Debates of May 2nd, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

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

Madam Speaker, I hope we caught what just happened there toward the end of his speech. On the one side, the member is saying that we need proper oversight, and we need to properly go over this in the details. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken since report stage to this, compared to five Bloc members, two NDP, two Green and three Liberal, but what is even more remarkable is that he concluded his speech by saying they are going to vote against it.

Which is it? Are we going to debate this endlessly because we really want to have that proper oversight? Is that what they want, or do they already know they are going to vote against it, which the member just revealed at the end of his speech?

He is trying to have it both ways. He is trying to say, “We want to have proper oversight”, but he has also given away the fact that he already plans to vote against it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I again remind the member for Kingston and the Islands, which is the home to one of my cousins actually, of what I said in my speech, which is that this is the largest budget in Canadian history that this bill is reflecting. The bill is legislation for implementing that budget.

In a budget of $500 billion, over half a trillion dollars, does the member not think we are going to find things that we would support? Of course we are. However, will the Liberal government actually allow us to vote separately on those items, those worthy programs that we believe are necessary to sustain a strong economy to allow families to flourish? What we will not countenance is bullying from the Liberal government trying to push through legislation without the proper oversight.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my hon. colleague.

One thing that was left out of the economic update, Bill C‑8, is obviously the health transfer increase that Quebec, the provinces and the territories have been calling for unanimously. Everyone wants health transfers to be increased to 35%.

I think that the Conservatives agree with us that the health transfers need to be increased. The only thing we have not yet heard a Conservative MP say is by how much the transfers should be increased.

Is the hon. member prepared to say right now in the House that if the Conservative Party formed the government, health transfers would be increased to 35%?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a trick question, as he would have concluded.

I can say that we as Conservatives believe in co-operative federalism, where we work with the provinces and territories to come up with solutions to problems, including the huge problems we have within the health care system in Canada. We know that the provinces need help not only with surgical wait-lists but we know they also need help with mental health care. However, the way these problems are solved is to sit down around a table and discuss what those specific needs are and talk about what each one costs and prioritize them.

That is how a Conservative government would act. It is not how the Liberal government acts, but it is how we would act. We are respectful of the provinces and territories and what they bring to the table. We would like to have the government respect us as well. That is how to craft a proper health care policy for Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

I was struck by the member for Abbotsford mentioning the banks stepping up by increasing interest rates. I want to ask him about the banks having increased their profits, nearly $58 billion in 2021. The Royal Bank alone made $16 billion. It just seems to me that they are not necessarily stepping up when they are continuing to see great increases in their profits.

I want to ask why the Conservatives are protecting the interests of the rich rather than trying to make sure we are doing better for the working people in Canada.

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

The hon. member for Abbotsford, in 10 seconds.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that in 10 seconds, but I will say that we are not here in any way promoting the interests of the rich and the wealthy, as the member may have suggested. We are not even in government. We do believe that the wealthy should pay their fair share.

The government has come forward with what they call a recovery dividend on banks, a one-time charge of 15% and then an ongoing charge of 1.5% every year in terms of new taxes on the banks.

We believe what is really required is—

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

That is well over 10 seconds.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I have to warn members that this is not the first time I have participated in debating the bill. In fact, the bill was first introduced back in December. Now, much has changed in our world since that time, and much of it, sadly, has not been for the better.

Recently, I reviewed my previous comments on Bill C-8. Those comments were before the atrocities had begun in Ukraine. Indeed, our worst nightmares have now come true as we are witnessing the horrors of Putin's war on Ukraine as innocent civilians are murdered. These disturbing events are changing the face of our world. When I last spoke to Bill C-8, I raised a serious concern that I will repeat here today. I said that a significant portion of Canada's fiscal capacity has been spent. It is gone, and we must recognize that, because in the event we run into any type of future emergency situation, we will have less fiscal room to respond. Well, today, here we are.

I know that every member in this place stands with the Ukrainian people. We stand with the government in supporting Ukraine, while at the same time doing everything we can to try and stop Putin. On these points, I hope we are all united.

Recent world events, I would argue, have made this spending bill, Bill C-8, woefully out of date. Let us not forget that it is our very own Parliamentary Budget Officer who has scrutinized the fiscal numbers proposed in the bill. The PBO, as we have, has come out and said that stimulus spending is not needed. That was before the world crisis that we see today.

Let us talk about one of the very real problems coming before us. In this place we are all united that we need to prioritize welcoming Ukrainians who are fleeing the tyranny and aggression of Putin, but as they arrive, they will face the same challenge that everyday Canadians in every city and in many rural areas are currently facing: housing affordability. It simply does not exist anymore. Housing is completely out of control in many Canadian cities. Recently, the Toronto Star reported that the average selling price of a detached home in Toronto pushes the $2-million mark. Make no mistake, the situation of rental housing is no better.

In Bill C-8, there is the proposed underused housing tax act. We have criticized this act because, again, when the Liberals bring forward what they say are solutions, many people note, “Oh, we have unused housing that will stimulate things so that more people can have housing.” Well, let us just look at the City of Vancouver in my province of British Columbia, which has recently revised its own version of the underused housing act that this government is drawing on.

The city found two things. One is that 1% was not drawing enough. Our Green member of Parliament who was debating with us had raised the suggestion, but it does not seem to work. Housing affordability in Vancouver has not done well under this tax on underutilized properties imposed by the City of Vancouver, and so it raised it to 5% in 2023. My question to the government would be this: Does it plan on raising it to 5%? The good people of Vancouver would probably say that they have seen housing affordability go out the window. They have seen housing prices go up, and guess who is collecting more and more revenue. It is the City of Vancouver. Guess who is going to be multiplying that by five. That is a huge amount.

Again, this government started at 1%. We said that 1% was not going to have an effect. The only effect it would have is to put more money in the government's pocket. Let us not forget that situation in Ukraine that I talked about. That is creating windfall revenues for the government.

On inflation, the member for Abbotsford is a tough act to follow. I am trying to keep up with him. The government is gaining more and more money all the time. When it added an escalator, the link to the CPI on things like beer, wine and spirits, that was not just it. The former member for Malpeque, Wayne Easter, was very critical on this point in committee. He said that adding a CPI to user fees for the whole of the Government of Canada, national parks, sport fees, all of them, are subject to inflation. What we have is a government that keeps adding more to its revenue. It is receiving more money than it ever has, and yet it is spending faster and faster.

At the same time, I talk about not being able to provide appropriate housing for Ukrainians, if they can come to this country, because rentals are difficult to find. Homes are very difficult to come by. I want to take this moment to zoom into my own riding. Once again I have to raise the subject for the good people in Princeton and Merritt, B.C. These communities were devastated by flooding in November of last year. At the time, and I gave full credit to the Prime Minister, he said to those communities that he would have their back and that he would be there for them.

Six months later, the bills are past due and only now is funding once again promised to arrive. Will it this time? I have asked this question in this place many times. I have raised multiple questions and there is literally never any response from any minister on that side of the House. These people are still out of their homes. Why? It is not because of underutilized houses. It is because they have no home to return to.

Some of those homes are being looted. Imagine spending six months, half a year of their lives, in a motel room because they cannot go home. Their homes are being looted by thieves. This is not a developing country. This is happening here in Canada. How does rural Canada survive when the federal government cannot deliver promised supports in a reasonable period of time? We should ask ourselves that question. I say to members in this place, what if it was a community in their riding that was devastated by flooding? Do they think six months, half a year, is reasonable?

Here in Ottawa there was a three-week blockade and there was a $10-million fund on the table in no time flat. That money is already going out the door. Loblaws got $10 million, and got that $10 million much faster, just to buy new refrigerators. No one was homeless. It was for new refrigerators. The people in my riding are taxpayers. They need help, critical help. When the Prime Minister says he will be there for them, that he will have their backs, he is not there. I cannot think of a greater failure for a country, and that failure is on all of us.

I have talked a lot about this particular bill, Bill C-8. I have talked a little about the underutilized housing. One thing I just have to say is the government continues to rely on parts 4 and 5. We may argue about vaccination passport initiatives that are in part 5 or ventilation and all those things, but what I have to really object to is the manner in which the government is actually injecting, literally, things into its bills. Instead of going through the estimates process and putting them into the regular fiscal framework, it is putting it in legislation. That makes it tougher for members of Parliament and senators to be able to follow. That means the job of all of us members of Parliament is made more difficult.

I have to say about Bill C-8, that is not a good thing here. Perhaps I could make this a little better. Before I close, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-8.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

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, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 with a view to remove the income tax provisions of the Bill.

I do appreciate the House's attention and look forward to questions and comments.

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, now we see that after 51 Conservatives have already spoken to this at report stage, the Conservatives have decided that it would now be in the best interests of the bill to be sent back to committee, believe it or not.

Here we have a member who has given his thoughts and comments on some concerns that he has in the bill. I am curious if he could inform the House as to the degree to which the Conservative members on the committee brought up these issues, how that was reflected upon, whether or not we have been going through the democratic process to get to where we are right now, and how he sees that process unfolding differently if this were going to return to committee?

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

Madam Speaker, I was placed on the finance committee and later elected as vice-chair very late in the process of Bill C-8, so unfortunately I only got to see the tail end of it. As I said, and this is something the member for Abbotsford was very strident on, the reason we were elected to this place is to make sure that we are producing legislation that fits the times. Unfortunately, this particular piece of legislation was written where it is not taking those things into account. I talked about the underused housing act as being woefully insufficient, and how many of the things the government is not even putting in the fiscal framework but is using legislation to pass. I just do not think the committee or this place is served to see that bill go forward without further review.

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

Madam Speaker, some of the income tax provisions, as I understand it, in Bill C-8 include creating a refundable tax credit for SMEs to improve air quality in their places of work, expanding the travel component of the northern residents deduction, enhancing the refundable tax credit for teachers, creating a refundable tax credit for agricultural businesses so that farmers are able to get more money back under climate action incentives, and creating a tax on underused housing that the member had featured prominently in his remarks.

Have I missed anything from the list? These are all things that he wants the committee to re-examine, if I understood his proposal correctly.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's interventions at committee and also here. Yes.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia talked a little about housing and the importance of the issue for his riding and all across the country. I would like him to provide us with a few more sentences to elaborate on that further, if he would like.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's efforts here in the House to make sure that these points are being raised. If we have refugees coming from other countries who are experiencing difficulties, I know the Anglican Church of Canada has publicly raised the fact that there is too much paperwork in the government's process. Even if they get through that paperwork, other charitable groups are asking where we house people because rental situations, in the government's mind, have to fit certain criteria.

A local radio host talked about simply putting out one of his family's properties for rent. He had all sorts of offers. People were saying they would pay double the damage deposit and they would help with chores. We are finding that it is so difficult for people to get housing that they are getting desperate.

People come from desperate situations, whether they are refugees from Ukraine or from other places in the world, or whether they are our own people in places like Merritt and Princeton where people do not have homes to go to and are stuck in motels with their emergency supports being capped.

This is the problem the government has. It is not stepping up to the plate. It is not working with provinces and it is not delivering the help that Liberals keep saying, hand on heart, to millennials: “We are going to make housing affordable.” I do not expect the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister to scratch every itch, but I do suggest that they start keeping their promises, whether to refugees or to Canadians who need our help.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the valiant member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

Okay.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

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

Madam Speaker, given what time it is, I will try to keep it interesting because I can see that many of my colleagues are nodding off. That is rather ironic, considering that one of the topics covered in Bill C-8 deals with giving people a place to lay their head.

It is no secret that I like to remind myself regularly who I work for. The answer will not surprise anyone. I work for the people in my riding, the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. I have the privilege of representing their hopes, interests and fears, and I try to be as thorough as possible in that endeavour. I work until late in the evening, as is the case once again tonight.

I will use much of my time to make a plea for our young people who are struggling to find housing. The housing situation for the people we represent is very serious. I was speaking with one of my constituents just before I began my speech, to confirm that this is what he is experiencing. He is in his 20s and recently moved in with his girlfriend. He told me that his rental is costing him more than the mortgage he had taken out on his house. Everything is backwards. What is worse, they are lucky because they do not live in the city. Most young couples rarely have this choice.

These days, the only certainty for anyone looking for a place to rent or buy is that it will be a complicated, tiring and stressful task. What is happening in the housing market is so serious that many people are working just to keep a roof over their heads. In Quebec alone, 450,000 renters spend more than 30% of their income on housing. That is unsustainable. We would need 50,000 new units of social, community and affordable housing to address this crisis. Instead, we are being offered a tax. There is no vision other than creating 6,000 housing units a year for all of Canada.

According to estimates, Canada would need 1.8 million housing units just to catch up to other G7 countries. Let us not give up hope: We should get there in 300 years. The Liberals are presenting their national housing strategy as a revolutionary measure. The reality is that their objectives are just as unremarkable as their results.

As was the case for health transfers, the government does not accept responsibility for its withdrawal. Today in question period, the House leader of the Bloc Québécois stated that, just like Pontius Pilate, the Liberals washed its hands of the situation.

Everyone is saying that there is a housing shortage, and in particular social and community housing. There is a very simple reason for this and it is connected to what I was saying earlier. It is completely backwards for it to cost as much or more to rent than to buy. Vulnerable people do not have the financial leverage to buy and end up trapped between an unattainable real estate market and a shortage of rentals that are already too expensive. This is a prime example of supply and demand.

The Liberals are focusing on a series of programs and initiatives that hit all of the variables affecting the housing market: more supply, more housing. The 1% tax on vacant properties set out in Bill C‑8 is all well and good, but we do not need a 1% tax on the value of vacant buildings. What we need is more housing supply.

It will come as a surprise to nobody if I say that the Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to work with the Government of Quebec because housing is exclusively under provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc's only amendment called for the property tax measures to apply in a given province only if that province agreed to it. The Liberals dismissed that amendment, which is a real shame.

It will also come as no surprise to anyone if I say that it is of utmost importance to the Bloc that Bill C‑8 not intrude on Quebec's jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the tax envisioned by this bill constitutes a clear intrusion in the area of property tax. Even if the government is setting out solely to penalize non-resident, non-Canadian owners of second homes, it is intrusion.

If the government wants to introduce a tax to regulate a sector that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the governments of Quebec and the provinces, which is what Bill C‑8 would do, it should, at the very least, ask them what they think. Without that, I do not see how I can vote in favour of this bill. I am actually a little disappointed in my colleagues who could not be bothered to listen to us.

Now I would like to comment on federal health transfers. Here again, the Liberal government is seizing an opportunity to disappoint Quebeckers.

Part 6 of Bill C‑8 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $1.‍72 billion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in relation to COVID-19 tests, but that is not what we are asking for. That is not what we need.

If our demands are not clear enough, then it may be time for the government to get its head out of the clouds and go spend even an hour visiting a hospital. It is all well and good for the government to provide special funding during COVID to meet the need for supplies specifically intended to combat the virus, but the past two years have wreaked serious havoc on our hospitals. Now more than ever, Quebec and the provinces need a lifeline. A measly 3% transfer a year until 2027 is not going to earn the federal government forgiveness for decades of withdrawal from its responsibilities.

If the government wants to talk about billions of dollars in federal aid, then it should listen to us. I will repeat the request slowly. It is not hard to understand. I hope that everyone will take note, especially those on the other side of the House.

Quebec and the provinces are unanimously calling for an immediate payment of $28 billion with an annual 6% transfer.

That is not too much to ask, as it represents just 35% of our health care system costs. When the legislation first came into force, costs were shared 50-50. At least this way, the proportion would be increasing to 35%. Instead, the Minister of Finance opted for the easy route by copying and pasting numbers from previous years.

Canada is already behind Switzerland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia. As far as health care access and outcomes are concerned, these amounts are really nothing to celebrate.

What is more, the Prime Minister had the nerve to say that the problems with our health care systems are not just a matter of money. What are Quebeckers to make of that? As the classic tune by the Colocs goes, pass me the puck and I will score the goals. In this case, however, we do not even have enough money to buy a hockey stick, so we are far from being able to score goals.

I will close by talking about the part of Bill C‑8 that provides for a six-year limitation period for the recovery of amounts owing with respect to a loan provided under the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA. I want to note that it is important to listen to the opposition and not dismiss our suggestions out of hand.

In 2020, the program was designed to provide SMEs with interest-free loans that included the possibility of partial loan forgiveness. The purpose was to help businesses cover expenses that could be avoided or deferred while they dealt with the COVID‑19 shutdowns. At first, the terms stated that if the balance of the loan was paid off by December 31, 2023, a third of the loan would be forgiven.

Ever since the program was launched, the Bloc Québécois has been asking for it be improved to better respond to businesses' needs. For example, we asked for more flexible eligibility criteria for CEBA. That resulted in a better program overall. The issue of businesses' debt levels was not even raised.

We are on the same side when it comes to helping. Since I have some time left, I will offer my hon. colleagues some more suggestions for improving the situation for SMEs.

In e-commerce, it is a real David and Goliath story for small players that have to compete with major chains. High shipping costs and less effective digital marketing are stifling business maintenance and growth.

Canada Post's Solutions for Small Business program has some interesting measures. We propose harmonizing these measures and applying the international shipping discount to domestic shipping too. I think that is something that would not cost very much, but would go a long way.

We also suggested a single rate of $2 per book for book deliveries in order to encourage independent book stores. These are Bloc proposals. We are not here to oppose for the sake of opposing. We are here to propose things.

I introduced a bill on credit card transaction fees. The government should at least have the power to take action by sitting down with card issuers to negotiate lower fees for online transactions. That is another Bloc Québécois proposal that might help. We are here to help people.

In conclusion, I come back to my original plea. We as parliamentarians must address the problems facing our constituents and businesses with a strong sense of duty, setting partisanship aside.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Speaker, regarding the government's budgetary policy, one of the big challenges this country faces right now is inflation, which is driving up the cost of everything. I would love to hear the member's thoughts on that and on the government's role in that, and what he thinks can be done to help ease the cost of living for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not an economist, but I am pretty sure that we will not fix the inflation problem by extolling the virtues of cryptocurrency. There is one thing I do know, which is that seniors are always the first to suffer as a result of inflation.

Their purchasing power has not increased, although groceries, gas, prescription drugs and housing costs have all gone up. Everything has gone up. The only thing that has not increased is their old age pension, because the government is incapable of being there for seniors.

The government has created two classes of seniors: those aged 75 and over, who got something, and those aged 74 and under, who got nothing. Does inflation affect those under 74 any less? I do not think so.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for his speech and his commitment to workers, small businesses and his constituents.

My question is simple. Does he support teachers and farmers and our plan to give them this tax refund? Does he support Bill C-8?

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

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on how much his French has improved. It is obvious that he is working on it, and it is coming along.

I support everyone in Lac-Saint-Jean. With what we have seen of Bill C-8, unfortunately, I cannot imagine how we could vote in favour of it.

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

Madam Speaker, just to follow up, my Conservative colleague talked about inflation that is impacting not just Canada, but countries globally.

One thing we do not talk enough about is the skyrocketing concentration of wealth and the rampant inequality that is growing in our country. We see that we have the lowest corporate tax rate in the G7. We have tax havens that are designed to protect the super wealthy.

Does my colleague agree that we have a big issue when it comes to the concentration of wealth at the top and that the super wealthy could afford to contribute more so that we could build affordable housing, so that we could make sure that people have pharmacare and so that we could tackle the toxic drug supply and the overdose crisis? I appreciate my colleague for always speaking and trying to find solutions.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Joliette has been working on this issue for years and making suggestions to the government about tax havens. It is appalling that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer in a G7 country.

The wealth gap is getting wider and wider. The kind of situation we are in today is bound to happen when Bay Street has so much power and influence within the government. This is unfortunately where we find ourselves.

Instead of tackling tax havens, the government is giving more tax credits and subsidies to the banks and oil companies. At some point, a decision will have to be made, but that will take political will. This political will would free the government from Bay Street so that we can work on behalf of the people who voted for us, the people who are actually working to build a better life for themselves.