44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 28, 2022 11:00AM
- Mar/28/22 12:19:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, needless to say, the housing system is in crisis. My colleague and I agree that there is a problem and that the solution being proposed is not the right way to go.
However, I think our political parties disagree on whether a real estate speculation tax should be imposed. I personally am in favour of this principle, but I simply think it was introduced in the wrong legislature.
I think my colleague also agrees with me on centralization.
However, our party differs from the Conservatives on another point. The Bloc believes that funding for housing needs to be completely overhauled so that it is not just private developers who benefit, but also community organizations, non-profit organizations and housing co-operatives, because they are the ones that know the real needs.
I also want to point out that the funding still needs to be rolled out. Ideally, that money would be sent to Quebec, and Quebec would take care of it. However, the federal government's withdrawal has deprived Quebec of roughly 80,000 housing units since the 1990s. As long as we pay taxes to Ottawa, we have a right to expect a fair return on our investment.
201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 12:53:16 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in the House again with respect to Bill C-8, now at report stage. I would like to start by sharing that I intend to continue to support Bill C-8, as will my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which she shared when she spoke last week. The bill has much in it that we both continue to appreciate, such as funds for rapid tests, money for ventilation for schools, and delays on loan repayments for small businesses at a time when they need those the most.
With respect to the Conservative motion that is proposing several amendments, I do not intend to support them because they would remove many of these same items, including the school ventilation improvements, the ventilation tax credit for businesses and a tax credit for school supplies for teachers. That being said, I do want to raise a red flag that my colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands and several others have raised with respect to the allocation, or even a double allocation, of funds. As she shared, I expect this was done with the best of intentions, but it is also important for us to be mindful of it.
In Bill C-8, there is $1.72 billion allocated for rapid tests. There is also $2.5 billion for rapid tests in Bill C-10. Last Thursday, in the supplementary estimates, we approved the allocation of another $4 billion for rapid tests. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer has called out, it seems to be that there is at least, if not double spending, a double allocation of this $4 billion for rapid tests. Certainly, with respect to Parliament reviewing this legislation, we both see it is important to address this, so that there is some measure to ensure that those funds are only spent once.
With the rest of my time with respect to Bill C-8, I would like to talk about what I see as the ambition gap in this legislation. In the fall economic statement, and in the legislation to bring it forward, there is so much more that could have been done to really meet the moment we are in.
I will start with the housing crisis that many colleagues have spoken about. In Kitchener, it is significant. There has been almost a 35% increase in the cost of housing in the past year alone. On Friday afternoon, I spoke with a neighbour of mine. Nick is a young person who shared with me, as many others have, that not only does he not expect that will he ever be able to buy a home, but when it comes to staying in Kitchener he does not expect that he will continue to be able to afford rent. He was just so concerned. That is as a result of a market that has increasingly become commodified. This is a market designed to provide a commodity for investors, when we should be focused on homes being places for people to live in.
In Bill C-8, as members know, the underused housing tax is being introduced, but it has also been diluted from what we know has worked in other jurisdictions. Vancouver is an example. In Vancouver, it is a 3% tax that applies to everyone. As a result, that measure has started to have an impact. It has reduced the number of vacant homes by 25%. It has reintroduced 18,000 units back on the market and it has generated tens of millions of dollars for affordable housing.
We can compare that with what we know is in this legislation. Not only is it not 3%, but it is down to 1%. I think there are fair questions to be asked about whether, even if it was broadly applied, a 1% tax would meaningfully change the behaviour of those who have begun to commodify the market and pull housing off the market simply to speculate on its value.
It is not only that. We also have exemptions everywhere: on every citizen, every permanent resident and every Canadian corporation. The list goes on and on. I think there are fair questions to be raised. Certainly, on its own, it would not be enough, but would this measure meaningfully shift and be a helpful contribution? At this time, in terms of ambition, this could have been the housing economic statement. It could have been the time we said that we have great ideas that have worked before, such as co-op housing, for example. Back in the 1980s, when we invested in co-op housing, we were able to build thousands of new rental co-op units.
Of course, when that is not in statements like this, it is less and less the case today.
It could have also been the time when we could have said we were going to put in meaningful measures to move away from the blind bidding process and move toward investing in public and subsidized housing with really bold and visionary measures to make progress on the housing crisis. If they are not here, I aspire to seeing more in the budget that we are expecting over the coming weeks.
In terms of this ambition gap, at a time when this House has affirmed that we are in a climate emergency, should not every economic statement focus on taking substantive, transformational action on the climate crisis? I certainly believe that to be the case. In Bill C-8, of course, the word “climate” is not mentioned even once. Instead, we see talk of more and more subsidies for oil and gas. Sometimes they are introduced under different names. The most recent one we are expecting is a new tax credit for carbon capture and storage, a tax credit that some are estimating could be worth up to $50 billion in this new subsidy for a solution that has already been subsidized significantly over past decades and only leads to 0.001% of reduction in global emissions.
As so many academics and scientists have called out, this is not a climate solution, so we need to be mindful of both what is not here as well as what could have been here and should be here going forward. We could take that $50 billion and invest in proven climate solutions, such as incentivizing homeowners to move forward on retrofits to their homes and businesses. Whether it is electric vehicles or high-speed rail, we could be mobilizing funds at the scale of a green new deal and at the pace that scientists tell us is required, and not to hold on to some faraway net-zero 2050 but to address what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us is required, which is the possibility of 1.5°C being the highest increase in global average temperatures at a time when we are already at 1.1°C. Yes, this is an emergency. As a result, I wish every economic statement we see in this House would have a stronger focus to give us te best chance of ensuring that our nieces, nephews, kids and grandkids have the possibility of a safe climate future.
Finally, I will close with respect to another gap in ambition, and that is with respect to mental health. We know the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, the Royal Society of Canada and so many in my community and across the country are calling out to address the significant gaps in mental health. We know there are significant wait times for young people in particular. As is the case for so many challenges we face today, this situation was present before the pandemic and has only been accelerated and made worse. This was another opportunity missed to increase the amount of health transfers from the federal government to equip provinces and territories to have the resources they need. If we are going to say the words “mental health is health”—as we all should, because it is true—then we should also be allocating the funding to ensure that we follow through and that across the country the resources are there to treat mental health as such.
In closing, I will continue to support Bill C-8. While I am disappointed that the ambition is not there for some elements, that does not take away from the fact that there are measures and funding that would go a long way in my community, and I want to continue to see those measures advanced.
1443 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 1:05:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I will start by acknowledging that before I was here there was plenty of work done in this place to ensure that rapid tests were procured. For my part, the last time I spoke on Bill C-8, I talked about the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce and how it has been calling out over past months on the part of businesses that needed a greater number of rapid tests.
I want to again clarify the comments I made earlier. I really appreciate that we need to ensure continued funding for rapid tests, particularly at a time when we are not through the pandemic and when we need to be doing more on vaccine equity around the world in places where new variants can continue to emerge because more has not been done. Certainly I will continue to support measures to ensure that rapid tests are readily available, as businesses and folks in my community have been calling for.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 2:28:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it would be so simple to give Quebec the means to take care of its responsibilities in health care. All Quebec is asking for is for the federal government to pay its 35% share.
However, Ottawa keeps wanting to dictate how Quebeckers' money should be used. It wants to come across as a saviour, when every year it cuts its share of health funding. It is Ottawa's fault that the system is underfunded. It is like a firefighter who is also a pyromaniac: It sets a fire and then tells us how to put it out.
When will Ottawa recognize that the expertise is in Quebec City, not in this Parliament, especially not on the benches across the way nor the ones next to us?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 3:05:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan for his hard work and for his excellent question.
On Friday we announced $2 billion in additional unconditional funding to help the provinces and territories address the delays in treatments, diagnosis and surgeries; to support health care workers, who have suffered considerably because of COVID‑19; to improve access to primary care; to create digital personal medical records for everyone; to improve mental health and access to addiction services; to help everyone live and age with dignity; and to continue to ensure that—
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 3:10:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, nearly two years ago, the government signed an agreement with the Pacheedaht First Nation in my riding. They committed to build and co-manage a $22-million Coast Guard facility on their territory near Port Renfrew. Chief Jeff Jones is rightly concerned because the federal government has provided no funding and discussions have stopped. Following last year's devastating container spill, coastal protection is needed now more than ever.
Why has the government delivered zero funding and stopped talking with the Pacheedaht?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/22 5:52:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I wanted to hearken back to the finance committee where we passed an amendment to the bill, in respect to some of the money that is being disbursed, for quarterly reporting on how it was spent. That was exactly in response to the comments by the PBO that the member cited in his speech about the late filing of public accounts.
We had proposed another amendment on the rapid test purchases. Because it was asking for information from the provinces on how funding was spent, that particular one was defeated not with the help of the NDP, who in fact moved that amendment, but with the help of the Bloc at committee because the Bloc did not agree the provinces should report on how the money was spent.
I want the member to know that we continue to care about how the public's money is spent, and we are actually proposing solutions to ensure that there is good scrutiny of government spending on this side of the House.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
