44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 7, 2022 11:00AM
- Feb/7/22 12:17:23 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to the economic update proposed in Bill C‑8. However, I am not at all pleased to say that it is about as weak as the throne speech. There are many things missing from it.
The bill proposes some interesting things, such as credits for ventilation, transportation for people who live in remote regions, medical care and school supplies, and a tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses. These are things that seem to make sense. However, I would like to call on the federal government to be very vigilant and aware that it needs to pay close attention to areas of jurisdiction and to work with Quebec and the other provinces on several of these aspects.
In the economic update, the government also talks about charging a 1% tax on vacant housing. We all know that vacant housing is a major problem, and we cannot really be against such a measure. However, we need to raise a red flag, or at least an orange one, about the fact that this will once again interfere with certain jurisdictions. I therefore urge the federal government to be careful, to work with Quebec and large cities like Montreal and to provide the necessary support, instead of sticking its nose where it might not belong.
No one can be against that idea. However, the proposed percentage of 1% may pose a problem. I would like to think that it will bring in some $600 million or so, but a similar tax exists elsewhere. Vancouver had a 15% tax, which was later increased to 25%, compared to the federal government's 1%. France's tax is 12.5% for the first year and 25% for subsequent years. In Canada, we are talking about a 1% tax. What will be the real impact of that measure?
The Bloc Québécois believes that access to social housing should be a priority, and that is where we should be targeting our efforts. It is extremely important to increase the housing supply, because the need is there.
From 1960 to 1995, the federal government funded the construction of 25,000 new housing units. Now, with its 20-year strategy, the government is proposing to add 6,000 new units a year, and the Bloc Québécois is very concerned that it is just not enough.
The Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain estimates that since 1994 the federal government's disengagement from these programs has deprived Quebec of more than 80,000 social housing units. It is now estimated that Quebec needs 50,000 units.
I want to make an aside about health. If the government had not made gradual, insidious and even—dare I say it—vicious cuts to health transfers year after year, we might not be in such a predicament today. Our health care system has been significantly undermined over the past two years, and it was already struggling before that. Why was struggling before? Because it has been underfunded for a long time. Why has it been underfunded for a long time? Because half the taxes go to the federal government, but the federal government has less than half of the responsibilities. I do not know how many times I have to repeat that in the House, but I will continue to do so for as long as necessary. This economic update could have provided for an increase in health care transfers, but it did not. That was just a quick but important aside.
I now want to come back to social housing, a sector where we are seeing the same phenomenon. The federal government withdrew from this file in 1994, and the sector is now lagging behind. That is where the government needs to invest. It needs to build social and community housing. Scotiabank estimates that Canada needs to build an additional 1.8 million dwellings just to reach the G7 average. I take that to mean that we are currently doing very poorly in comparison with the rest of the G7. That is what Canada is being told, and that tells us something is wrong.
I would like to point out to government members that social housing is not the same as affordable housing. There is a very important distinction. The cost of social housing is based on the average cost of housing, which means that, because rents in the Montreal area have increased by 18.7% in the past five years, a social housing unit now costs $2,225 a month.
Do I really need to explain that a lot of middle-class families need social housing? This government is always banging on about the middle class. If supporting the middle class is so important, then the government should prove it. What people need is social housing.
I am calling on the government to respect jurisdictions and consider the work being done in Quebec through the AccèsLogis Québec program, for example. This is crucial.
The government needs to stop trying to grab headlines by making flashy announcements, since the large amounts of money it announces often include the provinces' and municipalities' shares. The government needs to stop misleading the public and start being honest about how much it is actually spending.
How is it possible that just 25% of the money has been spent, two years into a four-year program? This means that the government is insidiously and maliciously planning to ensure there will be money left when the program is over. No one realizes it because what makes the news is the big bucks announced early on. We are tired of this. We want to work for our constituents.
There are some other worthwhile points to consider in the economic update. There are not many, but there are some, such as the Canada emergency business account. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île mentioned this program in a question. Our SMEs are drowning in debt. The estimated average debt is nearly $100,000, which is a huge amount.
SMEs are very important in Quebec. They are crucial. That is another thing that sets Quebec apart: SMEs contribute 30% of our GDP. We have to support those people. We cannot just let half our businesses fail in 2022. Analysts have concerns about that. More flexibility is called for, so we are very pleased that the loan repayment deadline has been extended. That is something we asked for, and the people of my riding are very happy about it.
How about increasing the amount for small storefront businesses because brick-and-mortar shops cost money to run? There are also online businesses competing with big, powerful multinationals. How about helping those little SMEs compete by coming up with solutions to support online merchants, such as reducing postage rates and credit card fees? Visa and Mastercard are not the ones covering the cost of all the points people get when they pay with a credit card; merchants are. That is an important thing to remember. There is some work to do on that. It would definitely involve negotiations, but I think it can be done, and the Bloc Québécois is offering to help.
I just talked about health transfers, a subject that is not mentioned in the economic update. However, the economic update does talk about ventilation and other things that come under provincial and Quebec jurisdiction, so we need to pay attention to that.
The economic update talks about the duration of EI benefits and the possibility of increasing the number of weeks. We appreciate that, because we have been talking about the seasonal gap for 10 years now. Why is that measure only temporary, though? This needs to be settled once and for all. EI benefits must be provided to people with serious illnesses; we can work together.
There is absolutely nothing in the economic update about supply chain issues. Labour issues were debated throughout the election campaign. Why have no proposals been made on this matter? The government needs to come up with something. The Bloc has proposals to make. Will the government listen to them?
We are proposing a tax credit for people aged 65 and over, after a certain number of hours worked. We are proposing measures for temporary foreign workers. Businesses are in urgent need of workers. These workers are not being allowed to enter; they are being turned away.
Last week I hit the roof over the 12-week waiting period for EI. Things finally got moving on the weekend with the addition of more teams. Why did it take months for this to happen? We are not here to cause trouble. We are here to work for the people, to collaborate, but things need to get moving.
The Bloc Québécois proposed a series of concrete measures for foreign workers, including expedited visas that are valid for five years and the possibility of eliminating the requirement for labour market impact assessments, or LMIAs.
To boost productivity, we are proposing a business investment program. The agri-food sector is chronically underfunded. I worry that it may become more profitable for a business to close up shop and reopen somewhere else. Why not create an investment program that could help with labour issues? That is important.
In closing, there is also the problem of transportation bottlenecks. It defies logic that we transport animals to be slaughtered in Pennsylvania when we are trying to buy electric cars and travel less in an attempt to reduce our carbon footprint. It makes no sense. What about the businesses' bottom line and the animals' welfare? There is a whole host of reasons to stop doing this.
I want to collaborate with the government, but there has to be something to work with, and there is not a lot of substance in this economic update.
1679 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 12:28:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We agree once again. I find that has been happening quite a bit recently. That is a change.
I completely agree with him on the fundamental importance of SMEs. We supported the small business assistance programs because it is important to have them. However, I would like to remind my colleague opposite that small business debt levels are very high. Yes, all levels of government must work together, but we, too, must work together. The Bloc has some suggestions. We believe that the government should be a little more generous with the smallest businesses and consider their prepandemic debt ratio and profitability.
I am also thinking of the businesses that opened their doors during the pandemic. They thought the pandemic was over after the first or second wave, but more waves keep coming and they cannot access any assistance. I think an effort must be made to help these businesses.
We therefore agree on one thing: SMEs are important to the economy.
171 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 12:30:50 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Brandon—Souris. We are on the exact same page.
I find it quite amusing that he has asked me to pass on a message for him, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to make a clarification. Small businesses do not exist because of the government. The government did take measures to help them through the crisis, but my colleague from Brandon—Souris essentially wants me to emphasize how important it is to give them a bit more of a hand, because the restrictions are dragging on and on.
If anyone needs proof that these long-drawn-out restrictions are doing economic harm, just have a look at the people out in front of Parliament. It is clear from the protest that these restrictions have been in place for a long time. People travelled all the way here and stayed all week because the situation is having an impact on them. We need to think about businesses, about people in the service industry. Yesterday I saw one of my friends who works in the theatre industry. He was certainly fed up.
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 12:32:31 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, the short answer is yes, of course.
As I mentioned earlier, my only concern is that the government needs to be mindful of jurisdictions and look at what is being done in the different provinces and territories. Housing for indigenous peoples is a parallel issue. There are indeed urgent needs in that sector, which, by the way, falls under federal jurisdiction. The federal government needs to take care of the areas under its own jurisdiction that it has been neglecting over the past few years.
With regard to the other sectors, the federal government needs to transfer the money and the work will get done. I am thinking, for example, of AccèsLogis and other programs in Quebec. Our ultimate goal is the same.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 4:48:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the situation is unbelievable. We are debating a serious matter, people's privacy. We have a parliamentary secretary who stated that he did not vote in committee and that all kinds of information is being collected from our phones anyway. That is worrisome.
I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech because he raised several very pertinent points. What I wanted to ask him about was the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, a tool at the government's disposal to ensure it does not go wrong.
Many governments around the world collect data about their citizens, and they all have good reasons for doing so. That is why we must be vigilant with respect to this issue. I would like my colleague to tell me why the Liberal government did not approach the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in this process. That is unbelievable.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 5:01:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his balanced speech. He covered the issue in detail, and I would like to ask him the same question that I asked my Conservative colleague earlier.
We have a government that claims that there is no problem, that there is no need to worry because data is always being collected. This government does not want to acknowledge its members' vote in committee. That is quite troubling. What does my colleague think was the government's motivation for not involving the Privacy Commissioner of Canada when it was setting this policy?
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 5:33:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of his intervention, the parliamentary secretary has been trying to diminish the importance of the issue. He tells us quite frankly that he is not an expert and that he does not know about these things.
He tells us that the government naturally needs to look after privacy, but that this is not a serious matter because the government will ensure that the data is used properly. In fact, no one really knows if that will happen.
That is precisely the problem: We do not know, and we want to know. I ask the member if his party will vote in favour of the motion to protect the privacy of our constituents.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 5:51:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to get his opinion on something.
I have been listening to the debate for some time and I have heard government members tell us that it is no big deal, that everything is in order, there is no problem, no need to worry, and we need to act quickly because this is necessary and they will be careful.
I have some vague memories of the WE program. The government initially told us that everything was in order, that the program was a good one, and sorry, but it was the only company. We ultimately found out that the program had been designed for their buddies.
I am almost afraid that the Liberals might prorogue Parliament in a month or a week.
I do not know how my colleague can convince Liberal Party members that this is important. They are not being attacked. The motion moved by my colleague from Trois-Rivières does not presume anything, and he pointed this out a number of times in his speech this afternoon. He said that we are not presuming that a mistake has been made. We simply think we need to examine this issue more closely.
This affects all of Canada. Could we take this seriously and be careful with people's personal information? What does my colleague have to say about that?
234 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/22 6:19:03 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.
I would like to ask her to say more about money that must be earmarked for social housing. She just said the government has not done enough. The federal government's targets are pretty low, and it talks a lot about affordable housing, whereas we are talking about social housing.
Could she comment further on that?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
