Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I was before the technical issues. I was outlining the problems my constituents were having in their application for the benefits they need because of the pandemic. One constituent advised my office of their experience when they attempted to apply online. They were prompted to enter their postal code, which showed that they were from British Columbia. Even though the website stated that all regions in B.C. were eligible if employment had been impacted by COVID, they received a message saying that the region was not valid. These are the kinds of problems people are having. They cannot get through on the phone, or they wait for hours and get sent to different menu choices. They are trying online and are also getting these kinds of frustrating messages.

People are desperate. This is a time when their resources are running dry. Rents are due and they cannot put food on the table, so this is just not acceptable. I sure hope the government will fix these problems.

Then there are those who do not qualify for this program, such as artists, musicians, performers and cultural workers. They are among those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic. In Vancouver East, which is home to the most arts and cultural workers, on a per capita basis, of any riding in the country, the local arts and music scene is going through difficult times. I am very concerned that our community's cultural workers and venues alike face a longer road to recovery, which puts the live performance industry particularly at risk. Even before the pandemic, arts and performance venues were facing enormous pressures and challenges.

The calls of the #ForTheLoveOfLIVE campaign went unanswered by the government. The federal government needs to do more to protect these small and medium-sized enterprises and their employees and to preserve the cultural industry within our communities.

When we are talking about small businesses, I have to raise the issue of start-ups. They have been left out in the cold right from the start of the pandemic, and they continue to suffer. They continue to close down. The truth of the matter is that small businesses are the economic engine of our communities. If we do not support them to survive, our communities will not survive. That is our reality.

In Vancouver's Chinatown in my riding, we still cannot get support from the federal government or a special grant such as the one for Granville Island. Granville Island received a special grant from the federal government at the beginning of the pandemic, to the tune of $17 million. It later received subsequent grants, as well.

Vancouver's Chinatown could not get any support from the government. This is wrong. Chinatown is the jewel of our crown. It is recognized by the federal government as a national historic site, and we need to put the supports in place for small businesses and the community to survive.

I opened my comments today with the issue of racism and discrimination. Chinatown also continues to face ongoing attacks on this front. The Chinese Cultural Centre and the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen gardens, among other iconic locations in our community, are being defaced with graffiti and racist comments. This also needs to be addressed, and we need the federal government to work with local communities, the provinces and the City to tackle this issue. We need to save Chinatown and preserve our history.

I want to take a moment and turn to the issue of housing. Today is actually the first 100 days of the Liberal government, and it declared that it would do many things in the first 100 days. The Liberal government still has not appointed anybody to the position of federal housing advocate.

The announcement of this new position was made in 2017. It has now been over a year since the government closed the job posting. In fact, it has been 13 months to be exact, yet there is still no progress. There is still no federal housing advocate. It should not take over 13 months for the government to hire someone after the job posting has closed. If the Liberals cannot even do that, how can they be expected to address the housing crisis that is precluding families and people from finding homes they can afford in the communities where they live and work?

Right now, we know that housing costs have increased exponentially—in fact, by some 38%. People who wish to own a home cannot get into the market. People who rent are losing their homes and are faced with renovictions. Those who are on the streets, who are homeless, continue to be unhoused.

The Liberals keep talking about their housing plan, but they continue to prevent scrutiny on it, which is not a surprise, I suppose, given how much the housing prices have gone up in the six years under this government. People cannot wait for the government keeps talking about it; we need action and we need it now. We need to address it.

I would be remiss if I did not touch upon indigenous housing. The government promised a “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing strategy. Budget after budget, there is still no funding allocation to it. It was not in this economic update, and it is shameful.

The Aboriginal Housing Management Association in British Columbia just made an announcement and launched a plan to show how to do it and to showcase how this can be done. It needs to be done and it needs the federal government at the table to fund it so that we can ensure indigenous peoples have the proper housing that they deserve.

There has been enough talk. It is time for action. Let us get on with it.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member makes reference to the issue of housing, because within Bill C-8 there is a measure that will make a difference.

For the first time, we are seeing a tax on non-residents and non-Canadians purchasing and possessing unused properties, either directly or indirectly. That is going to be an annual tax. I am hopeful that this measure will have at least some impact in conjunction with other actions by the government through the national housing strategy and a number of projects that the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion has alluded to time and time again. I believe that the federal government is showing goodwill in moving forward on the issue of housing for Canadians.

What are the member's thoughts on the specific initiative of the annual tax within Bill C-8?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the measure the government introduced is minuscule, given the crisis we are faced with. A 1% tax is barely going to do it. What we are faced with is a huge financialization of housing, in which housing is being treated as though it is the stock market. Yes, we need a foreign buyers tax; actually, we need to ban foreign buyers at this point in time. We need to stop the financialization. We need to stop renovictions. We need to make sure that the government invests in housing, starting with a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy with real funding. We need to build 500,000 units of affordable and co-op housing in our communities. We need to fund non-profits so they can get into the market and buy up housing coming onto the market so it does not get swept up by others.

This is what we need from the federal government.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, before my hon. colleague from Vancouver East was interrupted by technical difficulties, she spoke at length about the issue of seniors and the fact that they are the most vulnerable.

Back in August, the Bloc Québécois wrote to the Minister of Finance to denounce the cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors who had received CERB. On top of that, there is nothing in the economic update about providing assistance to seniors.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of increasing old age security starting at age 65 and supporting seniors before May.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats were raising this issue even before the election, saying that seniors will be suffering because the GIS will be cut. The government did not take any action. It said it was going to do something about it in May. Well, seniors are being evicted right now, so that is not good enough.

Aside from that, seniors actually need a boost in their incomes, not a differential treatment whereby seniors who turn 70 and those who have not yet done so have different payment increases. That is wrong. If someone retires at 65, they deserve to live in dignity. Seniors need to be supported throughout this pandemic and beyond.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for highlighting the Liberal-Conservative coalition to protect the financialization of the housing industry. We keep hearing about affordability and the Liberal and Conservative definitions of what is affordable.

Maybe the member could speak about how there is nothing in this bill to fix the broken language they have used in their definition of what is truly affordable.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government and the Conservatives over the years have actually co-opted the word “affordable”. In fact, some people actually think that this is a four-letter word, because there is no longer anything affordable, and saying that rentals being made available way above market are somehow affordable is an insult. That is what has to stop. We need to provide rent that meets core needs. That is what we need to do.

By the way, I want to thank the member for the great bill he introduced today to address the opioid crisis and to call on the government to take action on decriminalization. It is time to save lives.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health; the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, Aviation Industry; the hon. member for York—Simcoe, Transport.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an always an honour to stand in this place and speak on behalf of the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka from their seat here.

I am speaking on Bill C-8 today, and I am excited to do so, because it is an important issue. I think that the Liberals like their talking points, and when they are asked legitimate questions about the reasonableness of their spending plan, they just spout talking points. I thought I would try to simplify things and get right to the point and see if we can maybe get some good questions.

I would like to point out that of course this all started a couple of years ago at the beginning of the pandemic, and in many ways we in the House worked really well together. Pandemic supports were important, and all parties in the House worked well to improve many of the programs that the government offered and got them implemented as quickly as possible in the uncertain days at the beginning of the pandemic. I was really proud that we worked so well together.

Fast-forward a couple of years and here we are, hopefully seeing light at the end of the tunnel. However, over the course of these two years, we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that since the beginning of the pandemic, the government had spent or planned to spend almost $542 billion in new measures, but he also reported that clearly one-third of those new measures were not COVID-related at all. We are talking about almost $200 billion of new whims from this tax-and-spend Liberal government. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that the remaining platform measures that the Liberals are now talking about would be another $48.5 billion in net new spending between fiscal years 2021-22 and 2025-26.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, from a non-partisan office, pointed out the government's own fiscal guardrails. I am sure everyone recalls that when we were expressing concerns about the amount of deficit spending and borrowing that was being done, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister told us not to worry because we had these fiscal guardrails that were going to make sure we were in good shape.

However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has now told us, “The Government’s own fiscal guardrails would indicate that its latest round of stimulus spending should be wound down by the end of fiscal year 2021-22.” That is this March. “It appears to me, he said, “that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as 'stimulus' no longer exists.” That is the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I do not know what is confusing about that to this government or to the Minister of Finance or her officials, but clearly it is.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was also asked in the finance committee if excessive deficits and borrowing can in fact lead to inflationary pressures. His answer was very simple. It was one word: “Yes.”

Now, I will acknowledge that speaking points across the aisle are all about how inflation is a global issue, that there are global pressures, and I do not doubt that for one minute, but the fact of the matter is that we have a government that refuses to take responsibility for its own contributions to these inflationary pressures. That is real as well; the Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us so, but the Liberals do not like to talk about that. However, the reason we need to talk about that is that when we stand here, we speak for Canadians struggling to make ends meet.

We know what we are talking about when it comes to making ends meet. Trying to put food on the table is becoming more and more expensive for Canadian families. We know that chicken is up 6.2%, as we heard today. We know that beef is up almost 12%, bacon is up almost 20% and bread is up 5%. It is tough to make a sandwich with those numbers. The cost to put fuel in our cars is up 33%, and natural gas is up 19%.

Now, that may not matter in some of the urban ridings that the Liberals hold, but in Parry Sound—Muskoka, where the median income is 20% below the provincial average, people are struggling to make ends meet, and they have to drive to get to their jobs because we do not have the option of the TTC or major transit. They have to drive. It is a rural community. What else do we have to do? In Parry Sound—Muskoka it is cold, and we have to heat our homes. There are an awful lot of people in Parry Sound—Muskoka who heat their homes, not with natural gas because they do not live in the smaller communities, but with propane and oil. On top of the inflationary pressures that we see on home heating fuels of all kinds, there is the carbon tax thrown on top of that as well.

I cannot count the number of phone calls, emails and discussions I have had on the street with working families and seniors on fixed incomes. Seniors on fixed incomes call in tears, not sure how they are going to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table. That is criminal in this country, yet all we hear is talking points and more stimulus borrowing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is not necessary.

Everyone would like to think that Conservatives want to slash spending, and that is not what we are calling for. We are just saying, “Stop borrowing. It is not necessary. Just stop borrowing.” We do not need to borrow any more money. Maybe then we could help bring some of these costs down so that working-class Canadians, everyday folks, could afford to heat their homes, could afford to get to their jobs and could afford to put food on the table.

We hear a lot about housing, and that is a significant issue in Parry Sound—Muskoka as well. I was pleased to hear the member for Vancouver East agreeing with a campaign pledge from the Conservative platform in the last election to actually ban foreign purchases of residential homes for up to two years. This tax is another example. The Liberals want to have a 1% tax on foreign purchases of homes, which would generate more money that they could spend on stimulus that is not necessary. However, it is a 1% tax that would actually have pretty much zero impact on people who are trying to buy and make investments in our real estate market from overseas. The Liberals would just collect more tax and not solve the problem, and that just makes it more difficult for Canadians to ever own a home.

If the Liberals really cared about this issue, they would work collaboratively with the Conservatives and apparently with the NDP to ban the foreign purchase of residential homes for up to two years, but encourage foreign investment in the development of multiresidential rental properties, many of which could be affordable rentals. There is a desperate need for that in Parry Sound—Muskoka and all across this country. I have said many times in this place that affordable housing and access to the housing market is not just an issue in the big cities. It is a major issue all across this country, in smaller communities and rural communities as well. The Liberal government has pretty much forgotten rural Canada when it comes to this issue.

It is a real struggle on this side of the House to take the Liberals seriously when they refuse to listen to even the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If we want to make life more affordable for Canadians, if we want to help Canadians get ahead, we need to help reduce the pressures on their family budgets. All I am asking is why the Liberals will not use their own fiscal guardrails and get the spending under control.

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

Madam Speaker, in the speeches I have heard today from Conservatives, the right wing of the Conservative element, that Reform element is flying high.

They have a number of ideas, I must say. On the one hand they are saying they do not want any more tax dollars being spent, and then on the other hand they are saying they still want some of the services. For the tax dollars, we often need to borrow money. For example, when we talk about the supports for businesses, the CERB and the increase to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, these all cost money.

Where would the member suggest that we start cutting back dollars? He is giving us ideas on how to spend money. Could he be specific on where he believes we should be cutting dollars?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suggest that the government start with the almost $6 million to renovate the main cottage at the Prime Minister's residence. I am sure in a multi-billion dollar budget there are lots of places that you can trim the fat, because you guys are quite good at adding it on.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the hon. member that he is to address all questions and comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, inflation does not happen overnight.

It is a slow process that generally occurs over 12 to 18 months when there is a crisis like the one we are in. It can also take 12 to 18 months for deflation to return things to normal, and there are ways to get there.

I would like my colleague to talk about his suggestions for how to bring about deflation, which would let Canadians and Quebeckers better live within their budgets.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the first step in all of this is to get the outrageous spending under control. I completely agree with my colleague that it will take time. There is no real quick answer to this. However, it starts with stopping the borrowing, getting the spending under control, spending smarter and investing in the areas where it makes most sense. We need more housing supply, for example. We need to stop funding programs that give people money to try to get into a market that they cannot get into. They are not working. It will take time, but it starts with stopping the spending.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague referenced affordable housing and the lack thereof in his home riding. Certainly it is an issue in Chatham-Kent—Leamington as well. We are not a large metropolitan area. It is a mix of rural and small cities and towns.

He just touched on this in his answer to my Bloc colleague. Do the basic laws of supply and demand continue to hold true in the housing market? We have huge demand. Would it not be better, rather than adding another small tax that is not going to make a difference, to look at the barriers to supply? Could he comment?

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer to my colleague's question is yes. As the former mayor of a small town, I can tell members right now that despite taxes on property, there is not enough room to fund all the responsibilities that municipalities already have. They take care of two-thirds of the transportation infrastructure in this country, and they do not have the tax revenue to actually fund the maintenance of it. However, we are hearing musings about the government looking at ways to tax things over a million dollars, which is barely an entry home in Toronto, because its members think they can dig a little more and find more tax revenue to spend. It is just not there.

Frankly, the simple answer to the question is that we need more supply and we need to stop the incredible pressures of foreign investors buying up properties so that we can actually make things more accessible for everyday Canadians.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my youngest son was born in the riding of my colleague for Parry Sound—Muskoka many years ago, and I always have fond memories of living there.

I am very pleased to join the debate on Bill C-8 today. Technically, it is called “An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update”, but it is also known as, “what is another $7 billion between friends or between the government and taxpayers' wallets”.

I am opposed to this bill, not necessarily item by item and bit by bit of the bill, but opposed to the out-of-control spending of the Liberals. It is part of the fiscal update the government introduced in December, which adds $71 billion of new spending: $71 billion of new debt, even before the Liberals' election promises are counted in.

As my colleague mentioned, the government has also put aside $100 billion in added stimulus. The PBO said that the government has reached its fiscal guardrails. It does not need to add that extra spending, yet here we have the government barrelling ahead. That $71 billion in new inflation spending is $71 billion that eventually will have to be paid back.

I want to put into perspective how much $71 billion is. The government brings in about $32 billion to $35 billion a year in GST. Just to cover the new spending the government added from its fiscal update in December, which covers Bill C-8, GST would have to go up to 16%. For Bill C-8 alone, all the GST in the country collected for three entire months would support just this small bit the government is adding, at 16%. Here in Ontario, HST would have to go to 24% just to cover this new Liberal spending, and in Saskatchewan it would go to 22%. In Alberta, we do not have the sales tax, thanks very much, but it still would be 16% GST just to cover this added spending.

My colleagues with the Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP, actually agree on something, and that is that the government should be increasing health care transfers to the provinces. According to the Public Accounts, there were something like $42 billion in health care transfers last year. The government could increase health care transfers 58% just with this new spending. It could increase health care transfers to the provinces by 16% just with the money spent in Bill C-8.

Regarding income taxes, we are already among the highest-taxed populations in the developed world. Income taxes would have to go up 41% just to cover the new Liberal spending from December. What could we do with that $71 billion instead? The government could actually fund 75 WE Charity scandals with that money.

We found that the government is great friends with SNC-Lavalin. The government gave the company $150 million for field hospitals. We asked the public works officials, and the public works minister, who asked for these. They did not know. The provinces did not ask for these hospitals. Public health did not ask for these hospitals. Public works says that public works asked for them. When we ask who in public works asked for them, we are told that it was public works. Apparently, if we look at GEDS, which is the public employees directory, we will see someone, “Mr. Public Works”, because that person apparently asked for this $150-million, sole-sourced, urgent contract for the Liberals' friends at SNC-Lavalin. It was so urgent that the government sole-sourced it without going out to bids from other companies. By the way, none of those hospitals has actually been delivered or used. With this $71 billion, the government could buy 4,700 added hospitals from its friends at SNC-Lavalin.

According to the Public Accounts that just came out, which, by the way, are the latest Public Accounts to have been delivered in about four decades, the interest-bearing debt for Canadians has now reached an eye-watering $1.4 trillion. I am going to break that down a bit. That is $1,440,000 million in debt.

Now, to put it into numbers that perhaps the Liberals can understand, and for their billionaire friends, that is $1,440 billion in debt. I mentioned the Liberals' friends because in the public accounts, $91 million of taxpayers' money was spent last year to subsidize wealthy owners to buy Tesla vehicles. Taxpayers gave $91 million to Tesla so that wealthy Canadians could buy cars made outside of Canada. The wealthiest man in the world, Elon Musk, got $91 million in subsidies from the government. He owns about 17%, so maybe he gets about $16 million directly. He is a great entrepreneur, I love his tweets and he is hilarious, but he does not need subsidies from the government or from the taxpayers.

I want to put this in perspective so that people can understand the money. The City of Edmonton got $17 million from the government for the rapid housing initiative. In the paper today, there was talk about it. Of the $17 million from the federal government, $11 million will be for buying the old Forum Hotel by the Rexall Centre, where the Oilers used to play. It is $11 million from the government for housing for the homeless, and $91 million to Elon Musk so that wealthy people can afford a Tesla.

In Canada, if one tried to buy a Tesla on a five-year loan at maybe 4.9% or 5.9%, it would cost well over $1,000 a month. I am not sure how many Canadians trying valiantly to work into the middle class could afford $1,000 a month, or who deserves $5,000 from taxpayers so they can stuff Elon Musk's pockets.

Poverty in Edmonton under the Liberal government has gone up, according to the Library of Canada, by 58%, from the most recent StatsCan numbers. For those without housing, like the homeless in Edmonton, the numbers have gone up two-thirds. Nevertheless, former Liberal Amarjeet Sohi, who is the new mayor of Edmonton, a wonderful guy whom I quite enjoy, is cheering on the Liberals because he got $11 million for housing for the homeless. It was $91 million for Elon Musk and $11 million from the Liberal government for the City of Edmonton. It is a disgrace. The money should not be going to corporate welfare, but to people who need it.

Now, for the debt mentioned, the $1.4 trillion, the government says do not worry, as we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. However, guess what? The government is using what is called net debt. There is about half a trillion dollars in the CPP and QPP set aside for future payouts. This is not the future 30 years down the road, but payouts tomorrow for anyone who is 65. The government is counting that money toward the federal debt when it is claiming that it has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This is money for seniors, not money for the government to use, to cash in and to pay on the debt. If we take it away, we are fourth out of seven. Consider the top 29 developed countries in the OECD. If we take out the $500 billion that belongs to seniors, because it is not the government's money, nor the Liberals' money, and show the real debt, we are the 25th worst out of 29 countries in the developed world for debt-to-GDP ratio.

The government should stop misleading Canadians. The government should keep its hands off the money set aside for seniors and stop pretending that it will be able to access that money to pay for its out-of-control spending.

I want to wrap up by talking about the need for focused spending. We have the public accounts and we have been going through the money. There is a disgraceful amount of waste by the government. I mentioned the $91 million for Elon Musk. There is another $50 million to General Motors, Toyota and Nissan for electric vehicle rebates. There is also $50,000 that the government prioritized to give to a corporation to develop a new taste for an India pale ale.

The government asked where we would cut. I would cut corporate bailouts. I would also end the corporate welfare and focus money on Canadians where it is needed.

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

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if I were to go over the Public Accounts from the Stephen Harper era, I would find more than just one minister who spent $60 or $40 for a glass of orange juice. There are ample examples of Conservative waste during the Stephen Harper era. However, my question is in regards to Bill C-8.

Bill C-8 would have over $1 billion being spent for rapid tests. Does the Conservative Party not support rapid tests? For months and months, they were like jumping beans in this place, jumping around saying that they want rapid tests. However, we have rapid tests in the bill. It is an investment in rapid tests. Canadians want rapid tests. It is also about putting cleaner air in our schools. There are hundreds of millions being spent to support that to and continue to support people in Canada.

Whether it is rapid tests or cleaner air, why would the Conservative Party oppose it?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my associate for Winnipeg North. He is not my friend, as he is more of an associate.

We in the Conservative Party have been asking for these rapid tests for close to two years, yet now the government is finally saying, “Oh, we'll get around to it, but you better give us the money.” It is not an issue of just spend, spend, spend or we are going to take the rapid tests away. We want the rapid tests.

What I would suggest to this gentleman is that perhaps, instead of using the $20 billion to $30 billion in corporate welfare to pay off Air Canada, Lululemon, Bell, Telus, Rogers and their wealthy insiders with taxpayers' money, they should have spent that money on rapid tests two years ago.

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

Madam Speaker, I own an electric vehicle and I find these issues to be rather interesting. Clearly, I am not interested in funding Elon Musk. I am interested in owning an electric vehicle. The United States has developed a strategy to ensure that Americans can buy vehicles designed in the United States. That has repercussions for us.

How can we ensure that every Canadian and every Quebecker can have access to an electric vehicle? Should we not increase tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles? Could this be good for Canada's economy? I wonder about that. I think that would be part of the solution and that it should have been included in the economic update.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have a philosophical difference. I do not believe that we should use taxpayers' money to subsidize wealthy people. As members of Parliament, I think we are in the top 4% or 5% of income level in Canada, and we should not be subsidizing members of Parliament to buy electric cars, period.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. On the topic of cars, I have given him a ride in my car. I do not know if he will ever come again after that, and it was definitely not electric.

I want to go a little more into this whole idea of subsidizing a car, which drives up inflation. I remember back when I was a kid, the government had a program for well drilling and immediately the price of wells doubled. I wonder if the hon. member can comment on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question and for the rides from the airport. Yes, the more we subsidize it, the more it is just driving up the price. Demand will always expand to take up every free thing offered by the government.

Further to the gentleman from the Bloc's question, study after study shows that the actual return on investment and the reduction of GHG with electric cars is one of the very worst. If the government is going to subsidize something, let us subsidize upgrades to housing, windows, insulation and those items, but not subsidize the wealthy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will just take this moment to remind members that they do need to have the proper headset in order to participate. It is not that we do not want them to participate. I do not think that there is a reason for MPs not to have them. I have asked IT to reach out to the previous member as well. I would ask members to reach out to IT if they do not have headsets for wherever they are. I know that they can be purchased through the budgets as well.

That is just a reminder so that we can keep the flow going into the House of Commons, and everybody is able to have the interpretation that they rightly deserve.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

I know we are having some technical issues, so I will go to the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be confused with the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, who is a great member from that part of the country. I am located a bit north of his riding. Nonetheless, I am happy to share the stage with him. He is a good friend of mine.

Today I am speaking about the fiscal update, Bill C-8. I think the title of this story is “inflation”. We have seen inflation run wild right across the country. I am an auto mechanic and come from the automotive world. I spent most of my life before this place working at a Chrysler dealership in northern Alberta and Abbotsford, B.C., so that is the world I know more significantly. I do not know about others, but I have been driving around Canada noticing that the parking lots of car dealerships are empty. Anyone who has a three-year-old vehicle can trade it in for the same amount of money it was bought for three years ago.

I talked to a fellow during the election campaign who had a 2019 Ford one-ton pickup. He uses it to pull his holiday trailer. The dealership called him to say that since he only uses his truck to pull his holiday trailer, would he consider trading in his 2019 truck in August for a 2022 pickup truck in April of 2022. The man was told the dealership would guarantee him a new truck in April of 2022 if it could have his truck that day with no increase in his payments or the money he owes. It would be a clean swap. He got a pickup that was three years newer. That is a picture inflation. That is a picture of supply chain shortages and life getting more expensive. The fact that pickup trucks are now more expensive today than they were three years ago shows that inflation is happening.

We see it all around us. Now we have major supply chain shortages that are causing some of this inflation, whether it is microchips not making it across the ocean from China to manufacturers or a problem with trucking, but it also has to do with the amount of cash that is being put into the economy in Canada. We are also noticing higher prices in grocery stores of things that we have always relied on. To some degree it is the success of capitalism; when people go to the store, the bread lines up for them. The things we have come to appreciate and take for granted in many cases are not necessarily there today. Because of shortages, we are seeing the prices go up.

Farmers are saying they are getting record prices for their products, but when they buy their inputs, their inputs have increased threefold. They are getting double for their products, but their inputs are threefold higher, so their margins are all in flux. They are not able to predict what they are going to be doing and, in many cases, it does not matter how much money they have, they just cannot get the product. It does not matter whether the product was priced at zero dollars or $100. If they cannot get it, they cannot get it. That is an increasing challenge in this new world.

The point of all of this is that we are driving inflation through flooding the country with cheap cash. Statistics Canada says inflation is currently running at nearly 5%. When people can get money at 2% or 3%, they are basically getting paid to take on debt and we are seeing massive amounts of household debt. People are using the equity in their homes to run their lives, and it is spurring on inflation across the country. All of these things contribute to inflation. Folks continually tell me their groceries have gone up twice the price from a year ago.

There are increased trucking costs associated with this. I spoke to a sawmill owner in Slave Lake, Alberta. Two years ago, it typically cost him $2,000 to get a B-train of lumber down to the coast; today it is costing him anywhere from $5,500 to $6,000. That is a threefold increase in the price of the trucking. The fuel cost is up 50%. A year ago it was hovering around a dollar; now it is running at about $1.50. All of these things are making our lives more expensive.

The other thing I heard from constituents around New Year's was that the December natural gas bill for most people in my riding was the highest bill they have ever had, and a big part of that is due to the carbon tax. Folks were complaining to me that the carbon tax portion of their bill was larger than the actual natural gas costs of the bill. There are the transmission fees and things like that on there, but the actual natural gas they pay for would have been about a third of the bill and then the carbon tax would be about a third of the bill.

That was extremely frustrating to many Canadians, given that they said they had already done everything to reduce their bill. They had upgraded their windows and they had put in more insulation into the ceiling and they had reduced the temperature in their house, all to try to reduce their bill, and yet they had the largest bill in their entire life in December 2021. Again, we are seeing inflation being driven by things like the carbon tax and government policy in this country. They were calling on me to alleviate the carbon tax on home heating or eliminate the carbon tax in its entirety.

The other thing I wanted to talk about is about what it is going to take to get the economy up and running again.

We are seeing the cost of labour going up significantly. There are plentiful jobs. During the election I stopped in at a restaurant, and it was not open. It was four o'clock in the afternoon, and they were not open, so a week later when I drove through, I stopped in again, earlier in the day. I had a chat with a waitress and I said I was there last week and they were not open. She said, “Oh, no; we close at four o'clock. We have not been able to get enough staff to stay open all day.” That is something I hear from people all across northern Alberta—that they cannot find enough people to fill the jobs.

Again, that is causing them to offer more pay to attract people to come, and that is also another thing that is driving inflation. Basically, if someone is getting paid more to do the same job but their life costs more on the other side, they have not gained anything. All that happens is that the dollar numbers are higher. That, essentially, is what inflation is. It is the devaluing of our money so that it takes more money to do the same thing, and that is happening in both directions. That is happening in the wages and also in the costs of everything.

We are not necessarily seeing massive increases in production. We are seeing bigger numbers all around, larger numbers, but we are not necessarily seeing the tonnes of coal go up significantly or the barrels of oil go up significantly. All we are seeing is the dollar numbers associated with that going up, and that is, in a nutshell, what inflation is. The government has the levers to make sure that our dollar is worth something in the world, that our lives are affordable and that when we work for our money, we are able to pay for the things we need in order to live our lives. This particular suite of policies the government is proposing would do nothing to alleviate inflation, and for that reason I will not be supporting this bill.