budget set to be released later this week, I think Canadians would be right to brace themselves. They have been left to wonder what the new NDP-Liberal government will cost them and their children. The budget will likely give us our first glimpse of what an economic agenda driven by the NDP will cost. An ideological and activist-driven agenda that cripples our economic drivers and spends massively could only lead to higher taxes and more debt, and it is Canadians who will be left holding the bag, as usual.

The ease at which the government continues down this road shows just how out of touch it is with the reality of everyday Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has told Parliament that the rationale for the government's $100 billion in planned stimulus no longer exists. The government needs to start reining it in. If the government was serious about growing our economy, it could start by abandoning its policies that are crippling our economic drivers. It has chased away countless projects and investment dollars in our Canadian energy sector, a sector that has contributed so much to our Canadian economy and that could contribute so much more. That is not to mention its potential to contribute to the stabilization of global energy security.

The government's policies push Canada to the sidelines while leaving demand to be filled by other countries with lower environmental and human rights standards than we have here in Canada. Canada finds itself at a disadvantage with nothing really gained. This is particularly devastating for my constituents, many whose livelihoods have been taken away or threatened while the cost of everything continues to go up.

When considering this legislation, we cannot simply ignore the inflation tax. Inflation is eating into the paycheques of my constituents and those of every single Canadian. A dollar today does not go nearly as far as it used. The government's spending is only pouring gasoline on the fire, leaving so many Canadians behind. Canadians need real solutions in the immediate term.

On this side of the House, the Conservatives have proposed a number of common-sense and practical solutions to help Canadians, but the Liberals have rejected each and every one. With record high inflation and skyrocketing costs of living, it is time to give Canadians a break. We need real solutions, tangible solutions, to alleviate the inflationary burden on Canadians. We cannot keep going down this risky and expensive path that is leaving far too many Canadians behind.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the member say that government policies “push Canada to the sidelines”. I will ask her to explain to me what she means by that. We have the best GDP among G7 countries. We also have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 countries, which means that we are best equipped to deal with the economic challenges right now. We have recovered 114% of the jobs we lost during COVID, and when we compare Canada with the United States, we see they are so much further behind and have not even come close to getting all their jobs back.

Could the member please explain to me what she means by government policies are pushing Canada to the sidelines, with the exception of how this relates to oil, which the Conservatives like to talk about all the time?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, when I said the quote the member pulled out, I was referring to our Canadian energy sector. I represent mothers and fathers who have lost their jobs because of bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, the tanker ban. Oil companies have moved from Canada to other places in the world. Why are we buying oil from those places? Why are we supporting them when we have the most ethical human rights and environmental regulations in the world? I am sorry, but when I have parents contacting my office saying they cannot afford to put food on the table to feed their children, it is because the government took away their jobs through its policies.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague was extremely critical of the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec, I must point out. The question I have for my colleague is therefore out of a genuine interest in understanding the Conservatives' position.

I have heard several Conservatives talking about abolishing the carbon tax, calling it unnecessary and even harmful. Then again, I have also heard one prominent Conservative, Jean Charest, say it should not be abolished, but rather capped and not increased immediately.

I am really trying to understand what the Conservatives' position is. Do they want to abolish the tax or cap it?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am of the mind that we should respect provincial jurisdiction. In the province I come from, Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe has presented two plans to the Prime Minister and the Liberal government on carbon pricing. It is reflective of our local economies, which are energy an agriculture, and takes into account that Saskatchewan is a carbon sink, especially with all the work that our agricultural economy and regions are doing there. I am of the mindset that we should respect provincial jurisdiction. It is disgraceful that when our premier in Saskatchewan presented not one but two plans to the Prime Minister, he said it was his way or the highway and imposed his own.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague, who gave a good analysis of how Canadians are struggling these days, since housing is so expensive and groceries are getting increasingly expensive.

Why not look at where the money is, in order to help people? The banks made record profits last year, totalling $60 billion, an increase of nearly 40%. While so many are struggling, we have CEOs earning $8 million, $10 million or even $16 million a year.

Why not be bold and courageous, and find some money by going after the superwealthy and the big corporations, like the banks, which are making obscene profits?

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that everything is more expensive and Canadians cannot afford another tax, especially a tax on a tax. It is why I spoke about the federal carbon tax that has been imposed on the residents in Saskatchewan. I have a gas bill here from a constituent of mine named Trevor. His bill was $419. Of that, $96.55 was carbon tax, and the GST on that tax, the tax on a tax, was an additional $4.83. That is over $100, or 25% of his energy bill. Where is it going? We do not know because there is no accountability and it does nothing for the environment. Affordability absolutely needs to be top of mind for the Liberal-NDP government.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak once again to Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update from December, which is now before us at report stage in the House of Commons.

In February, during second reading debate, I questioned the previous Liberal minority government on its leadership in governing our country during these times of crisis. It turns out that since then, the Prime Minister now feels he needs the help of the NDP to retain the confidence of the House. With the support of his NDP coalition partners, this may in fact be true in this place, but my constituents and Canadians across the country had lost faith and confidence in the Prime Minister and the Liberal government a long time ago. A recent public opinion poll conducted by Ipsos found a majority of people, 53%, listed “help with the soaring costs of everyday needs due to inflation” as one of the top three priorities they had. That is quite a departure from the so-called Liberal-NDP ideological “build back better” agenda, which has not made life better for Canadians. In fact, it has only made life harder and more expensive.

In my February speech on Bill C-8,, I asked the government where its plan was to get Canadian lives back to normal after more than two years of Canadians having to endure this pandemic. Two months later, I still do not have an answer. Meanwhile, federal mandates continue to inconveniently plague Canadians and delay them from returning to their normal lives.

Since February, Canada's Conservatives have called on the federal government to lift all federal pandemic restrictions in order to protect the jobs of federally regulated employees, to enable Canadians to travel unimpeded, to ensure Canada's tourism industry recovery and to allow for the free flow of goods across the Canada-U.S. border. However, the NDP and the Liberals have outright rejected our efforts, even in the face of provinces and territories pivoting toward reopening their economies after two long years of government-forced closures and lockdowns.

Since the onset of this pandemic, we have also raised the importance of vaccines and rapid testing, and have called on the government to make these essential tools more readily available for Canadians to use. However, as seen throughout this pandemic, federal leadership has been either delayed or missing. It has taken a back seat to wedge-issue politics, the politics of division and, most recently, the politics of convenience, which we see with this NDP-Liberal coalition that Canadians did not vote for. I would suggest that this is an abdication of leadership not befitting the needs and wants of Canadians.

For instance, over a year ago, the federal government purchased 52 million doses of Novavax. Meanwhile, the details of the $126-million Novavax production plant in Montreal remain in question. On February 17, 2022, I was pleased to see Health Canada finally approve the Novavax vaccine for use. After two years it finally happened. In theory, this vaccine lets Canadians choose a more traditional protein-based vaccine to protect against COVID, as opposed to those who simply do not want an mRNA vaccine. However, as we speak, Novavax is still inaccessible to many Canadians.

Just last week, a constituent contacted me. She is a federally regulated worker who was concerned about losing her job if she continues to be unvaccinated. Despite her vaccine status, she is eager to get vaccinated and wishes to receive the Novavax vaccine. She has contacted local pharmacies and public health in Niagara and Hamilton, but she has had to be placed on a waiting list with no firm timelines for when she will receive Novavax. My constituent is trying her best, and we need the federal government to try harder to make these critical health care tools available to Canadians. It disappoints me greatly that the Prime Minister and his NDP partners are delaying access to critical health care tools that can give all Canadians greater freedoms and choices, especially as they pertain to managing their personal health care and family well-being.

In the limited time I have today, there are two additional issues I want to raise, both of which significantly impact my riding of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie.

The first major problem is the continued mandatory use of the ArriveCAN app at our Canada-U.S. border crossings. In my riding alone, we have four international bridge border crossings. We rely on these bridges for trade, travel and tourism, and not only in Niagara. They are the gateways to our country's broader economy. The summer of 2022 could be our third straight pandemic summer. The great people of Niagara are hopeful that this summer will be a more normal event than the previous two, but that hope will quickly be dashed if the NDP-Liberal government continues to use this flawed mobile application.

Recently the general manager of the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority wrote Niagara MPs and municipal politicians. He noted that, while it is positive that Canada is lifting the COVID testing requirements at the borders as of April 1, their analysis shows that “continued mandatory use of the ArriveCAN app will result in much longer processing times and very lengthy border waits, which will significantly depress cross-border traffic at a time when we are moving into the 2022 summer tourist season.” He further wrote that CBSA had confirmed to him that ArriveCAN will remain mandatory and that there will be no phase-in period to make the vast majority of the travelling public, which is non-essential, aware of this requirement. He concluded by saying that the purpose of his email to me and to the members of Parliament for Niagara Centre and St. Catharines was to make us “aware that this summer's tourist season will be difficult and frustrating at the border.”

The world is reopening, provinces and territories are reopening and our economies are reopening, yet the federal government continues to drag its feet. The NDP-Liberal government is fully aware of how much chaos the ArriveCAN app could cause at the borders this summer for travellers, tourists and trade. It knows the risks to our economy, and it knows the potential impacts this will have in Niagara and beyond, so why is it continuing to use ArriveCAN and why is it continuing to make ArriveCAN mandatory to use?

We did not have, nor did we need, the federal government's app before the pandemic to cross our borders. Certainly, we do not need this app to continue operating after the pandemic.

The other major issue that has still not been addressed is the underused housing tax, which has the potential to severely and disproportionately impact local property owners in my riding. On March 14, 2022, I wrote the Minister of Finance about this, expressing my great concern. In my email I shared multiple pieces of correspondence I had received as well as a news article that was published by the Buffalo News in New York State.

I wrote seeking urgent clarification of the proposed wording for the listed exemptions found as part of the underused housing tax proposal, which would add a 1% annual tax on underused foreign-owned real estate in Canada. Unfortunately there is considerable confusion in Niagara across multiple levels of government, both in Canada and the U.S., in the business community and among private property owners as to how this tax will or will not apply to Niagara and foreign-owned vacation properties located in my riding. Our communities and stakeholders who may be impacted by this tax policy deserve to know with certainty whether they will actually be impacted.

For generations our Canada and U.S. communities along the Niagara River have become highly integrated. When our international borders are open, citizens of both countries frequently travel across the four local bridges to visit family, friends and loved ones, to work, to attend school, to play sports, to receive medical treatments and to travel and enjoy a vacation in their foreign-owned properties on either side of the river. As a result, many Americans own property in various small towns across my riding. Many have owned their properties for decades, going back generations, and a few for over a century. Some of these properties are fitted to be used year-round, while others are seasonal.

Regardless, when our international border finally and fully reopens and travel irritants, such as ArriveCAN, are removed, these small Niagara communities will benefit economically from our American family, friends and neighbours who will be visiting once again. These long-time property owners are considered valued members of our Niagara community. They are part of our social fabric, and they support our local economies. It would be wrong to target them specifically in Niagara with a punitive levy such as the underused housing tax.

I could go on for so much longer on what we need from the federal government to achieve economic recovery. Our economy should be fully reopened and recovered from this pandemic by now, but it is not. Workers should be back to work to help alleviate severe labour shortages and strengthen our supply chains, but they are not. For two years, Canadians have done their part. It is due time for the federal government to hold up its end of the bargain by ending the federal pandemic mandates and letting Canadians get on with their lives.

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

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to bring a few facts to the table. At the end of the day, what we have seen, virtually from day one, from this government is a commitment to the Canadian people in terms of growing our economy and getting people engaged through jobs and so forth. When we specifically look at the pandemic and the member's comments, we have actually more than replaced every job that has been lost during the pandemic. The numbers for Canada are good, and the reason the numbers for Canada are good is that Canadians from coast to coast came together in order to combat the pandemic. We continue to work with, consult and listen to science and health experts to make sure we continue to manage the economy, thereby supporting Canadians.

Can the member clearly indicate to the House which health care expert is saying and advising the Conservative Party that it is time to unilaterally end mandates?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, just recently or several weeks ago, Dr. Tam, in one of her public news conferences, talked about the whole notion of moving from requirements to recommendations. Therefore, the government is looking at this; is it not?

From the standpoint of stimulus spending, we all in the House supported measures that were required for the pandemic. Of the January report, the PBO says, “Our report shows that since the start of the pandemic, the Government has spent, or has planned to spend, $541.9 billion in new measures—almost one third of which is not part of the COVID-19 Response Plan”. Then they on the opposite side wonder what is leading to the inflation concerns that many Canadians have. It is right there.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 barely skims the surface on the issue of housing.

This morning, the Radio-Canada website had a scathing article about the Liberal government's housing strategy. According to the federal housing advocate, who was appointed by the Liberal government to ensure its major national housing strategy is followed, the housing crisis is directly related to the neo-liberal policies that have been in place in Canada for the past 30 to 35 years. I do not think she is talking about the agreement between the NDP and Liberals, but rather the right-wing policies of governments during that time.

I simply wanted to draw my colleague's attention to the fact that a lot of money is being spent on the housing file in Canada these days, yet the targets are not being met. Does he not think that we should be investing heavily to bring the housing crisis to an end?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the hon. member's point, the government has spent the most to achieve the least when it comes to the housing issue here in Canada. It is simply a fact that the average price of a home has now doubled from when the Liberals were elected in 2015, making it more unaffordable for Canadians and people in my riding of Niagara Falls to find a place to live.

The Liberals talk about returning all those jobs back to the economy, which is great to see, but in a tourism community such as mine there are still labour shortages that exist. Stats Canada, in its January report, still found over 900,000 jobs were left unfilled in this country. We have to do a better job of getting those people back to work and allowing them to earn money so that they can once again afford a place to live.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was listening intently to the member for Niagara Falls speak about the need to address the housing crisis. The existing underused housing tax in this bill would already exempt every Canadian and every Canadian corporation. It is down to only 1% on its own. I am having a hard time getting a sense of how that would actually influence speculators. If the member is not supportive of this with the number of exemptions it already has, what is he supportive of to help deal with the housing crisis that we are in?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I was alluding to in my remarks with regard to the 1% underused housing tax was the impact it would have on specific local residents in my community, such as those American visitors and local residents who live there during the summer months. We have yet to get further clarification on how this tax may or may not impact their residences. That is what I was alluding to in my remarks. I wrote to the minister and I await further comments back from her so that we can supply that information to those residents who are impacted.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-8, the fall economic and fiscal update.

I just got my seasons confused there. I realized it was the spring and we are still debating the fall economic—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just wanted to make sure that there is no cross-debate going on.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, let me just start by saying one thing.

My staff were up in the village of Lytton the other day, and the village of Lytton has not had much luck as of late. Finally, after months, we have seen debris removal take place. Some of the archeological assessments mandated by the provincial government have been completed in conjunction with Lytton First Nation. Everyone is hoping to just move forward and see something built now.

This is a provincial matter in one respect, but I had a constituent reach out to me and share an email that the Province of British Columbia had issued tender for housing for firefighters to be placed in Lytton in preparation for the fires that will invariably take place, God willing hopefully not, throughout the interior of British Columbia in just a few months' time.

The same constituent pointed out to me that, after the truckers blockade here in Ottawa, the federal government, through the Ontario economic development agency, put forward some funds to help Ontario businesses recover from being shut down for a few weeks. I am not opposed to that, but I wish the federal government would have done something similar for Lytton.

During this debate today, my constituents in Lytton are still looking for some answers. This week, they did get some help in the fall economic statement; I will acknowledge that. However, we are hoping this week, in the budget, there is going to be a bit more for B.C., because the village of Lytton is still suffering and the people I represent just want to go home.

The next point I would be remiss if I did not raise is the infrastructure challenges facing the City of Abbotsford. The Fraser Valley Current put out a story on some of the options that are before my hometown and where I live today. The money required to account for the disasters that took place and to plan for future disasters is anywhere from just over $1 billion to $2.8 billion. It is really bad.

A few weeks ago, a number of B.C. MPs went on a tour throughout the region and the city officials pleaded with us to keep pushing the federal government so that we get the resources we need to protect the Fraser Valley, the most economically significant region of the province of British Columbia. These resources and these contributions are taxpayer money well spent, and I am really hoping to see something more from the federal government on the infrastructure challenges facing Abbotsford and the eastern Fraser Valley.

I am part of a group called Lets'mot community forum. It brings together many of the Stó:lō nations of the eastern Fraser Valley, the District of Kent, Sts'ailes Nation and the Village of Harrison Hot Springs. They too, like the City of Abbotsford, are hoping to see more from the federal government in respect to infrastructure dollars.

We know that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not spent nearly as much money as it could have. Here is an opportunity to use those funds wisely to support British Columbians when all of the engineers and all of the people are on the same page. We all know that this work needs to get done. Let us do it now before inflation makes it even more expensive in six months' to a year's time. We have to recover appropriately, and we have to plan for future disasters in the province of British Columbia.

I would also be remiss if I did not talk about housing. In my neighbourhood, like most other neighbourhoods in Abbotsford or Mission, we have seen a 100% increase in the cost of housing in the last year or so. Young families, people I know and people I grew up with seem to fall into two camps: They won the housing lottery or they lost the housing lottery through no fault of their own. People are losing hope, and they need to see the government completely overhaul its approach to housing.

Just this morning in The Globe and Mail, the Liberals touted their answer to the housing crisis that we face: the shared equity mortgage programs. We have the information tabled here before Parliament showing that it did not work. The money was not spent and people do not want to share their home equity with the Government of Canada.

The government has to acknowledge that it got this program wrong, and it needs to put that money into something else. It is not working. Nobody wants to do it. The government tried adjusting it once. It increased the family income levels and increased the price of a home that one was allowed to purchase under the program. It has not worked and it needs a new approach. Canadians need something now. We cannot wait three years for the next election.

A young family came to visit me in my office last week, and they said they sold their townhouse in Maple Ridge thinking they would wait a few months to live with their parents and then buy again, but in those few months there was such an inflationary impact on the cost of housing that they have now been priced out of the market. They do not know what to do. They are looking for options.

We know some of the problems that relate to housing do lie with the municipalities, but I believe the federal government does have a role to incent the construction of more housing across the board. This is something all Canadians could get behind, to build more homes and to build more homes for young families. We have to get it done. The government has not been getting it done, and the programs it has put forward are complete failures.

I was speaking to a vegetable grower last night on my way to the airport. Another major issue that is not being addressed by the government is the extreme labour shortages facing Canadian businesses, especially in the agricultural sector. The challenges in the agricultural sector are especially acute right now because Canada is poised to play a greater role in key crops because of the conflict in Ukraine. We need to be looking very closely at ways to help our producers get the labour they need, both domestic and foreign, onto farms as soon as possible because they cannot keep up. They cannot keep up with inflation, and if they do not have enough workers, they will have lower profits. Combine that with the inflationary impact, and they are facing a really challenging year.

The government needs to drastically look at how it is dealing with the labour shortage on farms. The price of food is already going up. I do not know about others, but my trips to Costco seem to be getting more and more expensive every single week. The hothouse tomatoes that I love eating on my sandwiches are costing more and more as well. We have to do more. We have the infrastructure in Canada to produce more food. We have the land, but we need the policies to attract labour to the agricultural sector to get our crops grown.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not talk about gasoline. Like a lot of young dads, I went to soccer practice recently and I had to fill up my 2015 Toyota RAV4. It cost me over $100. In Abbotsford the cost of gas was $2.01 a litre when I filled it up. For a number of years, the government has done everything in its power to prevent Canadian oil and gas getting to tidewater, and oil and gas getting shipped to refineries.

Everyone in the House has recognized that we need a new approach to oil and gas that would allow us to process it efficiently in Canada and get the pipelines built so there would not be such an affordability crunch on young families. People are really feeling the crunch.

To put this all in summation, my constituents cannot afford to drive to work anymore. Driving into Vancouver five days a week, with the cost of gasoline, costs a couple of extra hundred bucks every month. If people do not own a home right now, they are screwed.

A buddy of mine I went to high school with reached out to me the other day. He said he had been renting a house for 10 years and paying $1,700 in rent. The owner just sold it, and now he has to go into a smaller place where his rent is doubled. He does not know what he is going to do for his kids. He is in a tight bind. He does not know if he has a future in our province anymore.

We have to look very closely on what we are doing on housing and the inflationary impact of all this spending. There are a lot of things going on in our country. I am thankful for the time to share a little of that today.

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

Madam Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about how we are now in the spring and we are talking about the fall economic statement. As he would know, the only people who are still debating this are the Conservatives. Every other party has given up on it. I am wondering if he could provide some insight into how much longer the Conservatives are going to keep this up and drag this on.

Before I get any fake outrage about everybody needing to speak to this at every stage repeatedly because it is part of the democratic process, and I fully understand that, I am hoping that the member can provide some insight into when we will actually allow this to collapse so we can vote on it and move forward. I am really hoping that we can pass this before we pass the spring budget.

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

Madam Speaker, I think I agree with something from the member for Kingston and the Thousand Islands—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I only represent two of the Thousand Islands. It is Kingston and the Islands, not the Thousand Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, my apologies, it is Kingston and the Islands.

I was on the red eye last night, as I figured I was going to be voting on time allocation this morning, but apparently the agreement between the Liberals and the NDP for supporting time allocation failed. The member is talking about the Conservatives, but it was actually the failure of the House leaders of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to reach an agreement on time allocation.

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

Madam Speaker, I will continue with the question I asked another Conservative colleague earlier about the housing crisis.

This morning, Radio‑Canada posted a very interesting article on housing, which reads as follows:

The largest program under the national strategy is the rental construction financing initiative. This program has a budget of nearly $26 billion, or 40% of the national housing strategy....According to the initiative's rules, 20% of the units have to be affordable....The problem is that only 3% of the units funded by the initiative meet the needs of low‑income households.

We are spending 40% of $26 billion on this affordable housing program, but only 3% is effectively being used to build affordable units.

My Conservative colleagues are always worried about inflation, but how can we both house people and prevent inflation from rising?

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that in this specific case the federal government needs to give up some of its programs under the national housing strategy and turn the construction of housing for young families over to Canada's provinces and territories.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with great interest. I think we share some characteristics in our ridings, where a lot of people do not have good alternatives for getting to work other than to drive their cars. They are facing really, really high cost increases from the gas increases.

I wonder whether the member is also on board with me in hoping that the budget that comes forward will include significant financing for public transit, so people would have affordable alternatives, and will include significant financing for the transition to electric cars.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has a very fair question.

Back 100 years ago, in the Fraser Valley, we had electric rail that went from Vancouver to Chilliwack, yet we moved away from that. We need to get back to rail infrastructure to ease the congestion and get people to where they need to go faster. People want it. It is good for the economy, and it is good for people's well-being. We need to make investments in rail infrastructure.

Back in 2015, the Liberals promised they were going to get SkyTrain built, and it still has not been built out to Langley. We need to move faster on critical rail infrastructure in this country to move people and our goods faster. It is good for the economy, and it is good for everyone.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House in all circumstances. Unfortunately today, when we talk about the economy of this country, there is certainly a lot to be desired.

For the last couple of years I have had the privilege of serving my constituents in the capacity of their member of Parliament, we have used surveys to ask for feedback from them respecting things they are facing from an economic perspective. I just got the results back, and I think it is timely that today I would be rising to talk about the fall economic perspective, although I choose not to call it that, as it is more of a doomsday story. However, it is an opportunity for me to rise to speak about what my constituents have had to say about what they are facing today and will be facing moving forward.

The first I will go to is our businesses, which have been impacted greatly by this. This is one of the questions we asked of them: What impact has the global pandemic had on their business? Ninety-six percent of the businesses in my riding who responded to this survey said that it was bad or very bad for them and their business. The impacts are far-reaching.

We also asked them what their expectations were for 2022 as they went into the new year. Almost 30%, 29.5%, of the respondents said that they were not sure. The government had not given them confidence as to what to expect, and they were not sure how that was going to impact their business. However, 22% were hopeful that they would restore some semblance of normality in their business.

When the pandemic began, there was already a high level of uncertainty with the economy, but few thought the pandemic would last as long as it has, which is two years now. We asked another question: How are businesses positioned to manage the ongoing impacts going into 2022? Fifty-one percent said that they are managing, but the revenues are substantially lower, and they anticipate those revenues to remain low. Twenty-two percent said that they were struggling and will continue to struggle in their fight to keep their businesses operating. They need the economy to return to normal in order for them to just survive as businesses.

The federal Liberals have promised stimulus spending in the next budget. Experts such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer have said that stimulus is unnecessary and could harm our economy with more inflation. We asked a question about this: Would stimulus help their industry or their company? Forty-eight percent said no, they do not need more government stimulus. They need employees and the opportunity to get their economy back to normal. They need the pandemic and the restrictions to end, and they need skilled workers to be able to function as they did previously.

We asked them what barriers they thought their company had to growth currently and what they would be facing in 2022. It was interesting to note that almost 82% of respondents said that higher taxes and rising costs were some of the barriers they were facing with respect to their company's growth. We know that this government likes to increase, has increased and will continue to increase payroll costs. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said that payroll costs were costing their businesses significantly. Government red tape and regulations from a federal level was almost 56%, and a lack of supplies and resources due to the pandemic at almost 40%.

We have to access the market and, depending on clients' situations, these are all factors that businesses in my riding were very concerned about with their ability to continue in business.

We asked them pre-emptively about the April 1 carbon tax increasing to $50 a tonne and what that would do to their business. We had 89% of businesses say that it will have a very negative impact and another 8% said that they would have somewhat of a negative impact on their businesses and their ability to continue to function as businesses.

We asked another question: How much would they expect to spend on carbon taxes this year? Surprisingly, the majority, 40%, said they were uncertain exactly what that amount will be. However, about 20% were in the range of $10,000 to $25,000 and another 20% were in the range between $5,000 and $10,000, just in extra carbon taxes for this year alone.

It makes one wonder what the current government is doing. It talks a big talk about what it is going to do to impact business and the economy, yet the very nature of some of the policies it puts in place does the exact opposite. They thwart growth and the ability of businesses to thrive, and we know that when our businesses thrive, our economy thrives.

We conducted three surveys. As I said, there was one for businesses, one for municipalities and one for individuals. Some of the individuals provided some very interesting feedback.

We asked them what measures would improve their life and that of their family. It was interesting that 40% said it would be to end the mandatory restrictions and lockdowns and return life to normal, and 35% said it would be to lower the cost of everything from food to gasoline to utilities. Those were the majority of the responses we received.

We asked them what their expectations were in 2022. A full 72% said they hoped and prayed there would be an end to the perpetual pandemic that seems to be going in this country.

One of the other questions we asked was with respect to the inflation rate climbing to between 5% and 6% on essentials this last year and whether they had noticed that in their daily living. Of the responses we received, 92% said everything in their life was more expensive. The previous speaker, my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, mentioned this as well, and it is very true. Individuals have indicated that significant increases in the price of food and gasoline continue to plague them and their households.

Many people reported that their mental health had been impacted during the pandemic, so we asked them what changes people had seen in not only their own mental health but in that of those around them in the past year. Surprisingly, 39.5% of individual respondents said their mental health has been declining, and another 32% said it has been declining significantly. To me, those are alarming numbers, indicating that we need to realize the significant impacts the pandemic has had on our mental health.

Further, we asked individuals if they, their family or friends had access to mental health supports. Thankfully, about 65% said they did, but 25% or almost 30% said they did not, which is alarming.

We asked them what the government should focus on to support long-term growth and jobs. Of the responses we received, 45% said agriculture, 53% said energy, 30% said manufacturers, another 30% said new technologies, and 16% said green technology and renewables. Tourism was at 18%, and 58%—and these are individuals—recognized the value of small business and said it should be the government's focus.

I will wrap up with this. Although the current government talks a good talk about what it wants to do for the economy, we can see that is having a negative impact on the people on the ground who are experiencing what is or is not happening with respect to the economy in this country. People are struggling to make ends meet. Everything is getting more expensive, and the carbon tax is exacerbating an already difficult situation.

I would like to thank the constituents of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, its businesses, municipalities and individuals for the great information they have shared with us and their perspectives on what they need from the government moving forward.

I look forward to entertaining questions.

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

Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing that when the Conservatives talk about inflation, they often forget to mention that it is not unique to Canada and that it is happening around the world. If we compare Canadian inflation to the average inflation rate in the G20, Canada does well. Ours is lower. If we compare our inflation rate to that of the United States, again ours is less. Therefore, I find it somewhat disingenuous that the Conservative Party is providing a false narrative by saying that it is our government's policies that are directly causing inflation when in fact government policy is protecting and covering the backs of Canadians by ensuring we have jobs well into the future.

In hindsight, I wonder if the member is implying to Canadians that the money we spent on the wage subsidy and the CERB is money we should not have spent. Is that what the right wing of today's Conservative Party is saying today?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member finally got to a question, rather than just his usual spouting off of rhetoric.

This particular government is responsible for the inflation in this country. It is easy for the Liberals to talk about it being a global problem and say we do not have to worry about it because it is a global problem. However, the policies of this government, in this time, are the ones that are directly responsible for the inflation we are experiencing in this country right now.

Take ownership. Live up to it. Develop some policies that will give people some hope moving forward.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-8 marks the first time we see the federal government interfering in the area of property taxes.

We moved just one amendment and tried to find a compromise to ensure that property taxes do not apply in a province without its consent. The Liberal chair of the committee ruled that the amendment was out of order.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not familiar specifically with the issue that he raises with respect to the impact of property taxes and Quebec's desire to have a say in that area.

Our party certainly supports some provincial autonomy and the ability for provinces to make decisions on issues that impact them, rather than the “federal government knows best” policy. I certainly do not support any measure whereby the federal government imposes some of their measures on the responsibilities of the provincial governments.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two comments and two questions for the member.

We know when we talk about Canadians filling up their tanks that the oil and gas companies have price-gouged Canadians for many years. It has been documented in many studies. They jack up prices far beyond what they should normally charge and they keep those prices high even when the price of crude has come down.

Does the member agree that price-gouging is not something that oil and gas companies should be doing to Canadian consumers?

My second question is around the transition to clean energy and the fact that the federal government plays a role in a just transition and making sure Canadians can go to electric vehicles, which are very much more cost effective.

Does the member agree with me that this would be an important initiative for the federal government to undertake?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner has one minute to respond.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hope to take the entire minute.

I thank my friend for his question. While we disagree on many fronts, I have always appreciated his approach and the depth of his questions and I know he cares deeply about his constituents.

It is important to recognize that in a fair market, we would hope that companies would be responsible to the consumer. We have seen in many different sectors, and not just in the energy sector, that this is not always the case. I do not have an easy solution to that issue. It is exacerbated by the government continuing to raise taxes at all levels, including excise taxes and carbon taxes on the price of fuel.

With respect to the transition to electric, I find it difficult when I see electricity generators being operated by diesel in many vehicle charging stations across the country. They are diesel-powered electricity generators. I find that ironic, quite honestly.

In my own riding, I could not travel across my riding in an electric vehicle without having to charge it a number of times if I wanted to get back home in the same day. I—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I have allowed the hon. member some additional time over the one minute, but there is no more time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I had no problem with my colleague continuing on. I appreciate my colleague from Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

It is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation act, 2021. I would like to thank the people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan for their overwhelming confidence in sending me to Ottawa to serve them as their member of Parliament. In my maiden speech, I recognized the sacrifices of my family. I would be remiss today if I did not recognize the team of volunteers who door knocked, canvassed, made phone calls and contributed to help get me here today so that true Saskatchewan values have a voice in this House and so that people from Saskatchewan can participate in Confederation and bring a voice of reason to this House.

I want to focus today on something that affects everyone daily but that the government seems to have forgotten about: the skyrocketing costs of living. Last Friday, Canadians got a rude April Fool's joke played on them in the form of a 25% hike to the carbon tax. This means that when I drove to the airport last night, the price of gas in my riding had gone up to $1.68 per litre. This came at a time when inflation had already hit a 30-year high of 5.7%.

The Liberals, when challenged on this issue, always compare us to other countries. I have just witnessed that. We are not here to compare ourselves to others. We are here to fight for the interests of our constituents. Just because inflation here is not as bad as it is in another country does not mean that it is good. The Liberals must address this and take responsibility for it.

Inflation is increasing the cost of everything, including groceries, housing and everyday essentials that Canadians rely on. How did the Liberals decide to try to help Canadians who are already struggling? It was by hiking their taxes yet again. The problem with raising the carbon tax is that it does not just target the cost of gas; it hits everything that is transported or harvested with gas. Essentially, everything we buy is affected. Raising the carbon tax even increases inflation. The Bank of Canada told us recently that the tax accounted for 0.4% of the latest inflation numbers.

A few weeks ago we, the Conservatives, offered a solution to these high gas prices. We proposed a motion to pause the GST on gas. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals voted this down. We are saying, and I have been saying since my maiden speech, that policy needs to be there and exist to help people, not punish them, and hiking the carbon tax during the current inflationary crisis is hurting Canadians. The least the government could do is postpone this tax grab.

The largest contributor to the global economy is the consumer. Those consumers in this case are citizens and taxpayers. Reducing their buying power actually slows down the global economy. This has created a bureaucratic cycle implemented by this Liberal government. How does this happen? The Liberal government taxes someone with one hand and then, with the other hand, gives the money back to them. That bureaucratic cycle costs the taxpayer their hard-earned dollars, because someone has to administer and oversee the tax.

This lost money should be used by consumers to purchase goods and services to support their own households. We see this in every policy that the Liberal government comes up with. It is like going to the carnival and seeing the giant pea and shell game. It is just moving money around. Everyone knows that this is a bureaucratic mess.

Leading up to the federal budget, we are hearing more and more about the number of big-spending promises that the Liberals have made to buy the support of their coalition partner, the NDP, such as national dental care and national pharmacare. On top of these pet NDP causes, we have the Russian invasion of Ukraine that is forcing the government to finally rethink defence spending. I am glad to see that the government is finally buying the F-35s that Stephen Harper, the former prime minister, agreed to buy nearly a decade ago, but it is coming at a higher cost and at a time when Canada will struggle to afford it.

As someone who has served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, increasing Canada's defence spending is something that I wholeheartedly agree with. However, times like this are why we need a prime minister who thinks about monetary policy. A leader who spent any time thinking about it would know that all of these big-spending promises cost Canadians.

The Canadian debt is skyrocketing under the Liberal government. According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the national debt is now over $1 trillion. It is growing by $16 million per hour, and each Canadian's share of it is over $31,000 at this point in time.

My youngest daughter is six years old. We are spending money that her children will be paying back, and probably her grandchildren, too. We expect the government to set an example and be reflective of who we are as a society. We do not remortgage our homes to buy something for ourselves. We mortgage our homes to have a place to raise our families and to leave something to our children when we have paid it off: to leave a legacy. What legacy are we going to be leaving behind at this point? I talked about this theme in my maiden speech. It is our shared responsibility to leave something to our children and to future generations. Leaving them a trillion-dollar national debt is not what I had mind.

Last week, we debated another Conservative motion calling on the government to exercise any semblance of fiscal restraint in the upcoming budget. We voted on that and, unsurprisingly, the NDP-Liberal coalition voted against it. Let us not fool ourselves. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a member of the CCF: It was the precursor to the NDP, prior to 1965. Now, this coalition is coming full circle and showing the current Prime Minister's true colours. It took this country decades to dig our way out of the debt that Pierre Trudeau left us. How many decades will we be cleaning up his son's mess for?

I would like to spend a bit of time talking about Canadian veterans. I sit on the veterans affairs committee, which has been studying the rising backlog of cases under the current government. The average wait times are bad enough, but they get even worse if people are francophone or female. Heaven forbid if someone is a female francophone. I expect we will see some mention of this in this week's budget; however, I know that it will not be enough to fix the lingering issues. The fact that we are planning to spend nearly a billion dollars on electric infrastructure just shows how out of touch we are, and that we are not focusing on veterans: that number is a sizable chunk of the entire budget for Veterans Affairs Canada that could be used.

I am concerned about the future of our country.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the tail end of the comments of the member opposite, I think we can do both. We can continue to support seniors, and in particular veterans, as the member referred to. We have seen huge investments in supporting veterans in recent years. We have reopened many, if not all, of the offices that the Stephen Harper era shut down. I also believe we can continue to move forward on the environment in green initiatives. We have seen it, and I look forward to seeing more of that in the upcoming budget.

Would the member not agree that we can move forward on both of those items in a budget?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague bringing that comment forward. I think that there are obviously two components. Let us focus on them. Veterans in my riding are being challenged. They are suffering. Their pensions and buying power are being lost.

Another component has to do with green initiatives. I have said that policy should not be there to punish us. It should be there to help us. We have not seen that. We have just seen money going from one hand to the next hand. Someone, being the taxpayer, has to pay for that process. We are losing buying power because of bad policies.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from Saskatchewan talking about the wait times experienced by francophone veterans and veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces in the processing of their cases. That fact really struck home. In my riding, one veteran has been caught up in red tape for a decade. To illustrate how ridiculous this situation is, he stated that if the government had put as much energy and money into solving his problem as it has put into constantly challenging his arguments, officials would probably have been able to help many veterans like him.

However, my question is about another matter. In Bill C-8, there is new interference in jurisdictions. We are used to seeing the federal government interfere in provincial and Quebec jurisdictions, in particular health care. This time, however, it is interfering in another jurisdiction, which is just as astounding. The federal government wants to meddle in municipal jurisdictions by getting involved in property taxation. Would my colleague like to comment on that? Does my colleague believe, like me, that the federal government is taking its interference a bit too far?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments concerning Veterans Affairs and the challenges that francophone veterans are facing with the backlog. I find that unacceptable. If people have served in our forces, it does not matter if they are men or women, or English or French. They have served this country. They deserve and are entitled to fair treatment and fair service. I want people to please know that when we sit at committee, we will be fighting against that poor service and backlog. I am very disappointed that that is a challenge we are facing.

With regard to municipal taxation, I am a former mayor of the city of Moose Jaw. What happens is that the municipality gets 8% of tax revenue. That same taxpayer is paying 92% to the federal and provincial governments. Municipalities deal with cleaning garbage, paving roads, providing parks and all those essential things, as well as infrastructure required so that Canadians can get to their workplaces and have a healthy lifestyle.

There is overreach. We continually see an overreach by the Liberal government in everything, whether it has been the municipality tax or the Emergencies Act. It is always overreaching and always overstepping the mark.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here this morning talking about government spending again. Spending is something the government knows how to do very well, and it has been very actively spending taxpayers' dollars as it sees fit, as if it is the government's own slush fund. I am here to speak against Bill C-8, because some of that bill would actually do the exact same thing that has happened before.

Let us review what is going on in the Canadian economy as we speak today. Typical housing prices have gone from $345,000 to $810,000 in the biggest one-time gain of all time. Newly created government cash, $400 billion, was pumped into the financial markets, and a lot of that money went into high-risk mortgages at rates less than inflation. Those are concerns that Canadian taxpayers should have going into the future, because we are insuring a lot of those high-risk mortgages. We are seeing the price of food going up, and that is something I hear of quite often. The price of chicken, for example, is up 6.2%, beef is up 12%, bacon is up 20% and bread is up 5%. Those are old numbers. Those numbers are no longer relevant. We could almost double them today and that is what we would see when we go to buy things at the grocery store.

Inflationary pressures, not COVID pressures, are starting to become a major factor in what Canadians are facing moving forward.

We see the economies opening up here in Canada. Saskatchewan has been open for literally over a month and a half. Masking mandates have been removed and vaccine passports have been removed. Canadians are getting back to business, except for federal employees who, for one reason or another, decided not to be vaccinated or not to reveal their status. Those people are still sitting in unemployment lines or have been laid off or fired. It is really sad when we look at the history of these people and what they have contributed to our economy and to our civil service. These are penitentiary guards and other federal workers who have given their hearts and souls to their jobs, only to be told, because they did not release their medical status, that they were no longer needed or wanted.

It is amazing to lose people with that type of skill set and that experience at this point in time, in a situation where we have unemployment. People are demanding and looking for labour. The government is going to have a huge problem filling the shoes of those people who have left.

I think the government has forgotten history, and I am going to go on a trip down memory lane, just as I did last week when I was talking about our motion to look for a way back to a balanced budget. The government has not remembered the mistakes of the past. It has not talked to former Liberal members who went through the process of trying to actually balance the budget after they were told they had to.

Let us go back to the 1990s. Let us look at the situation in 1992 and 1993. All of a sudden, the warning signs were going off. We had inflation. We had gone through a period in the eighties when, if someone got a mortgage at 14%, they were excited. I can remember buying my first house. I was excited. I got a mortgage at 14%. Now, if I cannot get a mortgage at 2.5% or 3%, I am mad. That really tells us the difference between where we are sitting right now and where we are possibly heading again.

We saw rapid inflationary pressures. We were seeing oil and gas pressure. The Canadian economy was showing strides. If someone had a job, they were excited. When I was coming out of high school in 1984 or 1985, if I got a job at McDonald's I was taking it, because there were not a lot of jobs to be had. A lot of people flocked to university, just because they had no options other than continuing to go to school. There were no jobs to be had.

In 1994, Moody's investors lowered our credit rating. In 1995 and 1996, we had more people jumping on that and saying that Canada needed to do something, and in 1996 Jean Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin had to go through the process of making decisions they did not want to make. They were decisions I hope no future governments will ever have to make. The federal government, for example, wanted to block transfers to the provinces. It cut health care funding substantially, compared with 1993 levels, and those levels did not return to normal, or 1993 levels, until 2004. It took that long to get things back in order so that we could actually start putting more money back into our health care system.

Basically, we saw a situation where people were looking at the economy and were in dire need, and there were just no financial resources there to help them out. We had spent the cupboard bare, and the government had to make all sorts of difficult choices, both at the federal and provincial levels, to pay back the excess of borrowing that happened in previous governments, such as the Trudeau governments of the early and late seventies. I do not want to see that repeated. I do not want to see that handed on to my kids or my grandkids. Hopefully I will have grandkids somewhere down the road.

We are spending a lot of money. We are seeing inflationary pressures and all sorts of instability around the world. We are spending our reserves, which we may need to save for another rainy day, like we did when COVID-19 first hit or when we had the great recession of 2008. At that time, we had the fiscal capacity to spend some money and strategically use it in such a way to advance our communities and help things that needed to be done get done earlier so we could get back to balanced budgets in 2015. Now we are seeing the government spending like crazy.

Part of it is okay. I have to admit that part of it is fine. Supporting people during the time of COVID-19 was important. We had to be there for people. I think all parties agreed with that. However, now as we get out of COVID and start looking into the future post-COVID, all of a sudden we have not learned a lesson and we continue to keep spending and spending. We have to wonder: What is the role of taxpayers? Are taxpayers really on board with this type of spending? If we go back to the last election, they did not vote for a coalition government. They did not vote for a new dental care program or a new pharmacare program. They did not vote for a coalition government. If we asked them that today, they would be totally against it, and it would have changed their voting habits in the last election.

When we look at the costs of these types of programs, one has to wonder: Who is going to pay for them? How are we going to pay for them? There are some options. If we want a dental care program or health care program, there are options to pay for that. One of them is to quit shutting down the industries that actually would pay for it, like the oil and gas sector, for example. We have the safest and most ethical oil and gas in the world. We just need to get it to market. By getting it to market, we would have royalties that could be used to keep our deficits low, pay for services like a dental care program, increase funding to health care and education and transition to a green economy, which is somewhere we all know we have to go. However, our transition is not going to be paid by royalties off oil and gas; it is going to be paid off with deficits and debt.

The Liberals call this investment. That is fine, but in the same breath, why are we borrowing money when we have the ability to raise the money? That is what drives me and a lot of Canadians crazy, because they see opportunities for the government to get this economy going and what does it do? It brings in regulations and policies that slow or shut it down. It brings in policies that are not being followed anywhere else in the world and it is putting Canadians through restrictions that nobody else has to face.

A classic example is the oil and gas regulations for the environment we have here in Canada, and our friend President Biden and the regulations he put in place. If he was so in favour of what we have done in Canada, why did he not copy us? Why did he not bring in our regulations? Why did he not bring in the exact same regulations we have here? Has he done that? Is he going to do that? The answer to that is no, because he will not risk the U.S. economy in light of what he needs to do in moving forward with electronic vehicles or the green economy. He is not going to throw that away. He is basically going to try to do both at the same time, which is what Prime Minister Harper was trying to do. He was balancing the economy and the environment together.

We can look at other sectors. If we talk to those in the manufacturing sector, they are saying we are losing manufacturing left, right and centre. They are saying nobody is reinvesting in Canada because it is too expensive to operate here in Canada. I was in the U.S. two weeks ago and had some closed-door meetings with some senators. They were saying the reputation of Canada being a great member of the supply chain is at serious risk. They were saying that we cannot seem to get it together and that we do not have the ability to be part of a supply chain anymore. They said we are great for one-off purchases, but if we want to part of and embedded in the supply chain, we need to improve our border efficiency, our reliability and our tax structure. Not all of these are federal problems; I will agree with that. Some of them are municipal and some are provincial. However, we need to get to work on them, and that is where we need to focus.

When we look at things we could be spending money on, things that could grow our economy and make things grow stronger, that would be wise to consider. More importantly, we need to be smarter and more proactive. Let us spend money where it is needed and required immediately, not chase new dreams and new structural deficits and debts that will leave our kids basically out in the cold, making the exact same decisions that Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien had to make. Even Ralph Goodale was part of that role.

I encourage the Liberals to talk to some old Liberals. I think a lot of the old Liberals, like Dan McTeague, would say, “What is this party?” [Technical difficulty—Editor] what the government has been doing. They would not endorse it. They would not say this is a prudent way forward. They have the scars of going through the 1995-97 cuts and have experienced that. Let us not make the same mistakes. Let us learn from history. Let us move forward and do it in a prudent, proactive way.

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

Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill C-8 and, obviously, the significant impact it would have on our country and our fiscal situation, I would like to ask my colleague's opinion. The Liberals have an opportunity to vote in favour of a Conservative motion here this afternoon that would provide some important context to address some of the fiscal realities that our country is facing. I wonder if my friend and colleague could comment on that vote, which will take place just after question period.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think a lot of people are following this vote very closely because it sends a signal to Canadians about how, and whether or not, the government is going to act responsibly. Having a game plan on how we are going to pay back our debt or get to a zero deficit is not a bad thing. Having a strategy in place to say this is our focus as we go out of the COVID world into an economy that is possibly facing another global war with what we are seeing in Ukraine and Russia is probably a good thing. Actually making sure that we have our ducks in a row physically and financially is very important.

Canadians want to see that out of the government, but right now what they are seeing out of the government is confusion. They are seeing a lot of spending. They are seeing a lot of untargeted hyperopia on things the government wants to do moving forward, but nothing that really focuses on Canadians to actually set their families up for the future, and nothing that will prevent our kids from making the horrible decisions the Liberals made in 1995-96 because of the irresponsible spending before them.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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

I am a bit surprised to hear him argue against dental care. I would imagine that getting reimbursed for dental care would save people in his riding a lot of money.

However, I would also suggest to him that, if we want to pay for new services, then we need to go and get the money where it can be found.

What does my colleague think about a special tax on the indecent profits being made by the big banks? They made $60 billion in profit last year, which represents an increase of 40% in just one year.

Why not tax the super-rich and corporations like banks that make outrageous profits?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes an excellent point. One would think people in Saskatchewan want dental care, and yes, they do, but they do not want to burden their kids with all sorts of expenses they cannot afford. This is a structural change in government spending, so we need tax revenue, not just today but in the future, to pay for it. How are we going to do that? We just shut down the oil and gas sector and we just heard from the manufacturing sector that it is leaving, so what are we going to do? My suggestion, if we want a dental program and pharmacare program, is to maybe get the cash first. Maybe pay for it instead of financing it through deficit and then waiting for somewhere down the road to pay for it.

We talk about the big banks and the people who make tremendous amounts of money with their corporations. Proper taxation is very important, no question about it, but keep in mind that when a big bank makes money, what does it do? It pays out dividends. What do shareholders do? They reinvest it back into the Canadian economy. They buy things, or they borrow from the bank and use the money in their business to function their operating capital. If we want to have fair taxation rates for banks, let us talk about that; let us make that part of the debate. However, why not raise that money first before we start committing Canadians to a structural expense that they may not be able to afford?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, released a report this morning at 11 a.m. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about it.

For example, the report states that projected carbon dioxide emissions from existing and currently planned fossil fuel infrastructure exceed the total emissions that would limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. That is a big deal.

Furthermore, the IPCC calculates that, by 2050, the equivalent of $1 trillion to $4 trillion U.S. in fossil fuels must be left in the ground to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, well, I have not seen the entire report so it is hard to comment, but with regard to his comments about fossil fuels and keeping them in the ground and emissions, let us talk about a few things. First of all, this is a global crisis, and where is the most environmentally friendly fossil fuel in the world? It is in Canada. If we want to shut down the Canadian industry, okay, shut that down, but it is going to get replaced because people are still burning fuel. What the Europeans found out when they could not get oil and gas from Russia is that they are still burning fuel, so where is it going to come from? It is the areas that are not environmentally friendly, which will actually increase the speed of carbon emissions in the world and provide cheap, dirty, unethical oil all over the world.

We have a choice to make, and it is a very clear choice. We can have energy security here in Canada, with a very safe, green, ethical fund growing in Canada's oil and gas sector, whether it is in Newfoundland, Alberta or Saskatchewan, or we can get oil from Venezuela or from third-world dictatorships like Russia. What do we want? We have to decide, because right now the decisions that are being made do not make a lot of sense.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Prince Albert has it right. Canada is the place where we should be investing. We should be harnessing the power of our energy sector to get clean energy to the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the NDP-Liberal coalition government does not understand that.

We know that this Thursday, the NDP-Liberal government is going to be tabling its 2022 budget. Quite frankly, based on the government's track record these past seven years, I expect it will again fail to meet the expectations and aspirations Canadians have for their future. For two long years, Canadians have been resilient, hoping to see a return to normal once mandates began to lift, lockdowns were lifted and Canadians were vaccinated, but instead, Canadians are struggling more than ever due to a soaring consumer price inflation rate, which stands at 5.7% today and is going up. In fact, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has suggested that it is going to get worse before it gets better, and Canadians have a right to be concerned. They see inflation at a 30-year high and skyrocketing housing prices, which have exacerbated the mess that our Liberal government has made of the economy.

Economists have been warning for well over a year that there was an inflation crisis coming, yet the experts in our government assured us that inflation was transitory and there was nothing to see here. Meanwhile, hundreds of billions of dollars in special stimulus, as the Prime Minister called it, was being pumped into our economy. Of course, those were taxpayers' dollars, and they were beginning to flood into our economy, with the excess cash driving the inflation rate and driving up the cost of everything.

The Conservatives had warned the finance minister that out-of-control borrowing and spending without a plan to return to balanced budgets and a plan to manage the massive debt the Liberal government was leaving behind would leave future generations of Canadians to pay for this mess, this huge albatross hanging around their necks, going forward. However, we understand why this has happened. It is because, as members know, the Prime Minister said that he does not think about monetary policy. For the leader of this country not to care about monetary policy and its role in driving inflation in this country is appalling.

When I have an opportunity to continue my speech after question period, I would love to elucidate and expand on those comments.

The House resumed from April 4 consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Report Stage

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I welcome this opportunity to put the observations my constituents share with their MP on the public record. I am their servant. While the bill may have many parts, I intend to focus on the sections relevant to Canadians.

With Liberal inflation, tax cuts are non-existent. With Liberal inflation, house prices will keep on rising. This will fuel more Liberal inflation, which in turn raises house prices even higher. It is a vicious circle.

What started this cycle? This cycle was started by huge deficits commencing back in 2015 after the federal election. The Conservatives do not blame COVID-19 pandemic mitigation measures, which we supported. The Prime Minister's inflationary deficits have been a signature policy of the government since long before COVID-19 hit. In fact, billions and billions of deficit dollars are being spent on things unrelated to the pandemic.

In the case of defence spending, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has identified billions in borrowing that are unaccounted for. Taxpayers’ dollars are being poured down a black hole, but this socialist government refuses to tell Canadians what that spending is for. Canadians have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent.

When the NDP-Liberal socialist alliance inflates the monetary base, it is effectively devaluing the spending power of the money people have. By devaluing that spending power, it is actually hurting the people who have to spend that money on basic goods. The only way to get ahead of the inflationary spiral is to quit printing money. By continually printing money, which is called running a deficit, our currency is debased. This leads to greater deficits and more Liberal inflation. This in turn makes everything more unaffordable.

Canadians who contact me are fearful about any Liberal plan to implement an electronic currency, or e-currency. They have no confidence that the money they earn and the money they save will keep its value. My constituents have read about negative interest rates, the seizure of bank accounts and social credit scores that Communist China keeps on its citizens, and they do not like what they hear. Accounts can be seized with the stroke of a keyboard. Just ask any “freedom convoy” supporter.

Canadians who contact me tell me how divisive to society these socialist policies are. Since 2015, the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada has actually widened. Nowhere has this policy failure been more evident than in the rise in the cost of a single-family home. This is a big problem. Unaffordable housing prices are a direct result of the NDP-Liberal socialist coalition’s monetary policy. Blaming the Russians, Chinese, new immigrants, unseen foreigners or whoever else the socialist coalition wants to reserve this week’s two minutes of hate for is divisive, hateful and just another diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the real problems Canadians face.

Young Canadians who call me simply expect a fair chance. They would like to believe that Canada is a country in which hard work and savings are realistic paths to home ownership. Young people in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke want affordable housing where they can raise families, while not losing more than half of their paycheques each month to put a roof over their heads. Seniors want to grow old living in their own homes. This is not an unrealistic ask in a functioning democratic and free-market society.

The socialist coalition wants to move away from this successful model. Since the government came to power or shortly thereafter, six years ago, the average price of a family home in Canada has shot up 87%. In 2016, the average price of a new house was $476,000. It is now $811,000, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association. What was the coalition's response? It was another tax.

Starting in the 2022 calendar year, Bill C-8 will charge a 1% federal surtax on non-resident owners of passively held real estate in Canada. That means even Canadians who own a home but live abroad for work are going to pay an extra 1% annually on the value of their home back here. It is like a municipal tax for those people who own property or their own single-family home, only the money goes to the feds. I am still waiting for a credible explanation of how this will create more affordable housing.

The proposal is troubling in other ways. Taxing properties is municipal jurisdiction. Municipalities in my riding of are having serious financial difficulties. Now the federal government wants to pick their pockets too.

Interfering in property tax is a serious mistake. It sets a dangerous precedent of interference from the federal government. Municipalities in the counties of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke charge a range of development fees. In Arnprior, development charges for a single or semi-detached dwelling run around $16,000. In Renfrew, it is $9,000. In Petawawa, development charges are over $6,000. In Cobden, the cost is roughly $5,800, and it is under $4,000 in Pembroke.

Six municipalities in Renfrew County do not charge development fees: Admaston/Bromley; Bonnechere Valley; Laurentian Hills; North Algona Wilberforce; the township of Killaloe, Hagarty and Richards; and the township of Head, Clara and Maria.

In a recent presentation to county council, which is looking to increase development charges, fees in the rest of Ontario were examined. Some counties across Ontario charge almost $25,000 in development charges for a single detached or semi-detached dwelling. Others, such as my neighbour to the south, Lanark County, charge on the lower end of the scale at roughly $1,500 for development charges on a new residential home.

The federal government needs to be working in co-operation with municipalities to help them decrease development fees. Only by increasing the housing supply will prices stabilize. Residents in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are very concerned about the planned home equity tax. That is another idea that undermines the municipal property tax base.

With record sales, high prices for real estate, and the recent disclosure about CMHC funding studies to look at ways to raise revenues by taxing principal residences, Canadians have every right to be skeptical when half-hearted denials are made by the federal government. Canadians will have to wait and see when a new federal home equity tax, currently under consideration, will be implemented.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always such an honour to rise in this place and speak on behalf of my community of South Shore—St. Margarets.

Today, we are debating the report 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, in other words, more government spending on COVID‑19. Let us look at the NDP and Liberal COVID spending to date in this bill. The fall fiscal update added another $70 billion in new spending, and this spending is on top of that. The $70 billion I mentioned does not even include the Liberal campaign promises, which would be tens of billions more if, and that is a big if, the NDP-Liberal government lives up to their campaign promises and their coalition. The bill is going to add $70 billion on top of what we saw in the public accounts, the $1.4 trillion of debt that Canadian taxpayers are now on the hook for. Let us think about that: $70 billion more, on top of the $1.4 trillion that has already been added until now.

It is said that one should know history so one does not repeat it. I guess the current government does not know history, because if it did, it would see that the son is repeating the mistakes of the father. To understand the context of what this bill and this spending's impact on the economy will be, let us take a look at what the father did. It tells us what the country will face in the coming years because of the fiscal mismanagement of the son and the father.

In the federal election of 1968, Pierre Trudeau reassured Canadians that a Liberal government would not raise taxes or increase spending. The government, he said during the election of 1968, is not Santa Claus. How did that work out?

When Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, real government spending increased from 17% of GDP to 24.3%. In other words, the federal government's share of the economy rose 42% under Trudeau senior. Every single area of the federal government's spending increased under Trudeau senior, except defence spending, where he cut spending in half as a percentage of the budget. When Pierre Trudeau took office, we spent more on national defence than we did on servicing the country's debt. When he left office in 1984, for every dollar the government spent on defence, we spent three dollars on paying just the interest on his national debt.

How did he do it? He created 114 agencies and commissions. He created seven new government departments, for a total of 464 Crown corporations with 213 subsidiaries. The annual deficit rose to almost $40 billion. That does not seem so unreasonable, given what we have seen with the spending in this place lately. However, that $40 billion was on a base budget, an annual Government of Canada budget, of $100 billion.

I raise this because, as the adage goes, “Like father, like son.” Pierre Trudeau once said, “We're going to build socialism here.” Well, he did, and his son just formalized it.

People who grew up in the 1930s, such as Pierre Trudeau, saw Roosevelt's New Deal of massive government infrastructure spending to pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression. They thought that this approach in the 1970s would stimulate us out of the “stagflation” of that time, which was, for those who do not remember, high inflation combined with high unemployment and a stagnant demand in the economy. It was disastrous.

It was so bad that at one point Pierre Trudeau brought in wage and price controls. He said, “Zap, you're frozen”, and froze all wages and prices. When those socialist wage and price controls came off, the floodgates of wage demands and price adjustments went up even faster. By the time Pierre Trudeau left office, 38¢ of every dollar collected in taxes by the Government of Canada was to pay interest, and only interest, on the debt. The biggest single government program was paying interest on Pierre Trudeau's debt. The government in 1984 spent more on debt interest payments than it spent on defence spending and health care combined. Trudeau's policies of massive spending led to a rapid rise in interest rates to try to reduce inflation. All that government spending simply made it worse.

In the early 1980s, banks were creating home mortgages at 21% annual interest rates. When Brian Mulroney took office in 1984, and I joined that government as a young staffer, we had to break the cycle of spending and deficits that were killing Canada's economy and jobs. By 1987, Mulroney was managing the government in an operating surplus position, reversing the structural deficits created by the Liberals. The deficits after 1987 were entirely as a result of paying interest on Pierre Trudeau's debt.

The government remained in an operating surplus through successive prime ministers until the current Liberal government came to office. The Mulroney government reined in spending and fundamentally restructured the economy with a new vision to deal with the economics of the day. There were fundamental changes, such as a complete restructuring of Canada's financial services industry; the first introduction anywhere in the world of free trade, which did not exist anywhere before then; the replacement of the 13.5% manufacturers' sales tax with the 7% goods and services tax; the elimination of the national energy program and the job-killing foreign investment review agency; and, yes, the privatization of 23 Crown corporations, which I was proud to be a part of, including Air Canada.

The Chrétien government continued this work with further cuts in government spending, although it took a different approach. It collapsed the separate unemployment insurance fund into the consolidated revenue fund, and then artificially kept payments high in order to build up a surplus that was not needed to pay unemployment insurance but was used to pay down the debt. It dropped the government spending on health care by 50%.

It took the governments that followed more than 25 years to break the back of Trudeau's disastrous spending, but he was a piker compared to his son, who has added more debt to Canada's national accounts in six years than all other governments since our founding in 1867. The son, in 2015, promised small stimulus deficits that would be balanced by 2019. Just like his father did in 1968, when he said he would not spend, the son promised the same thing in 2015. We know how that turned out.

The government spent $600 million on high school students living at home in its first round of COVID spending. The government also spent $11.8 billion on CERB for 15- to 24-year-olds who were living with their parents; $7 billion on spouses in households with more than $100,000 in earnings; $110 billion on the Canada wage subsidy. Some studies have found that the money did obviously go to struggling companies during COVID, but many were strong enough to withstand it on their own; 24% of that money went to companies whose revenue actually increased during COVID, and 49% to companies whose profits increased during COVID.

Spending more than $600 billion in two years, printing more than $3 billion a week in new money, has caused the structural inflation of almost 6% we now see. In the coming year or two, we will start to see wage inflation as a result of the way companies, both unionized and not, determine how their employees get pay raises, which is usually based on inflation. As publicly traded companies raise salaries at all levels, because consultants and their HR board committees will say they need to do so or risk losing their employees to other competitors, combined with the demands for CPI adjustments in union contracts, that is what is going to create wage inflation. We have not seen anything yet. Wage inflation will fuel further goods inflation as more dollars will flood the market chasing limited goods, which in turn leads to higher inflation.

The consequences of providing all these universal government COVID programs, pushing all this money into the economy at levels not needed, and now new social programs when the government is not even properly funding health care, will add to the structural deficit that the country has. The government has no plans to reduce the footprint of government in the economy, which means we are heading toward stagnation, a 1970s-type of situation.

I cannot support this bill, because Bill C-8 and the recently tabled budget will just make Canada's finances drastically worse. The NDP and the Liberals have not learned in their pact from what happened in the 1970s, and they had a pact in the 1970s, too. History is repeating. Like father, like son.

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

Madam Speaker, if the member for Carleton does ultimately become leader of the Conservative Party, there is no doubt he has a credible finance critic for the Conservative right. What we all just witnessed is that reform mentality, that extreme right, of just cutting everything. That is the type of opposition that we could be heading towards, so I wish him well in his future endeavours.

Is the position of the Conservative Party now that the expenses that were used to support programs, such as the wage subsidy and the CERB program, was money not well spent? Does he believe that we should not have ventured into that area?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am always intrigued by the interventions of the member for Winnipeg North, and I appreciate that he thinks I am a future finance minister. I hope he passes that on to the member for Carleton and others. Well, I promoted myself to government.

As members know, we supported those initial programs because of the speed with which the pandemic hit us. Absolutely, all of the parties supported it. However, after we reviewed them a month in, and we all recall that back then people thought it would be for a very short time, but it ended up being longer, and it was time for more targeted programs. It was clear that not all companies and all people were suffering at the same level during COVID. The government failed to do that, and that is the danger of universal social programs.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him.

If we look at the budget and government bills such as Bill C-8, for example, it is clear that they want to centralize everything. It seems as though the government is far more interested in encroaching on someone else's territory than in properly managing its own files.

With Bill C-8, we can see that Ottawa is seeking, for the first time, to take over an area of taxation that is has never been in charge of before—specifically, property taxes—even if it is for noble purpose. However, it seems that the government did not consult municipalities or the provinces.

Like his colleague from Simcoe North, does my colleague believe that the government should have gone to the provinces?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a long history. I went through some of the history on the financial side of the Liberal Party, which always intervenes in provincial jurisdiction. Our party and I know the hon. member's party is very conscious of the Constitution, abiding by the Constitution and allowing the provinces to do their role, whether it is property taxes or the recently announced pharmacare program, which is of course another example of the intrusions into provincial responsibility that the Liberals do.

There is not a dollar of federal government money, which really is not government money as it is taxpayer money, that the Liberals would not want to put a Canadian flag on to send out. Rather than letting the provinces do it, they will ignore the Constitution and intervene in those areas for their own gain and political purposes.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the history that the member for South Shore—St. Margarets has spoken about today. It really made me reflect on the importance of teachers. I am wondering if the member could please share whether he is in support of the refundable tax credit for teachers and ECEs. So many educators are spending money out of their own pockets to do the work they do so well in educating our future generations.

I am wondering if you could speak to whether you support this tax credit or not.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has to address her questions and comments through the Chair. She may want to refrain from using the word “you”.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets has time for a brief answer, please.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a great question. Of course we support teachers. If I did not support teachers, I could not go home because all my in-laws are teachers in Ontario. They are the Waite family.

At the root of it is that teachers should not have to buy supplies for their classrooms. The education system should be funding that. One of the reasons the provinces are having trouble funding the education system is because of the underfunding at the federal level of the health care system. It has been cut from 50% support under the Chrétien government to 22% under the current government.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. Before starting my intervention on Bill C-8, I will say that we have heard in the House that a couple of Canadian hockey icons have passed away. Ironically, when I was writing my speech, I got a text message saying that coach Greg Lanigan, who was from my riding and who was absolutely instrumental in my hockey career and building me to whom I am today, passed away on Monday. Coach Greg Lanigan will be in heavens' hockey hall of fame, at least in my books.

I will go through about five or six points here on Bill C-8. I will go through them in order, and I am reading all of this directly off of the summary sheet from that bill.

The first point is on the northern resident deductions. It says part 1(b) would:

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;

As I continued to go through Bill C-8, I did not see a deduction of travel expenses for skilled trades workers. I did not see that. I did not see a bill that could have simply been, quite frankly, infused into the budget, which is Bill C-241, my private member's bill, which would have a complete deduction of travel expenses. It makes one wonder, if we are going to give a $1,200 travel expense deduction to northern residents, which is great, would it not make sense, if indeed it is so important to pass this bill, to make sure that we recognize the skilled trades and those folks who are going to build back Canada.

The second point is on part 1(d). The bill proposes to:

introduce a new refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions.

At least in Essex, and I just happen to be a bona fide farmer myself, Bill C-8 does not speak to those farmers who are still going through challenging times. As an example, dairy farmers in my riding are still waiting for compensation from the CUSMA deal. Therefore, why do we delay, as we are quite often accused of doing? Bill C-8 does not even consider all the issues.

The third point is housing, which is something that has been talked about an awful lot in the debate of Bill C-8. In the summary, by the way, I do not see where it says that young adults would be able to afford a home or find a home. Nowhere in there does it say that a hard-working young man or woman can actually find a home, let alone afford a home. The bill states:

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.

That is a measly 1% tax. Here is an idea that may be a little bit crazy: Why not give support to municipalities? We could give to support to municipalities such as the municipality of Lakeshore in my riding, which has had to turn away major investments from major hotel chains because it has no stormwater capacity. Why not give major investments to the town of Essex and hamlets such as Colchester and McGregor so they could build the proper sewage systems and, all along the way, build capacity for homes? They are taking it from lagoons, and they are building plants.

Some might say it is because that falls under provincial jurisdiction. We all know there is only one taxpayer, so as opposed to pointing the finger at all of this unused property, let us give it to the municipalities. Let us give them support so they can build hundreds and hundreds of homes.

The other crazy one might just be that perhaps the government should tax itself 1% on unused property because we have a lot of federal buildings that are underused, and there are probably a bunch more now because of all the people who have not come back to work.

The fourth point is denied EI benefits. Bill C-8's summary states:

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.

Just like many other members in this House, I can say in confidence that my office is completely inundated with phone calls about citizenship, about passports or the lack thereof, about EI claims and about tax returns. Before COVID hit, for the four months of what I guess I could call “normalcy” as a member of Parliament, but I am not sure we can, we got return phone calls to our office helping us out along the way. Now, even our offices cannot get return phone calls.

Instead of coming up with ideas for the Employment Insurance Act, and instead of spending money on proof of vaccination for federal employees, why not get them back to work? That way, our offices could actually get answers on citizenships, passports, EI claims and tax returns, and we could actually help our constituents. I got a phone call from Sarah from Canada Post, who is still off work. By the way, she is a letter carrier. She works outside, and she still cannot go back to work. This is not brain surgery. They need to get back to work.

Regarding homelessness, mental health, opioid abuse and suicide, we all know the stories. We all have them in our own backyards. I know in the town of Kingsville, homelessness is on the rise. Again, we have all these federal buildings not being used. Perhaps that would be a great start for affordable housing.

If we want to talk about support. I recently spoke to the Canadian Mental Health Association of Windsor Essex and its members told us that they are completely burnt out. In Bill C-8, which is so important, where is the funding for mental health issues and more staff?

Finally, with regard to a just transition, I spoke to a gentleman from IBEW earlier this week, and he told me that some 700 coal jobs will be eliminated very shortly in the Regina area. Where in Bill C-8 does it talk about training for these 700 folks, so they do not lose their jobs forever and they can just transition into another clean energy project?

In closing, and I think I have laid it out pretty well, Bill C-8 would spend a whole bunch of money, but it would get very little accomplished. Those who need the greatest support have, one more time, been walked past and left behind, all while the remaining Canadians are left holding the tax bill.

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

Madam Speaker, what the member does not necessarily realize is that Bill C-8 is the fall of 2021 economic statement. It is a bill that provides substantial support. For example, there is approximately $1.5 billion towards rapid testing. If the member thinks about it, that was back in the fall, when we recognized the need to make a budgetary allocation for those rapid tests. I am thinking of how much in demand they were in December and January.

There are also many benefits to support small businesses in this legislation.

My question is this: Can the member explain to Canadians why it is that although the Conservative Party recognizes how important the legislation is, its members continue to debate and debate the bill? We had to bring in time allocation to finally try to get the bill, the fall economic statement, passed, when in fact we have already debated the budget for 2022-23.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will tell the House what this member does recognize. What he does recognize is homelessness. What he does recognize is jobs being lost. What he does recognize is farmers not being taken care of. What he does recognize is skilled trades being walked past and people being denied benefits.

What I really recognize is the fact that I have so many constituents calling my office, and they cannot get answers because of this government.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In recent years, we have been seeing more and more of all kinds of not-so-subtle little interferences in areas under the jurisdiction of Québec and the provinces.

This latest one is new: interference in municipal jurisdiction. I know it, the Bloc Québécois knows it, and constitutional lawyer Patrick Taillon confirms that the federal government's move to interfere in municipal jurisdiction is encroachment.

I see something a little insidious and worrisome in the way we are letting these little intrusions slide, even though my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I have expressed our outrage clearly here in the House.

I would like my Conservative colleague to comment on this. I assume he is not wholly in favour of centralization. What are his thoughts on the government's interference in health care and now in municipal taxation?

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, to be honest, in my perusal of Bill C-8, I did not read a lot into that.

I am a freedom fighter. I have always been a freedom fighter. I really think that through all levels of government, if we have open communication and dialogue, there is always a solution, but the solution never happens unless the conversations happen. I thank the member, and let us continue to have open discussion and conversations.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Essex for his intervention.

With regard to taking time, I want to ask the member about this: Since 2007, the citizens of Windsor-Essex county have been waiting for this government to help save Ojibway Shores, and we have yet to see any action on that. I have a private member's bill that would do that, but we still do not have a commitment from the government to do it. I would like to hear from the member about that.

I mean, the Liberals are making complaints about the bill being delayed in this chamber, but at the same time, since 2007, over 130 endangered species are still at risk, and I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did speak to this a couple of weeks ago.

I have met with the mayors. They are in support, and they are in favour. The truth of the matter is that it is already kind of a natural space, so yes, absolutely, let us continue the discussion and let us move it forward.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise and represent the constituents from Kelowna—Lake Country. The government often likes to speak of the economic strength of immigrants who choose to make new lives here in Canada. On this, it is not wrong. Generations of new Canadians have made this country prosper.

The government also likes to make the point, again not wrongly, that immigrants will be strong contributors to ensuring that our nation, as it exits out of this pandemic, rebuilds itself economically. However, immigrants will not be able to do that if they do not choose to stay in Canada. Increasingly, we are seeing troubling signs that both Canadians and newcomers to Canada are looking to take their ingenuity, entrepreneurship and experience elsewhere, thanks to the government's high-cost, high-priced fiscal strategy.

A recent Leger poll showed that 46% of young immigrants say they are less likely to stay in Canada. The top two reasons they look to leave when asked why they would not recommend Canada to future immigrants were the cost of living and the current leadership in government. Some have come from the world's poorest, often corrupt, regions. They come to Canada to escape hostile governments and the dire economic approaches they practice.

Inflation is not a new concept to newcomers. Some have seen bad regimes dilute the value of their earned dollars, and they are seeing the early warning signs of those similarly inflating approaches here in Canada. It does not take training in microeconomics or macroeconomics to get this: $100 buys only two bags of groceries when it used to buy three.

The government continues to say that it is transitory, yet the transition has been from bad to worse. Numerous small businesses and entrepreneurs are telling me they have looked to move south of the border to find better opportunities for their own success. Those comments are not flippant. They are serious, and if we take a step back, we get an idea of how serious they are.

We are now exiting from a once-in-a-century global pandemic and an economic crisis, yet even after weathering two years of economic disruption beyond what anyone can remember, people are still potentially looking to move.

I talked to a business owner from Kelowna—Lake Country recently on the phone while I was at the Toronto airport waiting for a flight, and they were commenting to me on this. Red tape, regulatory burdens and tax increases do not give hope for prosperity. They were looking to move their lives and businesses because of the uncertainty about what the Liberal-NDP plans have done and will do to our economy going forward. A Liberal-NDP government's overinflating fiscal policy, through legislation like Bill C-8, will ruin small businesses' ability to succeed. It will leave families at the mercy of higher prices for gas, groceries and homes. It will leave workers with less purchasing power in their paycheques. The government's insistence on passing yet another overpriced package of spending commitments will only make this worse.

Members of Parliament on that side of the House do not need to take my word for it either. They can take it from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Earlier this year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer expressed his confusion about the government's proposal for $100 billion over the next three years, a number already exponentially increased by NDP agreements. After all, in December 2020, the Prime Minister and his finance minister committed to having guardrails on our economic recovery spending. They said that if Canadians were able to return to their jobs faster, it would decrease the stimulus needing to be spent.

Even though the government claims to have recovered 100% of jobs lost, it has not just ignored those guardrails; it has joined with the New Democrats to build a steep ramp. The Liberal-New Democrat deal outlines new spending sprees even higher than before, deriving even less value for money for Canadian taxpayers while ensuring they will receive an even higher bill by the end of this Parliament.

An area where less value for dollar is of particular concern in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country is on the issue of housing. A recent community survey I sent out had hundreds and hundreds of people respond about how the rise in house prices is affecting them. They gave their suggestions. The government has now sat on that side of the House for seven years. In that time, they have watched the prices of homes in my riding rise year after year, to the point that they have now doubled.

The benchmark selling price of a single-family home in Kelowna has now risen to $1 million. Housing prices in Lake Country rose similarly, with new figures from BC Assessment showing a one-year increase of 32%. These increases jeopardize the ability of retirees on fixed incomes to stay in their homes. They prevent first-time homebuyers from ever being able to buy a home. They force families to live in homes that no longer suit their family's size. They force people to spend far more than 30% of their pre-tax income on rent. The Liberal government and its housing minister insist on saying they support affordable housing, yet they are not insistent on seeing any of it built.

We have a national housing strategy that now effectively applies only to millionaires and a housing accelerator that accelerates prices, but not construction. What is the new Liberal-NDP government's solution to these broken programs via Bill C-8 and other policies? It is to pour more tax dollars into it. Pouring water into a broken dishwasher does not fix it. Spending sprees are not just unfair to those looking for homes today as prices rise, but to those who will be paying for it tomorrow.

The legislation before us alone would cost taxpayers over $70 billion, while our national debt has already risen to $1.2 trillion. The national debt is not talked about by the government. In checking records, unless it was very recently, no member of the government has said the words “national debt” since the last election. Perhaps the government does not believe Canadians care about what the debt load is that they are carrying, but I can report that I have now had the opportunity to see them proved wrong on this twice already within the last month.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation organized a truck to carry a national debt clock around the country. It gives Canadians a second-by-second look at how fast our debt rises. They made a new debt clock, as the government broke the previous one because the total was too high. When they announced they would be in Kelowna—Lake Country, I attended, and I saw them again here in Ottawa. Everyday people I speak with understand that $1 borrowed by the government today is $1 owed by their children and grandchildren of tomorrow. Legislation like what we see here today is only an extension of the ever-increasing receipt, one the government looks insistent on ensuring is passed down the checkout line to those behind them.

Speaking of checkout lines, this month I am surveying my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country with a mail-out to households, to get feedback on how much families are paying at the grocery store. I am looking forward to going through all of those responses as they come in. No one comes up to me to say their dollars are going farther at the grocery store. They tell me that they are thinking of eating less so their kids can have a full meal, or that someone they know personally is starting to skip meals. The CEO of my local food bank recently stated they had seen a 20% increase in clients.

I think of an email I received from a constituent in Kelowna—Lake Country some months ago that stated, “We are taxed to poverty. With EI and CPP premiums all increasing, carbon tax increases along with inflation running rampant, our paycheques keep getting smaller. Canadians are all going to be in the poorhouse.”

I have received hundreds of emails like this. It is my duty to bring these voices from Kelowna—Lake Country into this House, and it is the duty of the government to listen. Sadly, the government is failing to listen, as legislation like this will only leave life more expensive. There is nothing in this $70-billion piece of legislation for fighting inflation or for economic recovery and growth.

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

Madam Speaker, I would differ with the member. Within this legislation, for example, there are supports for small businesses. Contrary to what members opposite believe, when we reflect back on the months of December, January and February, there were many small businesses that needed the type of support that is being provided by this piece of legislation.

Does the member not recognize the need to support small businesses in Canada? If so, why would she make a false accusation that there is no support for people? This is just one example.

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

Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation is like an omnibus bill; it has a number of pieces in it. We have been very supportive all along the way of legislation that has helped small businesses. However, we have also made recommendations to amend a lot of legislation over the last couple of years because the government would put out legislation that was not accommodating and helpful to small businesses. The legislation had a lot of parameters and rules, and small businesses could not apply. We have made many suggestions for that.

One example was that a person had to deal with a major bank and not a credit union in order to apply for programs. Another was that a person had to have a corporate bank account. We have continually made recommendations to the government to help small businesses and have supported small businesses all along the way.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kelowna—Lake Country for that great speech.

We are painfully aware that Bill C‑8 falls short on many fronts, from labour, at a time when there is a severe labour shortage across Canada and Quebec, to fighting tax havens, an area where nothing has been done. Also, forget about health transfers—that is a provincial responsibility.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely, we have a labour crisis in this country, and this legislation does not look at addressing that at all. It is one of the issues that I hear the most about from small business owners, who are placing ads and there is literally no one applying. This is not, as we might assume, in some of the traditional industries that have had challenges in the past, such as hospitality and restaurants. This is across the board. These are construction companies, manufacturing companies and shipping companies. We have to seriously look at this. We have to get people back to work who are able to work, and also put policies forth to deal with this labour crisis.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Kelowna—Lake Country spoke a lot about the cost of living, and like her, I am deeply concerned about the impact of the cost of living on Canadians.

One thing I want to ask her about is corporate pre-tax profits. In 2021, they hit an all-time high of $445 billion. We are seeing gouging happening in all kinds of industries. The profits for the food industry, for example, have gone through the roof. People cannot afford their groceries despite the fact that there are billions of dollars lining the pockets of our corporate sector.

We have seen the Conservatives time and time again vote for actions in the House that will benefit the corporate sector at the expense of regular Canadians. I am wondering whether the member would support an excess profit tax on a number of different industries to make sure they are not gouging consumers.

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

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, as the official opposition, we have continually spoken out against some of the large corporations that have received benefits. For example, we can remember back when the government gave Loblaws millions of dollars to upgrade its fridges. Meanwhile, I was getting phone calls from constituents in my riding, such as a small flower shop owners and convenient store operators, asking if they could access this money to upgrade their fridges.

During this time, some of the largest grocery store chains were allowed to be open during the entire pandemic when other small businesses in the mall or down the street were forced to close. They were classified as essential services, yet they were still able to sell all of their goods, not just food and medication. We were standing against that and asking why the government was closing these small businesses while these largest of companies were allowed to stay open.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the weight of a Canadian one-dollar coin, what we call the loonie, is 6.27 grams. This is a simple number that even a child can understand. I bring that to the House's attention because it seems me that members opposite have lost touch with reality, while at the same time losing their ability to manage Canada's economy. Let us go back to basics in the hope that the Liberals and their NDP friends can gain a glimmer of understanding. I will try to use simple numbers, ones that even a Liberal can understand.

Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update 2021, adds an additional $70 billion to government spending and brings our national debt to $1.2 trillion. Until the government, such a number was inconceivable, which means the members opposite can be forgiven for not understanding the number, even if Canadians cannot forgive them for their spendthrift ways.

A trillion dollars is a million million dollars. That is a one with 12 zeroes, if we are writing it on paper. It is tough to visualize a trillion dollars. However, if we were to take that debt and pay it off with loonie coins, the weight of cash would be 8,400,000,000 kilograms. That is still a difficult number to comprehend, but since the Liberals have no plan to ever reduce the debt, let alone pay it, maybe it does not matter if we cannot visualize it.

Let us look at it in a different way. Using imperial measures, this debt of 1.2 trillion loonies would weigh 7,860,428 tonnes. This is also an unfathomable number, but let us visualize this. The Liberal disaster weighs 150 times as much as the RMS Titanic, the unsinkable ship that went down off the coast of Newfoundland 110 years ago this month in one of the biggest maritime disasters in history, or of all time, to be specific.

The government's fiscal management is a disaster that is 150 times as bad. It is no wonder the Liberals hide behind the big numbers that they hope people do not understand. They have used the pandemic as an excuse to make changes to the economy, to bring in $176 billion in new spending completely unrelated to COVID-19. They are hoping Canadians will not notice, that they will be too distracted by events to notice that the Liberals are spending without any concerns about the future.

Canadians are, on the whole, a financially responsible people. We know that we should not spend more than we earn and that bills must be paid. We know that money for government programs comes from taxes paid by each Canadian. Canadians understand that we are already taxed at the breaking point. The taxpayers of this country cannot afford new taxes and tax increases. At least most Canadians understand that. Those who do not apparently become Liberal or NDP members of Parliament. Those two parties seem determined to spend this country into bankruptcy.

I was born in a country where the government has had to declare bankruptcy. The suffering of ordinary citizens there is heartbreaking. I do not want to see this happen here in Canada.

People in my riding of Edmonton Manning are concerned about rising prices. They feel they will not be able to make ends meet. They want to know when the Liberals will get serious about the economy. They are not happy that the answer seems to be “never”.

Inflation was 6.7% in March, the highest level in more than 30 years. The government response has been a collective shrug. It is an international problem, they say, as they add more inflationary taxes to Canadians' burdens. As gasoline prices reach record highs, the Liberals' response is to raise the tax on fuel to make things more expensive for Canadians. Gasoline costs are up almost 40% in the last year, and groceries are up by almost 10%. Furniture prices are up about 8% in March alone. Housing prices have doubled under the government.

Young Canadians used to dream of graduating from university, getting a job and buying their first home. These were the milestones of adulthood and rites of passage. With the Liberal government, that dream has changed to a nightmare of crippling student debt and living with parents forever because they will never be able to afford a house of their own.

My constituents are concluding that either the Liberals do not understand the problem or they do not care. Canadians deserve a government that will take real action to fight the cost of living crisis and outline a clear commitment to control inflation. We will not find that in Bill C-8.

Under the government, the cost of a typical house has risen from $435,000 to $810,000. With inflation, purchasing power is down, not up, and wages are not keeping pace. Who can afford a house under this titanic disaster of a Liberal policy? Our economy has hit an iceberg and is sinking fast under the weight of 150 Titanic ships.

We are told inflation will cost Canadians $2,000 each this year. We already know the Prime Minister does not shop for his own groceries, so he has not noticed the increases in prices on everything in the store. Bread, milk and other dairy products, meat and vegetables are all more expensive than they were this time last year. What is the government doing to address the concerns of Canadians concerned about their ability to afford nutritious food? It is doing absolutely nothing.

Rising prices and inflation are happening everywhere, they say. That is just an excuse for inaction. If the government does not understand how the economy works, if it cannot figure out how to help average Canadians in their time of need, maybe it should do the honourable thing, step aside and let someone else fix its problems, someone who will have Canadians' backs instead of stabbing those backs with high prices. That, of course, is not going to happen. The Liberals have no idea what a trillion dollars is, or how much 1.2 trillion loonies weigh. They do not seem to understand that there is a problem.

The Prime Minister has asked Canadians to forgive him for not thinking about monetary policy. That is a disaster. How can we forgive him and his government for polices that make things worse for families and worse for the middle class? How can we forgive him for a $1.2-trillion debt that our grandchildren will still be paying off?

The government is a fiscal disaster of titanic proportions. There is nothing in this bill that can hide that fact.

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

Madam Speaker, one thing we do know is that when we stick to the facts of reality, we will find that the Canadian economy is doing relatively well when we compare it with other economies, whether it is that of the United States or Europe. In fact, when we take a look at the number of jobs that have been recovered since the pandemic, Canada has more than recovered the jobs that had been lost. This is in good part because we are working with Canadians and other levels of government and have the backs of Canadians. That seems to be going in the opposite direction of how the Conservative Party would have approached the pandemic, believing in not supporting small businesses and not supporting Canadians who are in difficult times.

I am wondering if the member has any regret in supporting some of the programs we initially brought in that the Conservatives said they would support but today seem to criticize.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer is simple. This is a government that tries to use excuses every time they have their backs to the wall because they are doing a bad job and because they are mismanaging. What I am hearing from the other side is complete irresponsibility over how to deal with the economy or how to even understand the economy. The Liberals are talking about figures, rhetoric and how much we spend, and are trying to pit Canadians against each other over their spending for COVID.

Now more than ever, they need to be responsible. They need to understand what inflation can do to the loonie and what inflation can do to the currency. It is not buying as much as it should. They need to understand the economy before they talk about it, stop the rhetoric and get to work.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my Conservative colleague say a moment ago that if the Liberals do not understand how the economy works and do not know how to get the job done, they should step aside and let a responsible party do it. I heard my colleague's appeal, but I regret to say that the Bloc Québécois has no intention of taking over the government. We are here to make proposals, but we do not want to govern. I think we are the only responsible option and that will simply not work right now.

My question is about the announcement we heard earlier that a new gag order is going to be imposed a bit later. I would like to know whether my colleague has any concerns about the number of time allocation motions that are starting to pile up. Would he agree that this suggests that the government does not seem to fully understand that Quebeckers and Canadians have given it a mandate to govern in co-operation with the opposition parties, and not as though it were a majority government?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, to the first part of the question, Canadians will answer to the mismanagement that is going on through the NDP-Liberal coalition or agreement, just to continue doing what they are doing until 2025. I believe the Bloc Québécois was part of that in 2008, trying to somehow topple the government, to disallow us to continue doing what we were doing to make sure we built the Canadian economy properly.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech, especially the rich, maritime analogies.

I would continue that analogy by saying that many people feel this is a bill that needs to get to port. This is a ship that needs to get to port. There are things in it that people are waiting for, especially teachers, who are waiting for their school supplies tax credit. Right now, CRA is sitting on their tax returns because certain parties in this place have drawn out the debate for much longer and have kept the ship at sea much longer than it needed to be. There have been five debates at second reading and six at report stage.

What does the member have to say to those teachers in my riding?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the ship is loaded with debt and will never make it to port. As for the teachers the hon. member is asking about, he knows that education is a provincial jurisdiction.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-8 at report stage. Bill C-8 has been a bit of a baby on our side over here. I actually helped shepherd this through when it was first introduced in the House, and we looked at it at finance committee for some time. We had a number of proposals brought forward at committee to try to make it a better bill. We are still trying to make it a better bill, but one of the issues we have been focusing on, and I think the government has finally started to try and focus on, although I do not really think the Liberals know what they are doing, is housing. I say that with some concern for our country going forward because I do not think the government has its eye on the ball with housing. I think it has missed the mark for seven long years.

If we look at housing in Canada seven years ago and at housing now, the demographics have changed. We are more and more of an investing country for real estate, as opposed to a living country for real estate. That is because we have lost everything else to invest in in this country.

If a Canadian wants to put their money safely into an investment that would return l5% a year, their financial advisor would say there is one commodity under this broken government with which they would get 15% a year. The only thing happening in the Canadian economy of any extent right now is residential housing. Everything else has fallen to the wayside.

As a matter of fact, combined investment in the Canadian economy has gone negative. That means depreciation of our assets in Canada. Our capital stock, such as farms, factories and buildings, is negative if it depreciates more than the money that has been invested in Canada over the past number of years. That is a problem because we need long-term sustainability. It is the first time in our history when we have experienced this.

The government has to start paying attention to that because it has been ignoring too much as far as our economy goes. Part of the reason for that is the regulations that have stopped investment in this country and the regulations that have stymied the development of our best industries in Canada, with no clear thought about the outcome of what happens there.

In the bill there is a 1% surtax for non-resident owners of passively held real estate. This is a trap. I am going to tell the government this right now. What Canadian people need to understand is that this is a way for the federal government to find a way to tax what should be within a municipal taxation mechanism, and that is a tax on property. Right now there is already a tax on property. Everybody here who owns a home knows that tax. We pay it once a year in June in my province. It is our municipal taxes. Those municipal taxes are based on the value of our property, and they have an escalation in some provinces.

B.C. in particular has started escalating that based on non-resident owners, and in some cases it is as much as 6% higher in British Columbia. Regardless of that application of an extra 5%, plus 1%, plus 2%, or however it happens in Vancouver and different parts of the Lower Mainland, 7.7% of the housing stock in the Lower Mainland is still owned by foreign investors. Not that that is a bad thing, although it is in some cases, which I will go into later in my speech. I think Canada should be a country that does accept foreign investment. I wish that foreign investment coming into Canada was going into productive uses in our economy. Housing is a passive investment, and I do not think the government understands any of that.

This is part of the problem we have. The Liberals are being schizophrenic. We now have a budget in front of the House of Commons, in addition to the measures taken in Bill C-8. We have a budget that says we are going to stop foreign buying for two years. We will put on the brakes while we figure this out. That is what the government is saying at this point. Interestingly, this was part of the Conservative platform in the election. I take pride in that because we had identified foreign interference in the Canadian housing market as the one issue that first and foremost we needed to adjust in order to get back to a level playing field, where Canadians could actually buy the houses and the condos they live in. That was identified by the Conservatives in the election, and I am glad that the Liberals have finally, after seven years, figured out how to move this lever forward.

Think about that. In Bill C-8 we have a 1% surtax, and the government is saying that it will also stop this for two years. Liberals are only figuring this out now, and I am going to suggest that they are not getting good advice on this file.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a Crown corporation of the government. I would say that in the last seven years, its non-partisanship has been diminished to the point where it is just an instrument of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is an absolute shame.

I look at what is happening here and around the world, and I see this group of people who are continuing to put more money in their own pockets with huge bonuses, but with what outcome? In most parts of Canada, when we get a bonus it is based on the fact that we did our job very well. The bonuses being received by our public officials in this case are being received because they are ruining the Canadian housing economy for Canadians. How are they doing that? Well, they are coming up with all kinds of programs, none of which are working and all of which are throwing words against the wall and have no real outcome for Canadians.

I am going to suggest that perhaps we need new leadership and perhaps we need a new minister. The minister disclosed earlier this week, and I am reporting what I heard on the news, that he has also recently invested in the Canadian housing market. It is good that he has a financial adviser who says that since there is nothing else to invest in in Canada, go into housing. However, I think that is part and parcel of the problem here, and maybe the people advising him to do that are at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I do not think he would have invested in housing if he saw a correction on the horizon.

We need a slowdown in the escalation of housing prices in Canada. That is what the country requires in order to get back to a basis where new families and new Canadians can afford to buy a home and live here.

Part of the problem we have in the Canadian housing market, of course, is the foreign influence of money laundering. I am going to go through money laundering here with the House. An amount between $43 billion and $113 billion is laundered in Canada each year, and it contributes to domestic problems such as higher house prices and fentanyl.

I have knocked on doors in Calgary Centre in two elections now, in 2019 and 2021. The number of homeless people, the number of people dying of fentanyl and the amount of drug addiction in my riding in downtown Calgary has grown exponentially. Part of that is linked to foreign money that is coming in, bad foreign money. There is good foreign money coming in to invest, but there is also laundered foreign money, the proceeds of crime, that is just looking for a home. That is what we need to combat here in Canada more than anything else, and it is the main issue on which the government has failed. I have always said that the number one thing we could do is address the money laundering laws in Canada to stop this from happening any further.

Now, $43 billion to $113 billion is a big gap because it is an estimation, but a bunch of that is going into investments that are safe, like houses. I have called on the minister and called on the government to stop that trade, and the Minister of Finance says they will look at doing this in 2025. I am curious as to why. If they know there is a problem and they know we are the worst perpetrator of money laundering in the G7, why are they going to wait another three years before they decide to look at it?

I am going to suggest that there might be some link there. Is it a long-term exit, where they get a whole bunch of buyers coming in and laundering money in Canada who are associated with people they know? I am going to suggest that maybe there is no impetus on the other side of the House to actually reduce the price of houses for Canadians across Canada. This is a travesty. Take the first step first, and get toward a base of housing investment in Canada that makes sense.

In the budget, the government came up with this crazy idea of building a whole bunch more houses in Canada. We have lots of houses in Canada. As a percentage of our economy, it is actually more than any other sector at this point in time. By throwing more money at the wall, we are going to further inflate the cost of houses because there are not enough trades out there to build them. There is also not enough money out there and lumber out there to do it. Let us think about all that is going to go up in this process.

As I said, this is a crazy approach from a government that is only trying to find its feet. It does not have good advisers on housing and does not have good policy on housing. It needs to set itself back, say that this is a major problem in Canada, particularly for young Canadians and people buying their first home, and get back to a basis where we start making sense in this country again.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bit much when we think about it. We have gone from the days of Stephen Harper, who completely ignored the housing industry as a whole, to a government that brought in the first national housing strategy, committing literally billions of dollars to low-income, non-profit housing and supporting the provinces and territories in providing units, repairs and so forth. In many ways, in the first-time homebuyer program we have recognized the value and importance of housing. At the end of the day, the federal government needs to play a leadership role and has been playing a leadership role.

There is a shortage of housing stock, so would my friend not agree that the best way to deal with the housing shortage, inasmuch as we play a leadership role, is for municipalities and, to a certain degree, provinces to also come on? It is an issue of supply. Does he have any recommendations on what he believes we can do to increase the supply of housing?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's admiration of Stephen Harper and his government's admiration of Stephen Harper's policies. The first-time homebuyer program is a bit of a copy of the tax-free savings account, a great savings instrument for Canadians. I know the Liberals copied that to have something called the first-time homebuyer program, which would be great if people had money to put into another savings account while they are saving for a mortgage at the same time. I thank the member for some constructive comments on that. We will see how it works. It is not the worst plan I have seen from those on the other side of the House, and I have to give them that credit, but there are other issues.

To deal with my friend's question, he talked about the supply of housing. The supply of housing in Canada is as high as it has ever been. The issue is that the supply of money going into housing is also as high as it has ever been. Thirty per cent of the houses built in Canada now are owned by investors, like the member's cabinet minister, the Minister of Housing, who recently went into that as well. This is part of the problem. Everybody is investing in housing because there is nowhere else to invest. I wish the member had heard that in my speech.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supported this bill at second reading because it did not have much substance and there were so many things to improve. Acting in good faith, we voted in favour of the bill so we could work on it. Basically, not much has happened since, and we are once again left with a bill that is devoid of substance.

This bill does very little to address the labour shortage and gives almost no consideration to supply chain problems. Basically, there is very little in the bill despite the urgent problems. What are my colleague's thoughts on the absence of any real solutions in Bill C-8?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with my colleague from Drummond. Inflation is a problem in the Canadian economy. Inflation is caused by price increases and other factors, but the economy is also partially to blame for inflation.

Consider the lumber shortage, for example. Lumber prices skyrocketed last summer, increasing by nearly four times. It was a real problem, which significantly increased the cost of houses. Other supply chain issues are also going to drive up the price of homes.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing my colleague from Calgary talked about is that fentanyl is one of the things being used as a money-laundering tool. We have talked about housing and affordability, and he brought up the issue of fentanyl. I am someone who is deeply concerned about the poisoned drug supply in our communities and who recognizes that housing is part of the solution for those suffering from the poisoned drug supply. In fact, the combination of mental health, housing and a safe supply is part of the solution.

I am wondering if the member will be supporting my colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni, regarding his bill, Bill C-216, on making sure there is safe supply for folks in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker, Jamie Schmale]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre has 20 seconds or less.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I remember reading an article from a well-known Canadian years ago that said the source of the money being brought into Canada does not matter: If it is dirty elsewhere, once it gets to Canada it will be fine. That is completely absurd, and a well-known Canadian wrote that.

When we are inviting dirty money into Canada, we are inviting everything that is associated with that dirty money, such as the drug pushing and the other crimes associated therewith. Making sure it stays isolated from Canada is part of our goal in getting more investment into Canada.

I am sorry I was not able to address the question fully.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to see you in the chair. It suits you well. We never know what will happen in the future, but I think you would really appreciate being on the other side in three years, just as the Conservatives would and as all Canadians would like to see, by the way.

We are therefore gathered here today to talk about Bill C-8, which deals with the economic update and implements some of the government's financial measures.

I want to say from the outset that my speech will deal exclusively with something that is currently affecting the financial situation of all Canadians, and that is inflation, of course.

For many months now, Canada has been grappling with its highest inflation rate in 31 years. It is important to remember that, at that time, there were also substantial interest rate hikes and we finally managed to bring inflation under control. However, we have not had an inflation rate of 6.7% in 31 years, and it is affecting all Canadian families. Everyone, without exception, has been directly affected by the high inflation rate.

Why do I want to talk about that today?

It is simply because I do not think there is anything at all in Bill C-8 that directly addresses the problem of inflation, which is having an impact on all Canadian families. The bill provides no relief for them. However, there are two things that the government could do but has failed to do.

Inflation affects everyone. However, as the report issued by the Royal Bank of Canada a few days ago indicates, unfortunately, the poorest among us are those who are hardest hit by inflation. Why? The reason is that essential goods, such as food, housing and transportation, are directly impacted by inflation.

A high-income person eats just as much as a person with a lower income. If the price of food goes up, those with a very high income will be much less affected than people with a low income. We are not talking about luxuries here, or the proverbial cherry on top, but about essential goods that have been drastically affected by inflation. That is why this affects every Canadian family and that is why the government should focus its financial and budgetary efforts on helping Canadians cope with inflation.

I must have asked the government dozens and dozens of questions about inflation, as has my colleague from Carleton, and as have all my colleagues on this side of the House.

The Minister of Finance generally tells us that it is not the government's fault, that this is happening all around the world. She says it is because of the health crisis we had, the supply problems affecting the entire globe, and the war in Ukraine. It is not Canada's fault; this is happening all around the world. To that, I say no.

Let us not forget that when Bill C‑8 was introduced and we were asking questions about inflation, this government told us that it was temporary. We were told that this problem would sort itself out, which brought to mind the sadly infamous and pitiful statement of the current Prime Minister, who said in 2015 that budgets balance themselves.

That is not true. A budget does not balance itself. Nor is it right to say that inflation resolves itself, as the government claimed just six months ago. As the Governor of the Bank of Canada says, it is here to stay, and we must get a handle on it.

The government needs to take two measures to directly address inflation, and this has nothing to do with what is happening in Ukraine, or with the supply chain or with the pandemic. The government needs to freeze price and tax increases and control spending. Why?

When people have concerns about their personal budget and are unsure whether they can buy something, invest in a place, or pay for an unexpected expense, they have to ask themselves questions and think twice. They cannot just spend as much as they would like, and they have to make choices.

This is exactly the approach that should be taken by the head of any family—father, mother or anyone taking care of a family. Sometimes the entire family deals with it, and that is what needs to happen. People take action, think twice and control their spending. That is the responsible way to govern. However, this government has done everything except control spending. Everything that has been done since 2015 shows a total lack of fiscal responsibility.

Let us not forget that in 2015 they got elected on a promise that they would run three small deficits and in 2019 there would be no deficit—zero deficit. That was the proposal, the solemn commitment from the Liberals in 2015. The reality is that we have not had three small deficits and then, poof, none at all. We have had one, two, three, four astronomical deficits each time. They just cannot help themselves. It increases year after year.

I cannot help but laugh at the budget tabled by the government, which states that, in five years, the deficit will be a tiny $8 billion. No one believes that, because these people have not governed properly since 2015.

Of course we understand there had to be extraordinary spending because of the pandemic. That is completely understandable. We will give the government that. However, just because the government was spending does not mean it could not keep that spending under control. That is the issue. Let me point out that, when our party was in government, it had to deal with the worst economic crisis ever, the 2008 crisis. That was the worst economic crisis since the 1920s and 1930s. Our government governed responsibly. Yes, there were deficits, but we had a plan. As a result of that plan, in 2015, under the Conservative government and thanks to the sound management of our finance ministers, we were the first G7 country to recover after the 2008 crisis. That is something to be proud of, and our management of public monies was realistic and responsible.

The current government went on a spending spree, even though economic growth was strong from 2015 to 2019 and money could have been set aside. We are not against the extraordinary spending and the very high deficits that happened because of the pandemic, but now that it has been done, the government needs to manage matters properly and accountably and keep things under control, which it is not doing. The more the government spends, the more that spurs inflation. The more money is injected into the economy, the more prices rise. The first thing to do is control spending.

The second thing to do is freeze increases. In an ideal world, we might ask for taxes to be waived. That might be nice, but it would not be realistic or responsible. Yes, there are some taxes that we do not agree with, such as the Liberal carbon tax, but at the very least, to give Canadian families a break, the government should not increase these taxes. It had a golden opportunity to give families a break on April 1, but it decided to go ahead as if it was business as usual, as if there were no inflation, as if money flowed like water and everyone had money jingling in their pockets, as if no family had any problems. Consequently, today, because of the Liberal carbon tax, the cost of transportation is spiralling upwards and not downwards, and that is unfortunate.

The government should have looked to President Macron and his management approach. I may perhaps surprise many people by saying that, but it is true. France had opportunities to freeze certain prices and it did so. The inflation rate in France is 4.1%; in Canada, it is 6.7%.

Those are some tangible things that the government could have chosen, and should choose, to do in order to give families a break. Every Canadian family has been affected by inflation. The hardest hit are the most vulnerable. This government must pay close attention to this situation and the reality on the ground. This government must do two things: control spending and stop scattering money willy-nilly, and immediately freeze all rate increases and tax hikes.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to approach the issue of inflation. We have had, whether it was during the budget debate or the Bill C-8 debate, a great deal of concern raised about the issue of inflation.

When Canadians look at the issue and reflect on it, we have to be fair in debating it. We need to recognize that yes, we do have an inflation rate in Canada that we would all like to see lower. At the same time, we need to recognize that by comparison, in the United States of America or many European countries, their inflation rate is actually higher than the Canadian inflation rate.

In terms of recognizing the importance of inflation and reflecting on comparisons, does he have countries he likes to compare Canada to specifically when it comes to some of these economic indicators?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, when I said earlier in question period that all the Liberal MPs would be at home watching TV, I was quite sure the member for Winnipeg North would be here in the House of Commons, like he is right now. I cannot say whether he is alone, but there are some clear indications around that.

That has been a serious question, and yes, there is some comparison, positive and negative. As a Canadian, I see Canada as a gold mine for the economy, because we have everything. When we make comparisons, I prefer to compare my country to the best in the world, instead of those that struggle too much. There are France and Italy, and I want to remind the member of the example of France, when the French government decided to shut down every increase of tariffs. It said there would be no increase in tariffs. Canada's government should take inspiration.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent speak in the House.

One thing we would have liked to see in this bill is a bit more recognition of the issues facing small businesses.

My numbers are from October 31, 2021, and the situation may have gotten worse since then, but the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, states that more than one-quarter of SMEs in Quebec may not make it through 2022. Recovery is not a given, and it is not easy.

Does my colleague agree that the criteria for partial loan forgiveness under the Canada emergency business account could be made more flexible, based on certain conditions that would be determined down the road? That would be a big help to businesses that are having a hard time getting out of pandemic-related debt, including these loans.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Drummond, whom I respect and hold in high regard, and with whom I share certain areas of interest, such as transportation.

I want to point out that the hon. member has hit on something important. When the health crisis occurred with the pandemic, immediate steps had to be taken to help our businesses and business owners. Were those steps good? Were there too many? Could they have been better? Of course, the answers vary.

However, as my colleague so aptly put it, we are now seeing businesses struggling to get back to normal because of supply chain issues and the labour shortage. Some businesses are even struggling with production. They have contracts, orders and calls to go ahead with the work, but they are unable to do it because of supply chain issues and the labour shortage.

Speaking of the labour shortage—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the member to give someone else a chance to ask a question.

The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, we talk a lot in the House about the hardships currently facing Canadians across the country. Unfortunately, when the Conservatives had the chance to help them, they decided to keep stock options for rich CEOs.

Why do the Conservatives insist on protecting the profits of the wealthiest rather than helping the most vulnerable members of our society?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my colleague from western Canada on the quality of her French.

Each and every tax measure deserves to be assessed on its own merits and should be reviewed at the appropriate time.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and contribute to a debate. Today, we are debating at report stage 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. I always enjoy the long titles to bills because they give a sense of what the bill actually is. An economic statement or a fiscal update is kind of like a mini-budget. It is a chance for a government to provide some economic and budgetary measures without having an entire budget.

However, what we have seen now is that we have had the fall economic statement, we have had Bill C-8, we have had the actual budget, and in the coming days we will have the budget implementation act for this year's budget. Those are four different opportunities for the government to take meaningful action to help the people of Canada, to help people who are struggling with the cost of living, to help people struggling with inflation and to help those small business owners who over the last two years have faced lockdowns and restrictions, including restaurants, hospitality and tourism sector. The government has had all these opportunities and yet time and time again we have seen the government fail to meaningfully act to help the people in Perth—Wellington and the people across Canada.

What is equally concerning is that today's debate is being done under the threat of a guillotine motion. That guillotine motion is a time allocation motion, a motion that cuts off debate. We have seen this before. We have seen the Liberals rail for years against time allocation and against closure and then flip around and use that themselves. What is especially interesting this time is that it is being done in the shadow of Motion No. 11. Here we have the government using time allocation on this bill and yet at the same time it has given notice for closure on Motion No. 11.

Some may not know what Motion No. 11 actually would do. Motion No. 11 would allow the government not to show up for work. Motion No. 11 would allow the House of Commons to function without quorum. Just to show how out of the ordinary this is, the concept of quorum in the House of Commons, a minimum number of people being present in the chamber, is constitutionally protected. It is not a large number. We can count it on two sets of hands. It is 20 people. Some people may want to take off their socks to count that high, but it is not that high a number. That is including the Speaker. It is the Speaker plus 19 members.

In fact, if we consult the authorities of this place, including Beauchesne's Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th edition, edited by our good friend Mr. John Holtby of Brockville, Ontario, we see that it says this at paragraph 280: “The Constitution Act, s. 48 specifies that the quorum of the House is twenty, including the Speaker.” Paragraph 281 states, “Any Member may direct the Speaker's attention to the fact that there is not a quorum present.”

This is something that is provided for in the authorities of this place, consistent with the Constitution of our country, Constitution Act, 1867. The government, with Motion No. 11, would withdraw the concept of quorum, allowing this place to function without the bare number of 20 people. This is simply unacceptable and in the coming days I hope to contribute more specifically to this debate. However, for now I will leave it at that and I will move on to some of the issues included in Bill C-8.

As I have mentioned in this House many times, the great riding of Perth—Wellington includes some of the most fertile farmland in the world. Quite literally, Perth—Wellington is the heartland of Canadian agriculture. There are more dairy farmers in Perth—Wellington than in any other electoral district in the country. Wellington County is number one for chicken production in Canada and in the top five in Ontario for beef and pork. What I hear all the time from farmers and farm families is the struggle they are facing, particularly when it comes to the rising cost of things. One thing in particular that we hear about time and time again is the carbon tax. The carbon tax is adding extra costs to farmers and farm families with no way to recoup those costs.

The Liberals will point to Bill C-8 saying there is going to be a rebate in it and that farmers can apply for those rebates. That is not what farmers are asking for. They are asking for the bill that was brought forward in the previous Parliament by my colleague, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, Bill C-206, which passed through the House of Commons with support from our friends in the Bloc, the New Democrats and the Greens. It made it through this place and was in the Senate. However, as we all know, it was killed when the government dissolved Parliament to call its unnecessary election. With the budget, the fiscal update, Bill C-8 and the budget implementation act, the government had the opportunity to do the right thing and adopt the measures that were contained in Bill C-206.

Our friend, our colleague, the member for Huron—Bruce, has introduced Bill C-234, which is in direct response to what farmers and farm families are asking for. They are asking for the on-farm use for drying of grain to be excluded from the carbon tax, when there are no alternatives. There are no ways for farmers to use other alternatives to dry their grains. They must use carbon-based fuel. Therefore, it makes no sense that the government is charging them, time and again, with no results. Once again, this is a missed opportunity for the government to take meaningful action when it comes to the cost of on-farm fuel.

That is not the only problem farmers are facing today. The other is the rising cost of fertilizer. I want to be clear. Every farmer, every farm business and every Canadian I have spoken to agree that tough sanctions against Vladimir Putin and his thugs are needed and warranted. However, those farmers and agri-businesses that purchased and have purchase orders for fertilizer pre-March 2, before the sanctions were introduced, should not be subject to a 35% tariff. That 35% tariff does nothing to Vladimir Putin and his thugs, because the purchase has already been made; it is simply money coming out of the pockets of farmers and farm families and going into the government coffers.

The government has not yet even addressed this. It has not provided a response. Yesterday in question period, in response to a question from the Bloc Québécois, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food said:

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleague that we are taking the situation very seriously. We are looking at various options.

We want to make sure our farmers have the inputs they need for a good season so Canada can contribute to food security at home and around the world.

The planting season is upon us. Farmers and farm families are making decisions right now. They are paying for fertilizer right now with a 35% tariff that they did not anticipate and could not have anticipated in October, November or December when they purchased it. They are now being levied a 35% tariff on top of it. It is completely unacceptable, because it hurts only farmers, not Vladimir Putin and his regime. I again encourage the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, if she has any sway at the cabinet table, if she has any influence with her own government, to stand up for farmers and for those who are working hard to literally feed our country, to feed the world, and do the right thing.

We are going to be seeing challenges in the years to come based on the out-of-commission farmland that is currently in Ukraine. We are going to be called upon as Canadians, as Canadian farmers, to address that shortage, and if the government is hamstringing and preventing Canadian farmers from feeding the world, then it is a crying shame and simply unacceptable.

I have been given the one-minute warning, so I want to address very quickly the point of housing.

We have seen house prices in Canada skyrocket over the last two years. I have seen it in the small rural communities within Perth—Wellington. We are seeing prices skyrocket, which makes housing unaffordable for young families, people getting out of university and newly married families with young kids trying to find a spot. It is unacceptable. The cost is being driven up for young people and it is driving them out of the market. The government needs to address it. We need to increase the supply of housing in Canada, and it needs to be done now, not five or 10 years from now.

I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 11, and do not let anyone be fooled, is all about extending the hours. The quorum the member is making reference to is something that occurs at emergency debates, take-note debates and other situations. What we are talking about is in the evenings. It is a question of whether or not the Conservatives want to show up to work. Do they want to have additional debate time, or do they not want to have additional debate time?

The question is more focused when the member makes reference to the mini-budget idea, why the government is coming forward and why, in his opinion, we are not doing anything.

Let me give a specific example, that of child care. We have the very first national child care program. It is going to help families. It is going to help businesses. It is going to help our economy. However, the Conservatives are opposing it. When it comes to any idea of any value, the Conservatives consistently vote against initiatives that are for the betterment of Canadians. Why is that?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to address, first, Motion No. 11. The member has been in this place for many years. He physically is in this place all the time. I often wonder if he has a sleeping bag underneath his desk, and I say that in a positive light, because he is here a lot.

What he fails to understand is that in the examples he has raised, there is no question put. What he is talking about now is that a parliamentary debate on legislation where questions are put to this Parliament assembled will no longer have a quorum, and parliamentarians will no longer have the ability to fulfill our constitutional duty to review government legislation, so the member is wrong. In the examples he raised, there are no questions put.

When he is talking about other measures within the budget, I hear from families in rural communities that will receive zero benefits from the measures he is talking about. They use family members. They use unlicensed child care. They use the neighbourhood to provide child care, and they will not get any benefit from the measures that the member is talking about.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague and thank him for his substantive speech.

I would also like to make a comment. I find it truly shocking to see the government's attitude as it imposes closure, limiting the powers of parliamentarians in the House, as its members rise to say that this is the right thing to do. We truly see that the government would like to exercise its power autocratically, without being accountable to the House. It is deplorable.

My question on his speech refers to the part regarding tariffs on fertilizer. It is disastrous. We know how many hours farmers have to work and how much money has to be invested to be able to produce this.

Does my colleague think that the government will act on time?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette for his good question.

Indeed, the government must take action. It has to do something about the taxes on fertilizers. Our farmers and our families are working hard every day. Now they are facing uncertainty because of the current government.

Where is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food? She is not doing anything. She gives answers during question period, but does not take any meaningful measures to help the families and the farmers who produce food for everyone in Canada and around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague used some very evocative language and the term “guillotine” to describe the fact that we are in time allocation on this bill. I would be compelled by his arguments if this bill had not received very much debate in the House but, to my understanding, it has been debated five times in second reading and six times at report stage, and here we find ourselves again.

The people caught in the crossfire, among others, are teachers who have already done their taxes and have claimed the school supplies tax credit, and farmers who have claimed the tax credit. Maybe they wish there was a different mechanism, but some will obviously claim the tax credit here, in the bill. Can the member speak to those two groups who are waiting for CRA to process their tax filings?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the term “guillotine motion” is a common phrase. It is used at Westminster all the time.

To his specific question, the government could have acted. They have had the ways and means motion passed in the House of Commons, which could direct CRA to implement these changes on this year's tax return. They are using this as a delay mechanism. Specifically, the member mentions the number of times this has been debated. This is the first time I have been able to get up in the House and speak to the bill at any reading, because this has been pushed along through the parliamentary process. It is our job as parliamentarians to debate the issues, not to be an audience for the government.

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

Madam Speaker, like my colleague from Perth—Wellington, this is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-8 at any stage of this bill's process going through the House of Commons, and I appreciate the opportunity to actually have the ability to speak to Bill C-8 at least while I still have it under the guillotine of Motion No. 11.

I find it more than a bit strange that the Liberal leadership has managed to mismanage this House so much so that we are debating an act to implement provisions of the 2021 winter fiscal update two days after we voted on the 2022 budget. I suppose Liberal incompetence really should not be a surprise after all we have seen in the last six years.

The economic and fiscal update 2021 committed to add an additional $70 billion of spending that would do little more than continue to drive up inflation. The fiscal update also made it clear that the so-called fiscal guardrails that the government likes to reference when it abandons any semblance of a fiscal anchor are simply a communications tool and not actually something the government is committed to using to guide their economic decisions.

The need for stimulus right now is simply non-existent. The notion has been panned by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and virtually every reasonable private sector economist. Despite this, the government has committed to all kinds of unnecessary spending in the fiscal update, and now it has added even more in the 2022 budget with numerous costly campaign promises still waiting in the wings.

To make matters worse, much of this spending is not actually stimulus, because it would not do anything to stimulate the economy, attract investment or promote long-term, sustainable growth. Much of the government's proposed spending is simply about ideological goals. It has been using the excuse that interest rates are low, so the debt service payments will also be low. Well, the bill has already started to come due on this line of thinking.

The Bank of Canada has increased interest rates twice already in order to combat inflation that is in large part being driven by the government's out-of-control spending, most recently by a full half a percentage point, the single largest jump in more than two decades. The reality is that the Bank of Canada has been very clear that it is not even close to being done when it comes to raising rates. The Governor has said it will use the interest rate policy to return inflation to target and will do so forcefully if necessary.

The chief economist at BMO Capital Markets suggested there is a solid possibility that we can expect another half a percentage point increase in June of this year as well. We expect the rate to double at an absolute minimum, and the suggestion that it could triple or more is completely within the realm of possible.

That should give the Liberals and the NDP consideration to pause, and to think that the more money they spend, the more they drive up inflation, the higher the interest rate is going to go and, ultimately, the worse off Canadians would be. Unfortunately, it appears there is absolutely no foresight in the government. The focus is on the announcement and the photo-op. It is all style, with very little, if any, substance, and on giving the social media influencers on its payroll something to work with so they can go out and actually try to convince and mislead Canadians that it is accomplishing a lot, when in reality it is spending a lot with no results at all.

This also is not just about affordability now either, though that is certainly a vital component. With 53% of Canadians less than $200 from insolvency, the cost-of-living crisis we are currently experiencing cannot be overstated. As inflation drives up the costs of goods, ever smaller unanticipated issues are hitting Canadians hard. Some are one car repair away from insolvency.

As interest rates increase, it will become more and more expensive for Canadians to take out a loan, add debt to their credit card or put more on their line of credit to deal with these types of emergencies.

We also need to consider the generations to come, and the moral implications of the NDP-Liberal spending and how it will affect our children, our grandchildren and subsequent generations.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance described the housing affordability crisis in Canada as an “intergenerational injustice”. While the budget she has presented certainly did not seem to treat it like an issue of importance, it is good to know that at least somebody understands the words "intergenerational injustice”. What about the intergenerational injustice and impact of all of this spending, housing only being a small part of it?

We have an aging population. In fact, the census data that came out just yesterday from StatsCan showed that the working-age population in Canada has never been older and over 21% of the population is close to retirement, which is an all-time high. Between 2016 and 2021, the number of children under 15 grew at a pace six times slower than those over the age of 65.

Even with ambitious immigration, the NDP-Liberal government is creating the perfect storm that will absolutely devastate our society for future generations. We are going to have fewer people starting from a place of disadvantage being required to repay the debt the government is racking up through some unholy combination of either increased taxes or reduced services. Instead of pulling back, the Liberals are pushing expensive ideological pet projects and buying off the support of the New Democrats with programs that provinces are not even asking for and Canadians simply cannot afford. They are doing this to avoid any accountability or scrutiny for another four years.

How is this any less of an intergenerational injustice than the 100% increase in the average cost of a home, which has been what the current government has overseen in the last six years? It is not, but the elites in the Liberal Party are not worried about that, because they measure success by dollars out the door, not any outcomes whatsoever. When someone has a standing invitation to Davos they are not too worried about the future financial tremors that feel like seismic quakes to us poor lowly working-class Canadians.

Embracing fiscally responsible spending is not just an economic imperative; it is a moral one. Unfortunately, when it comes to the current government, those are the two areas—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately the time is up for now.

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 28, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 10.

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

The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

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

Madam Speaker, we respectfully request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Monday, May 2, 2022, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 to 10.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I suspect if you were to canvass the chamber you would find unanimous leave at this time to call it 1:30, so we could begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock at 1:30?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 1:30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 29 consideration of Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The question is on Motion No. 1.

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

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

Vote #64

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion defeated.

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

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