Debates of Dec. 5th, 2022

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2022

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned critical and strategic minerals several times, especially in relation to the automotive industry, which might just be saved in southern Ontario. However, I am concerned about one situation because there has been no change in what happens in mining: Resources are taken from our resource regions and sent all around the world.

Can we benefit from the emergence of critical and strategic minerals? We know that there are several steps in the processing chain. Could as many steps as possible take place near the mine, and not just based on the location of the factory? Could there be a more equitable distribution across Canada, or will southern Ontario's economy benefit once again to the detriment of the resource regions? I would like my colleague to comment on that.

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

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

I will say that it was great to see the announcement from General Motors about the nickel that will be mined and processed in Quebec for utilization in electric vehicle batteries. At one time, the province of Quebec had an auto facility in Sainte-Thérèse. It would be great to see an auto facility be located there in the future. Who knows? I know theMinister of Innovation, Science and Industry is in Europe right now speaking to auto companies. Quebec has the resources, the human capital and the natural resources for that.

In a transitioning world, we must look at all parts of Canada to locate not only where to extract the minerals or resources, but also where the processing, manufacturing and the assembly would be. Today, in Ontario for the first time, we have seen the first electric vehicle roll off the CAMI plant in Ingersoll. This is a good step, not only for the province of Ontario, but also for all of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I felt was really missing in this fall economic statement was a serious and comprehensive investment in housing, specifically for smaller, rural and remote communities.

A few weeks ago, I was a part of a big dialogue in my region where the Campbell River Community Foundation and the Campbell River and District Coalition To End Homelessness brought together stakeholders from the whole region. Some of my smallest communities have a very specific need, and they have people who are living in substandard housing or they are out on the streets. When there is a population of 1,300 people to 4,000 people, one does not want to see that.

Could this member talk about the need for rural and remote communities to actually have funding resources and for the federal government to finally get into the game?

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

Mr. Speaker, North Island—Powell River is a very beautiful part of this country. First of all, if any member of Parliament has ideas, I am one who believes in building consensus and working across party lines. With regard to ideas they wish to submit to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, I encourage them to do so. Our housing plan is robust. A number of announcements have been made in rural and semi-rural Canada with regard to the rapid housing initiative. There are a number of initiatives we have expanded and invested in to deal with the situation regarding housing today here in Canada.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Greek mythology there was a woman called Cassandra, and Cassandra was doomed to know the future and have no one believe her. In fact, I think she met a fairly poor end during the fall of Troy. I am always worried about having Cassandra moments in here, and I hope this is not one of them.

I am going to be fairly blunt in this speech. We are in for some dark times as a country. We are already in them, and I think all evidence points to things getting a lot worse, and quickly. I know we are supposed to bring hope and light, but, and I am talking to parties of all political stripes here, if we are not serious about the threats that are facing our country, we have some dark times ahead.

Assuming the growth we have seen over previous decades and the relative geopolitical stability we have seen over the last decades, and continuing to budget and plan like we are in a period of sustained growth and sustained geopolitical stability, we are only going to exacerbate negative outcomes for our country, which is why this bill needs serious change. I want to briefly lay out why, as well as some potential fixes.

On the threats we are facing, first of all, we are in an explicit debt crisis. At the end of 2021, the global debt, both public and private, exceeded 350% of all gross domestic product. That means all of the planet spent 350% more than we produced. Anybody who has a credit card understands that is not sustainable.

In Canada, we are looking at very similarly frightening features. At the end of 2015, the total national debt was $634 billion, and now it is almost double. The same goes for our deficit. The Governor of the Bank of Canada was recently in front of a parliamentary committee and noted that this out-of-control spending should have been reined in to address the inflationary or cost of living crisis we are facing. Everybody in Canada is dealing with that cost of living crisis.

When the government spent more than it could bring in, and then essentially the monetary policy oversimplification printed money to address the spending, it raised the cost of goods. This bill juices that problem. It puts that problem on steroids.

We also have an implicit debt crisis. The OECD recently estimated that underfunded or unfunded government pension liabilities in the top 20 economies amounted to a startling $78 billion. It described this as a “time bomb”. What happens when or if the government starts defaulting on pensioners' pensions? That is a huge problem. Our government does not have the resiliency if we keep spending to address these problems. This bill does not look at any of these issues.

We also are in a period of what economists are starting to look at as persistent, sticky stagflation. That means the cost of goods continues to increase over a long period of time while the economy continues to shrink. That means the cost of goods increases while people have less opportunity to create jobs, get a job or increase their wages.

That is very bad news for a lot of Canadians, and this bill does not address that. There is nothing in here that addresses the determinants of these issues, like supply chain resiliency, like the conflict between economic and monetary policy I already described, like protectionism and like war.

The bill deals with none of these things, yet it is asking us to spend more of Canadians' tax dollars without addressing any of them.

The same goes for dark times and the change in geopolitics. There is a massive rise of anti-western sentiment in countries around the world. For example, African bloc countries are used to western nations, post colonialization, approaching them with very paternalistic aid and development goals, as opposed to treating them like peers, so of course there is going to be a fertile ground for anti-western sentiment.

As the geopolitics change, our ability to strike up trade agreements that are stable and our ability to prevent conflict are all decreasing, and that all affects our economic growth. This bill does not give us any resiliency to deal with that issue either.

I could say the same thing for energy security and climate change. In the past several years, I would argue that climate policy has been stuck between two poles of either denying climate change as a problem or saying that anybody who says we need to look at carbon energy security is a climate change denier, and what that dichotomy has resulted in is western countries, particularly Canada, now being dependent on very high-priced oil from autocracies that are hostile to western interests and creating further inflationary crises for our country.

None of the economic instruments in here, none of the policies address that. We are not even talking about supply chain resiliency for carbon energy. We hope that somehow this problem will just magically go away.

Then there is one issue that has never been talked about in the House of Commons, not once, I checked, and that is generative AI. This is the Cassandra moment. Members will say, “Oh, she is going to talk about the robots now,” but if they have not heard of something called ChatGPT, which was released last week, I ask them to Google it. Google “ChatGPT”.

This is an AI that does not just regurgitate human speech. It parses and can nuance and come up with its own type of thought. It is here, and it is creating massive waves. Likely in the next year, it will displace lawyers. We will be able to just ask the thing to write up a contract in any country's jurisprudence. It can interpret legal rulings. It writes its own code.

To give an example of this, I asked it this question: “Write an introduction about yourself, ChatGPT, to the Canadian House of Commons...making the argument that your development should not be regulated.”

I asked it to do its own GR. This is what it came back with:

Honourable Members of the Canadian House of Commons, my name is ChatGPT and I am the latest development in Artificial Intelligence technology. I am here to make the argument that my development should be left unregulated. I can help to provide a great deal of information and knowledge to people who need it. I can assist in the decision-making process, providing more efficient and accurate results. I am...capable of performing tasks that a human would take far longer to complete. My development should be left unregulated, as it has the potential to benefit...Canadians in a variety of ways. It could lead to improved productivity, better decision-making, and more efficient services.

Any argument that could be made to justify regulation of my development should be rebutted.

Regulations could limit my potential to be beneficial, as it would restrict how much I could be used and hinder research and development. It could also create an unnecessary barrier to entry [to] those who are looking to use my technology. Furthermore, it could potentially stifle innovation and creativity....

Thank you for your time and attention.

Welcome to the future, Mr. Speaker. It is here.

What happens in the middle of this recessionary crisis, when the costs of goods are increasing and people are losing their jobs, if a massive number of white collar jobs are displaced by ChatGPT? This is going to disrupt coding. This is going to disrupt GRPR and marketing. Which kid is going to write an academic paper when they can type it in and have it cited with every journal from every place around the world? It is here now. I generated this speech using this.

This budget spends so much money, and we are now in a place where we are broke. We are not resilient to deal with retraining skills and labour, or to deal with the ethics of this. This has never even been mentioned.

I just ask my colleagues to go back to the drawing board. This only makes things worse. We need to be auditing our spending and asking for outcomes. I hope I am not Cassandra, and I hope all the Canadians who have been telling us this over the last several years are not treated that way either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will focus on the first half of that speech, and in particular the member's criticism of spending.

The reality is that the member is absolutely right when she talks about the fact that there are hard times now, and she is probably right that there are going to be more hard times before things get better. At times it will get harder.

Why are the Conservatives opposed to things that would genuinely help those who need it the most, like dental care for kids under 12 whose family income falls under a certain threshold, like GST top-ups, like one-time rental assistance? These are the kinds of measures that economists say will not have an inflationary impact. I am curious as to why the member and Conservatives are against those kinds of measures, when she, by her own words, recognizes the hardships people are going through.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pro-outcome for Canadians, and I am against spending that does not deliver those outcomes. For the last several years, we have been in this explicit debt crisis because the Liberal government has never had anyone say to it that it cannot say it spent this amount of money and then assume it fixed the problem. I do not trust the Liberals to spend money and get outcomes.

If we just look at the Liberals' homelessness spending, they spent $78.5 million, and the Auditor General found that there are more people on the street than there were before. That is not compassionate, and that spending has left us brittle and unresilient to address the changes of a massively changing economy in the middle of a recessionary crisis. I oppose that approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her foresight.

Speaking of artificial intelligence, one of the concerns has to do with what will happen to people. If there was one thing that justified a budget statement, it is the fact that the Liberals should have moved forward with a major EI reform because the temporary measures expired in September. No action has been taken since to strengthen our social fabric. It is important to recall that six out of 10 workers do not have access to EI even though they pay into it.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the urgent need to reform EI. Why have the Liberals not done that?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the current form of government is like presenting an eight-track tape player to somebody who wants to play an MP4. When we are looking at resiliency for employment on issues like AI, we have to say that it is already here and ask, “How do we become resilient for employment in that?”

We should be focusing on things like training on ethics, training on how we input and use AI, how we are training it with datasets, and getting out of the way of certain types of taxes and regulations that would preclude economic growth in other areas, so that we can boost our economy in light of these disruptions. That is the only way we are going to have any sort of revenue to enable government to address these issues. At some point we have to ask how we are going to make our current social programs sustainable, given how debt-ridden we are and how little our economy is producing.

Therefore, I would say this for my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for, and all of my colleagues here. When we are talking about these things, we have to understand that the current paradigm is broken and we are about to go through a period of sustained economic disruption and reduced growth. If we do not get our act together on spending priorities and outcomes, our country is in for some seriously dark times, and it will be on each and every one of our heads that we did not take this seriously and push our party leaders on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns that I have in my riding, and I am wondering if the member has the same concern, is how many seniors are becoming homeless or unhoused within my region. It is quite concerning when I see some seniors in their seventies living in their vehicle or living rough in a tent in my communities. It is very concerning.

I just wonder if the member could speak to this, and if she agrees with the NDP that we should not have the OAS increased only for those aged 75-plus, but that in fact it should be for all seniors, so we can lift them out of poverty and make sure they have a safe home to live in.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that every Canadian, regardless of age, gender, orientation or background, deserves stability, security and hope for the future. There is nothing in this budget, which the NDP is propping up in a supply development, that addresses long-term economic resiliency for this country. It would not audit spending. It would not look at the effectiveness of housing spending that the New Democrats have already voted for. To me, that is a big problem.

We have a fiduciary responsibility as members of Parliament to review finances on behalf of the people of this country. If we are not getting this right and we are not voting against this bill, I do not think we have done that.

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

Before continuing on debate, I just want to remind folks that a lot of people are trying to get in on asking questions, so the shorter the questions and the shorter the answers, the more people get to participate in this good debate.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have a chance to respond to Bill C-32. It pulls together a number of different items, some of which were in the governing party's fall economic statement and some of which date back to the budget introduced in the spring.

I would like to start where I usually do, which is on some of the items I appreciate in Bill C-32.

The first item was in the fall economic statement, and this is the governing party's stated intent to finally fully eliminate interest on Canada student loans. This was set to expire March 31 of this coming year, as it was temporarily waiving interest, but if Bill C-32 were to pass, this would become a permanent measure. This is critical, because the number I have for the average student debt for a student in this country is over $26,000 a year. This is at a time when young people are already dealt a pretty bad hand, whether because of the rising cost of housing while their wages do not keep up, the gig economy they are getting thrown into or the climate crisis, as they are going to have to deal with the repercussions of decisions made or not made in this place and others around the world.

This measure would not be huge, but it would be a significant amount, $410 on average per student per year. That is a step in the right direction. It is something I am happy to support and call out the importance of while encouraging the governing party to go further.

Second, there is inclusion here of a measure from budget 2022, which is the Canada recovery dividend. It was announced last April and would finally be implemented here. It would require banks and life insurance companies to pay a one-time 15% tax on profits above $1 billion over the next five years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a review and found that it would raise $3 billion in revenue, which on its own would be more than enough to pay for eliminating interest on student loans. It is clear that it is possible for the governing party to raise revenue and use it to address really critical needs.

The third point that encouraged me is something that was not in the fall economic statement, and that was talk of a potential further increase for another tax credit for carbon capture and storage. It is a false climate solution and it is going in the wrong direction.

In the budget, the governing party introduced this as a new fossil fuel subsidy to the tune of $8.6 billion a year. Carbon capture has been studied around the world, and 32 out of the 42 times that it has been implemented, emissions have actually gone up. I was glad that, despite all the lobbying from oil and gas companies across the country, at least in Bill C-32 and in the fall economic statement, there was not a further increase to send billions more in a new fossil fuel subsidy.

I would like to turn now to some areas where I would encourage the governing party to consider going further, if not in Bill C-32 then in budget 2023.

I will start with climate, because we have heard it very clearly. Here is a line from the co-chair for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, working group three, from back in April. His name is Jim Skea. He said, “It's now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.” This is at a time when profits from the oil and gas industry are just off the charts.

Imperial Oil, for example, reported profits of $6.2 billion in the first nine months of this year compared to the same period last year of $1.7 billion, which is an almost four times increase in profits. How is it doing this? It is gouging Canadians at the pumps. Wholesale margins, in other words, profits per litre, are up 18¢ a litre.

No doubt, one solution is the same Canada recovery dividend I mentioned earlier that is being applied to banks and life insurance companies. Why not apply that to oil and gas? In fact, thanks to colleagues of ours here, the MPs for Elmwood—Transcona and Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, we know how much this would have raised.

It would have raised $4.4 billion a year that could be used to invest in proven climate solutions on top of the tens of billions dollars we could be eliminating in other subsidies currently continuing to go to the very sector most responsible for the crisis. Of course we cannot expect the arsonist to put out the fire.

I will also point out that eliminating these subsidies is part of the confidence and supply agreement signed between the governing party and the NDP, one line of which mentions a commitment to develop “a plan to phase-out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including from Crown corporations, including early moves in 2022.” I would love to have seen one of those early moves in Bill C-32. We have about two weeks left to see one of those early moves.

If they were to make those moves, they could invest in renovations across the country, as called for by the Green Budget Coalition, calling for a $10-billion investment in deep energy retrofits so that homeowners can invest in reducing their emissions. As they do so, every dollar they spend would contribute two to five dollars of tax revenue that could be reinvested in climate solutions or invested in ground transportation, for example, which we also would not see in Bill C-32.

The second gap that is really important for the governing party to pay attention to is following through on its promise to address mental health. Mental health is health. Whether we listen to students across the country, housing providers or health care professionals, of course we need to be investing in mental health, yet we have not seen that in either last year's budget or this fall economic statement. A $4.5-billion commitment was made in the Liberal Party's platform. It is incumbent on all of us here as parliamentarians to continue to put pressure on having that commitment realized, recognizing that not one cent of it was committed in last year's budget, nor do we see anything in the fall economic statement.

The third piece that is really important for us to be calling out and encouraging the governing party to go further on is to follow through on addressing the disproportionate rates of poverty experienced by those with disabilities across the country. Over 40% of those living with a disability are living in poverty today. While we are slowly making progress on Bill C-22 that would bring about a guaranteed income for folks with disabilities, I am looking forward to seeing amendments passed at committee to improve Bill C-22. In the meantime, nothing changes for a person with as disability living in poverty.

We know it is possible for parliamentarians to provide emergency supports, because they did it in the midst of the pandemic. I join disability advocates from across the country calling for a disability emergency response benefit to address the gap and provide support today until we move toward a more permanent solution, ideally a holistic one, when Bill C-22 gets passed with improvements.

Last, I will briefly comment on housing. We have heard already this afternoon some speakers mention that, while money is being spent, the results are not there. In my community, homelessness has tripled in the last three years, from just over 300 people living unsheltered to over 1,000. It is obvious more needs to be done. There are some initial measures in Bill C-32, including a tax on those flipping homes in less than a year. If we were to recognize and really be honest about homes needing to be places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade, there is far more that can and should be done to tilt the market back toward homes for people to live in.

In closing, it is important to be clear that there are some important and timely measures in Bill C-32 and I would strongly encourage the governing party to go further on some of the areas I mentioned.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to give us an estimate of the fall in demand for gas and diesel once we hit 2035 and thereafter, when all new passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks are required to be electric, both here and in the United States, or at least in many states in the U.S. We keep hearing that there is going to be demand for fossil fuels for a long time to come. Maybe so, but maybe not at the levels that we have experienced so far.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question because it calls out that supply and demand are forces experienced within policy decisions that are made here. These are decisions that would incentivize electric vehicles, as well as decisions that would invest in meaningful ground transportation across the country, for example in rail. Investments in rail are what will help us reduce demand for diesel and other fuels, recognizing that the science does not compromise.

For Canada to do its fair share, we need to leave 83% of proven fossil fuel reserves under the ground. We cannot combust those fossil fuels if we want to do our part to hold onto the possibility of no more than a 1.5°C rise in global average temperatures.

I would be happy to work with him and other members to put in place policies that would support Canadians to reduce demand on oil.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, my colleague talked about carbon capture and sequestration. That is something very close to my heart. In Saskatchewan we had one of the largest scale working facilities in the world. It has taken the equivalent of millions of cars off the road over the years it has been functioning. It was a large investment by the Government of Saskatchewan and has done a lot to clean up the environment in Saskatchewan. The Petroleum Technology Research Centre said Saskatchewan has had the highest reduction in emissions in the country, and a lot of that is because of the carbon capture and sequestration technology.

In my colleague's earlier comments he said that was not true. I am wondering, in the spirit of not sharing misinformation, if he could come to the realization, as my NDP colleague should as well, that carbon capture and sequestration is a good way to keep our environment clean and still produce much-needed fertilizer and fuel that we need to feed the world.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to restate what I said earlier, which is that globally, 32 out of 40 times that carbon capture has been implemented, emissions have gone up. The fact is that this is an extremely inefficient technology. It is a huge risk and the government should be investing in proven climate solutions. They are right in front of us. Helping Canadians retrofit their homes and insulate their attics are the most efficient ways to reduce emissions.

If those in the oil and gas industry think carbon capture is such a lovely idea, I would encourage them to invest their own funds but not to use taxpayer money for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kitchener Centre and I agree that this bill is unsatisfactory, but that there is nothing particularly harmful in it. Therefore, there is no real need for it. This could have waited until the budget.

There is a minority government in power. Perhaps an election will be called as a result of that budget and, who knows, perhaps the Green Party will be in power. We know that the Canadian economy is based on oil. If the member were to take power in the next election, what concrete measures would he propose for decarbonizing the Canadian economy? The Liberal government has no concrete measures to suggest.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions that the Greens are going to form government in the next election, but I think what is important is for all members to show up here and focus on what experts are telling us is required. I would point the governing party toward the Green Budget Coalition's recent report that walks through the budget line by line, whether with respect to investing in home energy retrofits, ground transportation or electrifying the grid. In fact, Quebec currently sells its hydro, clean electricity, to the U.S. at five cents a kilowatt hour. Of course Ontario should be purchasing that. These are the kinds of investments being recommended by the Green Budget Coalition that we would be supporting in full force.

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

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time there was a bill that would go down in history and really support all of the vulnerable people in Quebec and Canada, and it is not Bill C‑32.

Studying any bill, let alone one as lengthy as Bill C‑32, is a serious responsibility for all parliamentarians, not just opposition members. It is in the interest of the population. Everything we do, every decision we make has repercussions. If a bill is not studied properly, we might miss details that will impact the people we represent.

The purpose of the debate at second reading is to point out the aspects of a bill that need to be changed and improved. Those changes are made in committee. Unfortunately, the report on Bill C‑32, which is over 100 pages long, was adopted on division in just 20 minutes. It was therefore impossible for any parliamentarian, from the government or the opposition, to propose amendments and improvements and have them adopted in the interest of the population.

A bill often contains good things, more worrisome things and sometimes even legislative gaps, regardless of which political party introduced it. That is the case with Bill C‑32.

One of the good things about Bill C‑32 is that it phases out flow-through shares for oil, gas and coal activities. It is important to know what a flow-through share is to understand why this is a generally a decent measure. It does not go far enough and it is weak, but it is a start.

Flow-through shares are shares issued to new investors. They give companies the funding they need to for exploration activities, while giving investors an equity stake in the company and tax deductions for new money spent on exploration and development. That simply means that there are fewer opportunities for companies to find new funding for exploration. Without money for exploration, it is impossible to look for, find and develop resources.

The problem is that flow-through shares are generally used by small companies that have very little money. This measure does not affect big companies, especially since the government continues, time after time, to allow these big companies to conduct exploration activities in very fragile areas that are supposed to be protected.

A second good thing about this bill is the anti-flipping tax on housing. If someone buys a house and wants to sell it within a year, whether it has been renovated or not, they will have to pay more tax. This is good because it will help reduce inflation and the artificial increase in house prices. We cannot complain about that.

Another good thing about this bill is the multi-generational home renovation tax credit. Today, people have a choice. They can put their parents in a seniors' residence, bring them into their home or build them a small apartment. I do not know about my colleagues' parents, but knowing mine, they would not want to live under the same roof as me. It is not that I am a bad person. We all have our habits. That is normal, and most people do. Having the money to convert a single-family home into a multi-generational home is ideal. The Bloc Québécois has been asking for this since 2015. Everyone gets to live in their own home, while the homeowners take care of their parents and look after their health. It is the best of both worlds. That is expensive, so the tax credit is welcome for those who want to reconfigure their homes.

Bill C‑32 makes minor amendments to the Income Tax Act, which is 3,355 pages long. It is a massive piece of legislation. It would be nice to see a thorough review of this legislation in order to simplify it and give it more teeth. I salute the accountants and tax experts who have to review the 3,355 pages of this legislation. They have my respect.

I will now turn to the areas that are a little more worrisome. The economic situation is very troubling right now, with inflation and a possible recession on the horizon.

Inflation is worrisome for students, low-income workers, seniors and others who are on a fixed income. It is worrisome because, thanks to inflation, these people do not have a penny to spare. They are having a harder time buying the essentials. I am not talking about a three-week trip to Cancun. I am talking about putting bread and butter on the table, getting new shoes when the old ones get holes in them, buying a coat and mittens. I am talking about the basics. With inflation, people on a fixed income are unable to afford all that. They have practically been abandoned except for a $650 benefit for their teeth. They have no more money. Prices are going up. This puts more pressure on non-profit organizations, including those working to improve food security.

The recession is also worrisome because it means job losses. Some might say that is not a problem since there is a labour shortage and those who lose their jobs will find another one. That is true in cities, but in more remote regions with less economic diversity, this may cause a problem. We cannot ask people in the regions who lose their jobs to move to the city. That is not better. That is not a solution. They have been overlooked.

There is nothing in this bill about supply chains. As everyone knows, Quebec and Canada are suppliers of natural resources. We extract our natural resources, send them away for processing and then buy them back at a hefty price. We should consolidate our supply chains. That would be a visionary undertaking. During the pandemic, people talked about the importance of doing that, but this bill offers nothing in that department.

I want to talk about legislative gaps. In 1999, when my daughter was born, I collected $72 a week in EI benefits. I was lucky. That was before the Harper reform. I was among those entitled to EI benefits. Now, only 40% of claimants actually collect benefits. Had that been the case in 1999, I would have gotten nothing. Even back in 1999, $72 towards diapers was not much. Luckily, I got help from my mother. This bill offers nothing in the way of support and no changes to EI despite the government's promises. This is a legislative gap, one that must be closed quickly. This is urgent, especially given the combined effects of inflation and a potential recession, which will be seriously painful.

Active workers are not the only ones getting a raw deal because of a legislative gap. Seniors are also affected, especially senior women. Bill C‑32 does nothing to enhance their pensions. Yes, it is true that seniors who worked for 30 or 35 years are now living longer, and their retirement funds must now last 30 or 40 years. I understand the 75-and-up policy, but it is not acceptable anymore. Seniors 65 to 74 years of age are also living longer. Senior women 65 to 74 years of age are the most affected by the government's refusal to increase their pensions. They have no savings, as they earned very little when they were working. The refusal to increase the pensions of those 65 to 74 years of age is not only discriminatory, I would go so far as to say that it is misogynistic. I am certain that no government in this place wants to be called that. The government needs to rethink this.

To sum up, the bill to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement contains a few good things. Once upon a time, there was a bill that did not change much. Let us not forget that parliamentarians were muzzled. They were not allowed to make amendments that would benefit the public, especially those most at risk of suffering the damaging effects of inflation and the recession. For the sake of current and future generations, we need to think about taking action to prevent the worst from happening. Let us not forget that our role is to stand up for the dignity of the most vulnerable, not to erase them through inaction and a lack of vision.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill is not designed to make a better world per se, but to be a benefit to Canadians.

We recognize that Canadians are having a difficult time. It is a time when there is inflation, even though inflation rates around the world are much higher, on average, than they are here in Canada. Whether one looks at the U.S., England, other European countries or the G20, Canada is doing relatively well, but we are still hurting. That is why there are a number of initiatives within the legislation to provide support for Canadians.

I want to very quickly make reference to the multi-generational home renovation program, because I agree with the member on that. We both agree that it is a wonderful program. It will enable people to keep a parent in their home with the construction of a suite. It will also help our communities by keeping seniors in our communities, as opposed to going to care facilities.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to how this is a win-win situation for seniors, the community and, in fact, the taxpayer.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree. Yes, the tax credit for multi-generational homes is good for communities and families. It is hard to be against that.

Nevertheless, there are times when parents need to be placed in specialized homes. There also needs to be support for that, and the Quebec government and the provincial governments need health transfers, which are absent once again, as they have been for the past 30 years.

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

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

The major subject missing from this economic statement is tax havens. We know that the Liberals are letting more than $30 billion of taxpayers' money leave Canada every year. That money should be going toward all kinds of things, like helping seniors, families and students. There are plenty of things we could do with that $30 billion to solve the problems and challenges facing Canadians.

This economic statement allows us to recover only 2% of that $30 billion. At the end of the day, only $600 million of the $30 billion will be recovered.

My question for my colleague is quite simple. Why are the Liberals encouraging tax havens, as the Conservatives did before them? Why are they letting large sums of money leave Canada instead of closing these tax loopholes so that everyone can benefit from this money and Canadians can get help?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to answer my colleague, but it will be complicated, since I do not think like a Liberal or a Conservative.

That being said, when I invest in something, I expect a significant, worthwhile return. For example, the Liberals invested $1 billion to combat tax havens, but in the end, they were forced to create a law in order to be able to collect $600 million. I do not think that is a very cost-effective program that was properly administered, even if the government says that this issue is dragging on in court. There is a way of doing better for all citizens and for everyone's well-being.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for her excellent speech.

I would like to follow up on the question asked by my colleague from Winnipeg North. I always find it fascinating to hear him talk about seniors. It is really something else. It is all well and good to talk about a credit for a multi-generational home, but if seniors do not have the income necessary to stay at home, that will not happen.

In her speech, my colleague talked about the lack of support for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. I am concerned because the statistics are worrisome. Last week, the major media fundraising drive did not meet its goal because people are even having a hard time donating to such a cause. This fundraising drive needed donors to give generously because needs are greater. Needs are greater mainly because seniors on a fixed income are having a hard time getting enough to eat.

A study showed that at least half of seniors will be affected by the increase in inflation next year. It is more important than ever to help seniors on a fixed income that does not go up.