SoVote

May/2/22 10:25:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I am seeking unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/22 10:25:38 p.m.
Watch

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request. All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The hon. member may proceed.

60 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/2/22 10:26:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to chime in on this debate again. Bill C-8 is actually a piece of implementing legislation that arises out of the biggest spending budget in Canadian history, namely budget 2021, which was tabled well over a year ago. That budget set a record because the Liberal government had not tabled a budget for well over two years, which is something that has almost never happened in Canadian history. Budgets are intended to be tabled every single year to give Canadians a picture of what their finances look like and a picture of what the government wants to spend their hard earned tax dollars on and how much the government is going to borrow to try to deliver the services Canadians receive. Bill C-8 is coming out of the biggest budget ever seen in Canada. It has over half a trillion dollars' worth of spending in one year, and members can think about that. It ended up doubling Canada's national debt. That is how big this budget was, so members can understand why it was critical that the official opposition, which is the Conservative Party, and other opposition parties in this House had an opportunity to exercise oversight over this huge budget. Of course, a budget in itself is not legislation. It is simply the government's statement of what it intends to do the following year. The government brought forward this budget document, then over the subsequent months of 2021, it began to roll out enabling legislation. First it was the budget implementation act, then different pieces of legislation after that. Along the way the government also tabled in the House something called a fall economic statement, which gives Canadians a six-month update on where the finances of the nation are and what the government still plans to do arising out of the budget. Out of that process has come this bill, Bill C-8. Again, it is a bill that spends well over $50 billion of taxpayers' money, much of it borrowed, by the way. Members can understand why we are reluctant to force this through the House of Commons. Members will understand why we are reluctant to ram this thing through without proper oversight and accountability, yet it is the Liberal government that, every step along the way, has tried to do exactly that. It has tried to push this along faster that it should be. In fact, the Liberals have accused us of delaying this bill, when all we have done is exercise proper oversight, which is something the Liberal government really hates. I look back at the mandate letter the finance minister received from the Prime Minister just over a year ago, and that mandate letter actually had a specific provision in it that said that the government was seeking to be transparent and accountable in everything it did, including when it came to budgetary matters. In fact, that was the direction to the finance minister. It was for her to be as transparent as possible with the finances of this nation, yet we see here the Liberal government doing everything it can to push through legislation that requires proper oversight. Let me place this in a larger context. I have already mentioned the fact that the government has embarked upon the largest spending spree in Canadian history. In fact, over the last year or so it has doubled the national debt, if members can imagine that, and since it was elected in 2015, the government has increased spending by some 53%. Since 2019, which was before COVID, the government has increased spending by 25%. For most household budgets in the country, if they tried to increase their spending like that, they would have to go to their local insolvency specialist and say, “Hey, listen. We cannot meet our payments anymore. Please help.” However, with this government, it is spend, spend, spend. It is a Liberal tax and spend problem that this country has gained since our former Conservative Party lost the election in 2015. Do members know what makes this worse? A year ago, when that 2021 budget was tabled, there were already warning signs. The economy was starting to recover and our Parliamentary Budget Officer had warned the government that inflationary pressures were building and that this extra 100 billion dollars' worth of stimulus that the finance minister had set aside to stimulate the economy might not be necessary. In fact, it might might be overkill. We know now that the government has spent somewhere in the order of $176 billion of spending that is not COVID-related. In other words, it was in the nature of stimulus, which it pumped into the economy, and then Canadians are surprised, and the Liberals are surprised, that we suddenly have rampant inflation. Today we know that the inflation rate is 6.7% and continues to go up. In fact, economists are incredibly worried right now about the rate of inflation in this country. They are concerned because now the Bank of Canada, our central bank, has had to step up. It is starting to increase interest rates, which, of course, impacts mortgage holders across Canada and loan holders across Canada. Typically, those are businesses and small businesses, and typically those are households that are highly indebted and are very vulnerable to high rate increases. That is what we are seeing happening around us right now. We have the twin scourges of inflation on one side and increasing interest rates on the other, which are going to severely pinch Canadians and are going to make life even more difficult at a time when we have an affordability crisis in the country. It is in that context that the government is still proposing to spend, spend, spend. How do I know that? Bill C-8 actually comes out of the previous year's budget. One would have assumed that the government would have learned from its mistakes, and that its next budget, budget 2022, would taper off spending, would control and discipline spending. In fact, what happened in the 2022 budget? It is just as bad. There is $56 billion of new spending, much of it permanent spending that will bind future generations to these programs the government is creating. The bottom line is this: These Liberals have been pounding their desks saying, “Hey, we have to get this passed, quickly, quickly, quickly”, and we have resisted. We said that we were going to take our time to review this legislation because there are things in this legislation that we support, such as tax credits for teachers and for farmers. We support those things. From time to time, we have asked the government to pull those things out of this legislation so that we can vote on them separately. Of course, the government says no. They want us to vote against the whole of Bill C-8, so they can blame us for voting against things that we actually support. We are not going to be bullied. We are not going to be pushed. We are going to take our time and do this job properly. We have no choice but to vote no against Bill C-8 because it is perpetrating an incredible expense and massive debt on future generations of Canadians, and I just do not want to allow that to happen.

1241 words

All Topics

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

May/2/22 10:35:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

167 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/2/22 10:36:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

135 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/2/22 10:38:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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%?

114 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/2/22 10:38:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

168 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/2/22 10:40:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

96 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/22 10:40:54 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Abbotsford, in 10 seconds.

8 words

Hon. Ed Fast

May/2/22 10:40:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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—

99 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/22 10:41:37 p.m.
Watch

That is well over 10 seconds. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

18 words

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

May/2/22 10:41:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

1480 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/22 10:51:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

17 words

All Topics

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

May/2/22 10:52:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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?

129 words

Mr. Dan Albas

May/2/22 10:53:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

143 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/2/22 10:54:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

112 words

Mr. Dan Albas

May/2/22 10:55:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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

14 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/2/22 10:55:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

47 words

Mr. Dan Albas

May/2/22 10:55:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

276 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/2/22 10:57:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

31 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62