SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/22 10:57:35 p.m.
Watch

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.

34 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/2/22 10:57:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

1652 words

All Topics

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC)

May/2/22 11:08:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

63 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/2/22 11:08:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

131 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

May/2/22 11:09:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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?

47 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/2/22 11:09:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

59 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/2/22 11:10:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

144 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

May/2/22 11:11:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

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.

154 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

May/2/22 11:12:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean, who gave an excellent speech on Bill C-8. I thank him for sharing his time with me. It was wonderful to listen to him, and I might have been very happy just to continue listening to him. I do have a few things to say about Bill C-8. One of the first things we can talk about is how this bill was presented. When the government provides an economic update, it is often referred to as a mini-budget, and everyone has expectations and wants to see what is in it. When we saw Bill C-8, the economic update implementation bill, there was not much to it. Let us say that we were not impressed, but that does not really matter. We expect better from a government. We expect a government to do important things and make important announcements. We expect the government to do serious work, since it has public servants and staff. There are all kinds of people making requests, sharing ideas and wanting to change society. Bloc Québécois has all kinds of good ideas. The members across the way do not often take these good ideas, but they do from time to time. Today we are debating Bill C‑8, which contains different elements divided into seven parts, and I am going to focus on one of them. The Bloc Québécois had some questions about the other parts and was prepared to send them to be studied in committee, which is what happened. We had serious concerns about part two of the bill regarding the tax on underused or vacant housing belonging to non-residents or non-Canadians. The government wants to impose a 1% tax on vacant housing to help address the housing crisis. Will that make a difference? I am not sure. Could the idea of a 1% tax on vacant housing curb speculation to some extent or prevent these properties from being left vacant? It is possible. However, the most important question here is whether it is the federal government's role to implement this tax. Normally, when we think about housing and property taxes, we do not think “federal government”. In fact, if we take a step back, it becomes increasingly clear that this tax is nothing more than a federal intrusion into an area that is not under its jurisdiction, specifically municipal affairs and the property value of buildings. This was also pointed out by witnesses in committee, particularly the constitutional expert Patrick Taillon. Generally speaking, we expect that everything municipal will be handled by the municipalities, which are under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. If there were a tax to be imposed, perhaps Quebec should do it, but certainly not the federal government. I think we can discuss whether this is a good measure. There may be interesting ideas that warrant discussion in the context of such a measure. When we see who is behind it and wonder how it would be implemented, however, it no longer works, and that is the problem. This means that, unfortunately, we may have to vote against Bill C-8. There is not much in the bill to begin with, but it does contain something that is just unacceptable. In general, federal intrusion in one of Quebec's jurisdictions is often done through the government's spending power. This, however, is a different case, because this is not how the federal government usually interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions. For those who do not know it—which I do not believe is the case for the members on other side, who are very familiar with this strategy, as they often use it—the federal government's spending power lets it do indirectly what cannot be done directly under the Constitution. Essentially, the government will send a cheque, which it is not supposed to do, but people are going to take it because they need the money. There will be many strings attached. In the end, even though it is our jurisdiction and we should be making the decisions, the feds will be the ones deciding, because with all the conditions attached we are going to lose any possibility of truly controlling our levers and jurisdictions. Quebec's jurisdictions include our education and health care systems. Year after year we ask for more funding, but it seems that we hit a wall in Ottawa. We are told that we are being given more funding. The government will increase funding by 3% a year, but system costs are increasing by 6% a year. They are making fun of us. We continue to hear the same nonsense from them. The last budget was even worse. They basically added another layer, stating that “Any conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories will focus on delivering better health care outcomes”. When they say “any conversation”, that is not about funding, it is about telling us how to manage our health care system. That is basically what they are saying. It is somewhat insulting to be told that. It is indicative of the direction that this government is taking, always encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction. The health care system is a good example, but there are many, many more. We could take, for example, the infamous fight over pensions in the 1960s. I am too young, as my father was not even born in the early 1960s. When the war over pensions was being waged, some will remember that the Quebec government wanted to set up a system where people would contribute a portion of their money to a shared fund that would one day pay out a pension when they retired. It would be a big pool of money that would generate returns. That is what gave rise to the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. The federal government did not like that. It wondered how Quebec managed to plan for such a big pot of money so it could have more control over its own destiny, which is why the federal level tried to bring in another regime that would compete or at least move faster. In the end, that did not work. The federal government ended up having to recognize the Quebec system because Quebec had been quicker. The federal level wanted to impose its own system to prevent Quebec from controlling the money. Perhaps the federal government wanted to provide better conditions for seniors, but we all know that, in the end, the aim of that battle was to determine who would manage the pot of money. Would those funds be invested to serve Ottawa's interests or Quebec's interests? That was the big question. Thank goodness that big issue was dealt with, because now we have problems again. Take the finance issue, for example. Who remembers the Canada-wide securities commission? How many courts ruled that that was under Quebec's jurisdiction? It is not up to the federal government to create a national securities commission, but they did it anyway, both the Conservatives and the Liberals, they really pushed it. Fortunately, after multiple attempts and a lot of hard work, the Bloc Québécois succeeded in sending the commission packing. Its funding was axed. That feels good. It gave Quebec's financial system some relief. What I just cannot fathom is the federal government's constant desire to get bigger. It is like a kind of spiderweb always out to suffocate the provinces, bit by bit. That is what it has done yet again with Bill C‑8. The federal government is going to take up all the space until there is none left for us. The Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords sought to restore the balance. That was the original objective. Every time the federal government reviewed areas of jurisdiction, it would say that it could not give this or that to Quebec, and there was ultimately almost nothing left. Quebeckers voted against these two accords because the offers were ridiculous, it has to be said. The federal government never seems to want to make concessions but is always trying to get more. We are seeing the same thing with Quebec's Bill 96. Ottawa, with its Official Languages Act, is finding ways to try to undermine this legislation and restrict it from applying to federally regulated businesses. I vehemently disagree with this and with the proposed centralizing measures they want to impose with their pharmacare and dental care programs. These may be good measures, but the problem is that they are not well intentioned.

1468 words

All Topics

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

May/2/22 11:22:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech on this important topic. For weeks now, teachers and farmers in my riding have been impatiently waiting for their tax returns, which this bill supports. It is a bill for workers. The Bloc Québécois used to be a party for the working class. Will my colleague support workers or will he hide behind the issue of jurisdiction?

73 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/2/22 11:23:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his French. He is working on improving his French, which is very laudable. I like practising my English, but outside the House, of course. I did not quite understand the premise of his question. He spoke about workers. I can assure him that we support workers 100% and that this is a fundamental value of ours. We have a bias towards workers and we stand behind it.

77 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/2/22 11:24:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy my colleague's interventions. We have talked a lot in the House about the housing crisis in this country. We keep hearing about incentives for developers and different programs for new buyers. We went from 10% non-market housing in the 1970s and 1980s, before the Liberals pulled out of the national housing program, to what we are today at 3%. Europe is at 30%, and Vienna is at 60%. We know the Conservatives' priorities and Liberals' priorities are to get developers to build housing. We are glad to see some co-op housing. We are glad to see some movement on that in this recent budget. Does my colleague agree that we need to rapidly scale up non-market housing and co-op housing to solve the housing crisis for workers and for people who are homeless, and look at models that are going to make sure people have housing security? We need to take a new approach in how we look at housing and see it not as an investment, but in making sure people have safe, secure and affordable housing.

188 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/2/22 11:25:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, my colleague's proposals are quite interesting. In my opinion, not enough has been done on the housing file. However, we cannot forget that the federal government should not be getting involved at all. Much like the infamous tax that was discussed earlier, this is coming, but it makes no sense. If the federal government is going to hand out money for housing, we will take it because we need it, but it has to happen according to Quebec's conditions and wishes. The problem is that Ottawa always imposes a million conditions and messes everything up. Ultimately, nothing moves forward. We need new federal approaches, but they cannot be layered on top of Quebec's; otherwise, we will suffocate.

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

May/2/22 11:26:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his speech. In his speech, he did not have time to share his thoughts on climate change in connection with Bill C‑8. I am curious about his views on how the government could use Bill C‑8 if it were serious about climate change.

67 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

May/2/22 11:26:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague opposite. Correct me if I am wrong, but I did not see much about climate change in Bill C‑8. In fact, I do not think those words are even in it. I might have missed a page or skipped a sentence somewhere, but climate change does not seem to matter much to the government. It clearly is not focusing on it. What could the government have done to fight climate change? Some of the actions we saw explained things that had been done previously, such as approving drilling in Bay du Nord or buying a pipeline. The government is clearly not focusing on climate change. Unfortunately, Canada is missing the boat. One good example of that—and I was talking about this in committee yesterday or today—was the government's move to force the hand of automakers and dealers to get electric vehicles in people's driveways. That makes no sense.

168 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/2/22 11:27:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I am going to request unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

20 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 62