SoVote

Mr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC)

Mar/4/22 12:41:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague that I brought up during the initial debate on Bill C-8. I am trying to understand why the government chose September 21, 2021, as the start date for the refundable tax credit for improving air quality and ventilation in businesses. There is a business in my riding that owns an arena, and right from the get-go, it stood up as a field hospital to deal with the pandemic and deal with the potential there. It was responsible in making those changes. Why is it out of pocket thousands of dollars? Why does it not qualify? It was hinted that this would be discussed at committee, but I do not think that change was made. If the member cannot answer the question today, I would appreciate the government coming back to explain the rationale for why September 21, the day after the federal election, is when the tax refund credit is effective.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/4/22 12:42:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, obviously I was not at the finance committee and do not know whether an amendment was put forward or not by the opposition or the government. What I will say is that in Bill C-8 there are a number of measures that continue to help businesses, employers and Canadians on an individual basis. There is an improved tax credit for educators. There is the ventilation tax credit, as the member mentioned. In terms of the start date, whether it was September or another date, I am not privy to the rationale there. However, I know that the measures we brought in have helped Canadian businesses and have assisted them weather the storm. For any changes on ventilation, which is very important for businesses, we will continue to be there to assist them.

135 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Mar/4/22 12:43:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who so ably talked about the federal immunization campaign. I notice that the federal government is far from being immunized against encroachments into areas of provincial taxation. Under the Constitution, taxation was originally the direct jurisdiction of the provinces, and the only area of taxation for which jurisdiction and the spirit of the Constitution are still respected is property tax. With respect to taxing unoccupied housing, does my colleague not think that before the federal government starts taxing in areas of jurisdiction that are exclusively provincial, it should get the provinces' consent first?

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/4/22 12:43:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would like to say to him that our government worked very hard with all the provinces in Canada. During the pandemic, we were there to support the provinces of Quebec and Ontario in long-term care homes. On measures with regard to housing, obviously there are taxation measures that are very relevant to the federal government that we need to look at and we need to use. There are tools available for us. Our goal is to help with housing affordability and affordable housing. We have done that with the national affordability housing program. We will be bringing out a suite of measures that the minister has been working on. I look forward to seeing them. They were in our platform and Canadians voted for them. We are going to see them in the coming weeks and months.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Mar/4/22 12:45:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying how much I appreciate the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge mentioning the cost of housing in his speech. In Kitchener, as he might know already, the cost of housing went up over 32% in the last year alone. He mentioned an interest in going further and being more bold. For example, the underused housing tax that is in this legislation would only be for those who are non-Canadian, non-permanent residents. I wonder if, on the topic of blind bidding, for example, he might be interested in sharing more about his personal views on how we could go further to address the housing crisis we are in.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Mar/4/22 12:45:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, on housing affordability we must table measures. One of them will be the $1 billion-plus national accelerator fund. We need to encourage municipalities to speed up the process of approving projects and get shovels in the ground faster. I always hear the comparison that in the United States it can take eight to 12 months to start putting shovels in the ground, but in Canada it is much longer. We must break down the red tape and get more housing built across this country. In my area, the prices that things are selling for are remarkable. We need to get supply out there. This is multi-jurisdictional, and we will work together with all jurisdictions and all levels of government to get it done.

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Mar/4/22 12:46:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about inflation. My friend and colleague for Vaughan—Woodbridge just mentioned that he was prepared to fight for the middle-class Canadian. I found that really interesting as I was listening to and reflecting on his comments, because Canadians are concerned about inflation. When we ask about this in the House, especially on this side of the House, we hear that inflation is a global phenomenon. The government is quick to look at everyone else and say that if we look at this G7 country, it struggles with inflation. If we look at that G7 country, it struggles with inflation. Despite repeatedly asking the government about the housing bubble, it will not even acknowledge that one exists. We should look at everyone else, but not look here. Let us remember what fuels inflation, which is more dollars chasing the same number of, or fewer, goods. That is my concern. That was my concern yesterday. That is my concern today, and that will be my concern tomorrow when we debate in the House the government flooding the Canadian economy with more money. When I hear my colleague for Vaughan—Woodbridge talk about fighting for the middle class, I contemplate the middle class. I would like to think that my upbringing was about as middle class as it comes. My parents were both Italian immigrants. My father worked at a sawmill after coming from Italy when he was in his teens. My mother stayed at home to raise us and she went back to work just before I became a teenager. I feel like that is pretty middle class. I do not know how my family would have survived today. On top of that, we look at things like taxes, and taxes upon taxes: GST on top of a carbon tax. People have their CPP deductions, their EI deductions and their income tax. When I look at what the government puts out and I see increases in taxation, I get worried. That is what I saw. I saw a 5% increase, to my best recollection, at the last economic update. When we talk about fighting for the middle class, it is really irreconcilable when we see tax upon tax. Canadians are being asked to give more. These are not just the people who can afford it, but really everybody: the lower class, the middle class and the upper class. This may surprise some, but I do most of the cooking in my house. I do much of the shopping in my house, so I am keenly aware of the nature of inflation. I have watched prices go up. I try to be an astute consumer, as my dad taught me to be, but let us face it. People are now paying the same amount for chuck as they did for rib-eye just one or two years ago. I have butcher shops in my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, and I am very proud that they carry local products. One such butcher shop is called Chop N Block. I love that they carry products from just down the road: beef from places like Devick's Ranch, for instance, and things such as that. I have watched their prices go up. What was $35 a kilogram, and was a treat for most people when it came to meat, is now $50 a kilogram. That treat is now out of reach. Chop N Block and butcher shops like it have often fed the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo at reasonable prices. Those reasonable prices are escalating not because Chop N Block wants to make a greater profit, but because their costs are going up and those costs get passed on to the consumer. I am deeply concerned when it comes to Bill C-8 and thinking of more spending, where it is going to go and how it is going to be evaluated and considered. The average Canadian will spend an extra $1,000 on groceries. Carbon tax is set to increase at nine cents a litre come April 1. Putting aside exactly whether we agree or disagree with the carbon tax, the simple fact is that gas will rise at nine cents a litre on April 1. That will amplify the already escalating cost on groceries. When groceries go up and goods go up, prices go up. I hear the government say that we have a target of 2% per year with the Bank of Canada. A target is great, but how is inflation going to be reduced? The price of bacon has gone up. Most notably for me, the price of pasta has gone up. Not everyone is as fortunate as I am to have a backyard garden where I can make my own pesto sauce for pennies. Not everyone can pay the taxes upon the taxes. The fuel is surging and I am concerned about this. I recently held an economic round table with business owners in my riding. I plan to make this, hopefully, a monthly activity. I asked what was concerning them. The constituents from the businesses said, “We need more workers.” When we think about any stimulus spending, any further spending and anything that pumps money into the economy, we are worried when we see “help wanted” signs everywhere. People need more workers. Inflation and carbon tax are making it difficult for businesses to get by. They also said that bureaucracy and red tape for projects could be crippling, and that the CERB criteria were not specific enough and the CERB was therefore abused. That impacted their employment prospects. These are all things that we need to consider when we think about spending more money in the House. We have repeatedly questioned the housing minister about a housing bubble. We have questioned the finance minister about a housing bubble. I have yet to hear an acknowledgement of this. When we ask the minister about the housing bubble, he talks about everything the Conservatives did not vote for. I will tell members what Canadians did not vote for. They did not vote for the average house price to go from $435,000 to $810,000 in the last few years. I did not vote for that. Canadians did not vote for that. Why do we not simply acknowledge this and say what we are going to do to address this? I once wrote a paper about short-term payday loans. I talked about death by a thousand financial cuts in that paper. At the time, I never imagined I would be in the House of Commons talking about this same principle of death by a thousand small financial cuts. Canadians are seeing more and more of their paycheques going to the government. The Prime Minister has spent $176 billion in new spending unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was the Prime Minister who promised small, modest deficits, saying that $10 billion was where we were going to start and that the budget would then balance itself. Here is the problem. It is easy for today's government to bring on debt. It is actually quite selfish to do so, especially when that debt is unnecessary. Let us make everyone happy and we will spend. Does someone want money? Here we go, but who pays? It is all of us who pay. Everyone pays income tax. Everybody pays this. Passing it on to the next generation is simply not the answer, and it does not make it the right thing to do. I have concerns about spending, I have concerns about housing and I have concerns about inflation. I know that Bill C-8 has a lot to say. It is over 100 pages. These are some of my concerns that I wish to share with the House.

1315 words

All Topics

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Mar/4/22 12:55:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair, aspiring to a higher position. I want to thank the member for his speech. Just to put something in context, in my hometown of Conception Bay South today, a litre of gas is $1.91. It is not cheap. The member is right. The member mentioned in his speech that the cause of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few products. How do we get more products out there, or less money out there?

86 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Mar/4/22 12:56:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly sympathetic to the people of Conception Bay South with gas at $1.91. I still remember when the gas stations were making room for the one in front of the zero, in Vancouver when I was an undergraduate university student. That was not that long ago, and here we are. I am certainly sympathetic. With respect to fewer goods or the same amount of goods, we have goods. Those goods generally, unless production can increase, are going to remain the same. The concern I have is with how much we spend. When the government puts money into the economy, that is more money in the economy. That money chases the same number of goods, and as a result supply and demand, or whatever we want to call it, fuels inflation. That is the point I was trying to make to the hon. member.

148 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Mar/4/22 12:57:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, the member has been a great addition since this Parliament began. I would like to ask him a quick question in regard to what is not in this bill. At committee, the MP for Simcoe North brought forward an amendment that would in fact help the Prime Minister keep his commitments to Canadians on housing. It would basically ban foreign ownership or purchasing of residential properties here in Canada. We were able to get it on the floor to be spoken on, but it was Liberal members who voted against it. I know he is facing many of the same pressures in his riding as I do in mine, and foreign ownership is part of that. Why does he think the government voted against its own commitment? Is it because the Prime Minister only cares about those votes at election time and has no intention to carry through on his promise?

153 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Mar/4/22 12:58:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot from the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, as I have learned from members on all sides of the aisle, so I thank him for that. I am not sure why the Prime Minister would have voted against this. This is a pretty clear-cut right thing to do. When we have foreign money coming in, it will increase costs. Not only that, when we talk about money laundering and ill-begotten gains, that money can come in and be not only a mechanism of inflation but also a mechanism of laundering. I am not sure why the Prime Minister did not take action on this, because it really would have been a multipronged approach to issues that are plaguing Canada.

130 words

All Topics

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Mar/4/22 12:58:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spent much of his time in his intervention lamenting inflation and consumer costs, with zero reference to the stagnation of real wages for workers. He lamented taxation on incomes, but he made no reference to the record profits that have been hoarded by big corporations, complete with ridiculous CEO compensations and shareholder dividends. The hon. member has made lots of criticisms on this, but no criticisms on the capitalism that fuels it. Would he care to comment on the impacts of inflation as they relate to real working class people, such as the folks I represent in Hamilton Centre?

104 words

All Topics

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Mar/4/22 12:59:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has one minute remaining.

13 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Mar/4/22 12:59:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the clarification. With the greatest of respect to the member for Hamilton Centre, I represent real working people as well. My riding has seen a record number of sawmills shut down. My riding is even complaining about not being able to find workers when we do have industries there. With all due respect, I am not sure that simply capitalism is the problem here. The problem here is that the government is spending a lot more money. If he wants to talk about the minimum wage, he should talk to his provincial counterparts.

98 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Mar/4/22 1:00:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to see you in the chair. I hope we will see more of you there. It is a pleasure working with you at committee, but it is nice to see you in the chair today. It is nice to intervene with my colleagues on Bill C-8, the economic and fiscal update implementation bill, but before I get to that, it seems rather appropriate to acknowledge the devastation that we see in Ukraine. What we see in the unprovoked aggression of the Russian Federation in Europe is heartbreaking. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the government have my full support to continue to respond in the harshest of terms. I would support them to take an even more aggressive approach and I look forward to a Canadian response that includes an increase in our humanitarian efforts and aid. I have listened to many colleagues speak in the chamber about Bill C-8. We studied the bill at committee. I take this job very seriously. On its face, there are many items in Bill C-8 that seem rather reasonable, such as measures to support educators on an annual basis by increasing tax relief and measures to extend the COVID supports provided to businesses. How we will procure additional vaccines in the future is also addressed. There are other areas that I have significant concerns about, in particular the proposed housing tax and the carbon rebate that the government has proposed for farmers. However, before I turn to these issues, I would like to address an overall objection that I have to the bill. Legislation is constantly being sent to the House that has significant amounts of spending attached to it. We are never told how it will be funded, because the assumption is that these bills will be funded with debt. The assumption is that there is no limit to the debt this country can absorb and that when we want to fund our programs, the answer is to just add them to the deficit. This is not sustainable. I am appealing to all my colleagues that we must hold the government accountable for its spending plans. If members agree with all the expenditures in the bill, that is completely fine, but unless the government is also going to propose areas where it will cut back in order to fund priorities, I cannot support this legislation. We are missing an opportunity to set priorities. There will be no objection from me on spending on the priorities that all Canadians rely on, including health care, education and social support programs, including those programs for our low-income and most vulnerable members of society, and of course our seniors. We cannot just keep piling on debt and pretend that there are no consequences for future generations. On this basis alone, I am against the legislation, and until the government brings forward a proposal to review its spending and shows how any new spending will be met with reductions in other areas, it will be hard to persuade me to support future bills. Until the government gets serious about setting priorities for its spending, we will continue to see difficulty passing legislation through the House. I think there is a reasonable debate we can have about what those priorities are, but I also want to know where it would like to cut back. I agree with a former Liberal leader who indicated that it was hard to set priorities. That is right, and if we have 100 priorities, I submit that we have none at all. The Bank of Canada raised interest rates just two days ago, and it is projected that the bank will raise interest rates many more times before the end of the year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer released a projection indicating that the federal government alone could see interest payments on its debt increase to $40 billion a year annually. That is $40 billion a year that we are not spending on health care, that we are not transferring to the provinces for education, that we are not using to grow an inclusive economy. A social democrat friend of mine recently told me that social democrats should care about fiscal responsibility because it means that governments do not waste in some areas so that they can spend in priority areas. Let us think about that. We could be having a debate right now about how we could spend $40 billion. We could be debating pharmacare, a universal basic income or doubling or tripling the support for certain vulnerable groups in society. We could also be debating about how to provide much-needed tax relief for Canadians to keep the burden of taxation low on families and individuals, especially in an inflationary environment. The Bank of Canada tells us the economy is robust. It tells us that the economy is operating at capacity. That also means new spending will have upward pressures on inflation. Many economists are recommending to the government that it review its spending and reconsider its proposals to introduce new spending plans, because at this point in the business cycle, new spending will have upward pressures on inflation, and we know the budget coming before us in a month or so will introduce new spending. Last year's budget introduced almost $100 billion over three years, and curiously, I did not see one additional dollar for health care. At a time when health care expenditures in provinces are going up without any end in sight, at a time in a pandemic when health care spending is of the utmost importance, the government has not shown an approach that would see an increase in spending on health care. Now I will turn to Bill C-8, and specifically to the two proposals I wanted to mention today that we had challenges with. We have just heard one of them in the recent intervention: the proposed underused housing tax for foreign purchasers or foreign owners. If we think a 1% tax is going to have any impact on purchasing behaviour or increase the level of supply across this country, we are sorely mistaken. When an asset price rises by 30% or 40% in a year, a 1% tax is not going to change somebody's behaviour and will not deter money launderers, so we put forward a reasonable amendment, which was to introduce a temporary ban to provide a reprieve on foreign purchases of Canadian real estate for two years. This was a campaign commitment of both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party in the last election. The Liberals are famous for making promises, but they typically make two kinds of promises: those they intend to keep and those they hope we forget about. Canadians want to know whether this is a commitment the government is walking away from. With respect to the carbon tax as it relates to farmers, I have heard from farmers in my riding and across the country that the rebate does not go nearly far enough. I had one farmer send me a bill for $13,000, just in carbon tax, for natural gas to dry their product. We need to provide farmers with relief. They are the ones who feed our cities. They cannot afford additional taxes. A carbon tax is supposed to do two things. It is supposed to raise revenue for the government and it is supposed to change behaviour. However, sometimes there are no alternatives available for changed behaviour, and with prices going up somewhere between 30% and 40% over the last year on natural gas and fuel across the country, the outcomes the carbon tax is hoping to achieve are already being achieved. The government needs to provide much-needed relief to farmers, but it also needs to reconsider raising the carbon tax on April 1 of this year, because in and of itself, this is an inflationary pressure. I look forward to questions and comments.

1336 words

All Topics

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Mar/4/22 1:10:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Simcoe North for his work on the finance committee, where he put forward suggestions to help the Prime Minister keep his commitment to Canadians. Unfortunately, the government members rejected those suggestions. I wanted to talk a little more about the fiscal policy the member was raising in his speech. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has actually said the government has underestimated its debt servicing for the fiscal year 2026-27 by $6 billion. That is $6 billion that could take away from important services that Canadians count on. Could the member please reflect for the chamber on this mismanagement of our finances and on the impact that this underestimating of debt service costs could have on Canadians?

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam Chambers

Mar/4/22 1:11:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It is wonderful working on the finance committee, and I am learning a lot from him. With respect to the interest charges on debt, we absolutely need to worry about this. One of the justifications for the government's spending using deficit financing early on in its mandate was that interest charges were so low. They told us not to worry. Now we see challenges with interest rates going up, and we know that they are going to continue to increase. Now, as my hon. colleague has mentioned, we see that there is maybe a $6-billion additional cost that otherwise was not considered. Where is that $6 billion coming from? Of course, we could continue to borrow the money, but eventually my grandchildren, who are not even born yet, will be bearing that cost. I think that we need to consider this very closely.

159 words

All Topics

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Mar/4/22 1:12:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his fine speech. I have questions about social housing. As we know, the provinces are capable of managing their own budgets. When we talk about health care, we are talking about transfers. Why does the government not transfer these amounts to the provinces as well? I think that the government is interfering. It should really hand over the related amounts to the provinces, which are responsible for housing.

76 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam Chambers

Mar/4/22 1:12:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that very good question, and I agree with her. I think that the government is underfunding health care transfers to provinces. In 2015, the incoming Liberal government ran on a platform to increase provincial transfers, but it has not. In fact, it has increased certain amounts of money, but then tied strings or attached some conditions on what that money could be used for. I would submit that the provinces know best where and how to use the money they receive from the federal government to provide services to their citizens.

99 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Mar/4/22 1:13:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to the House. I know the member is new. I am certainly a big fan of his predecessor, so if he should see him in the future, I ask him to please pass along my hello. I have brought this up a lot in the House, although I will accept the fact that the member may not have heard me speak of this given that he is relatively new. The price on pollution was not meant to be a revenue-generating item for the government. All the money goes back to individuals and back to farmers in many cases. It is intended to be a mechanism to change market patterns and the decisions that are out there. Will the member at least acknowledge the fact that, of the money that is collected in the provinces where the federal government has to do it, that money is returned back to the public in various ways?

160 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 41