Debates of March 4th, 2022

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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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.