44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 3, 2022 10:00AM
- May/3/22 12:11:46 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about a specific aspect of Bill C-8, and that is the tax on underused housing. Everyone agrees with the basic intent.
My first question has to do with the rate of 1%. Is that enough? We know that other places like British Columbia and France have much higher rates than that.
Other than the rate, there is also the way this tax will be applied. The federal government is once again infringing on areas of jurisdiction belonging to the provinces, and Quebec in particular. I think that this should be done in co-operation with the municipalities, rather than imposed by the great, all-knowing Ottawa. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 1:08:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As my colleagues may guess, I appreciated the fact that he talked a lot about agriculture.
I would like him to tell me what more we could do for our agricultural community. We are talking about a credit that does not even apply to Quebec. Beyond that, how could we treat our agricultural community in a more forward‑looking and respectful way, if only by giving them their compensation—I have suggestions in that regard—and providing them with adequate support in their role as conservationists?
I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 1:27:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. This is a pleasant surprise for me. I am happy to share something with this colleague. Perhaps this is the beginning of something. We do not usually see eye to eye.
I am going to talk about Bill C-8. The main problem that we have with it is the underused housing tax, which is yet another jurisdictional encroachment.
Allow me to clarify that, fundamentally, everyone agrees on the basic principle that something needs to be done about the housing shortage and foreign speculation. On the substance, we are in perfect agreement. The problem is how to go about it.
The Standing Committee on Finance heard from constitutional expert Patrick Taillon, who explained that the tax was legal, but that the problem lies in using the tax as a way to regulate the sector. We agree, so we think this must be done in collaboration with the municipalities, and especially with the provinces and Quebec. We are seriously concerned about this, and it is going to be a big stumbling block for us when it comes time to vote.
As usual, as the party that believes in constructive, positive, sensible opposition, the Bloc Québécois suggested adding a clause requiring the agreement of the cities involved. Our suggestion was rejected, so we have no choice but to oppose the measure.
There are other things missing from Bill C‑8, such as measures to address the labour shortage. Everyone knows that I am a good sport in Parliament, because I am willing to acknowledge the positives. I will acknowledge that there are things in the budget that will help, particularly when it comes to immigration. However, this is an urgent matter, and I do not think that enough is being done to address it.
The number of calls we are getting about delays is absolutely staggering. Money has been announced, of course, along with a lot of good intentions, but something needs to be done quickly. Processing times are atrocious. The government is all smiles as it makes big announcements to the media, promising to do this or that, which sounds good, but, months later, nothing has changed.
Take, for instance, the increase in the cap on temporary foreign workers in the agri-food industry, which was announced in August but did not end up being implemented until late January. That is too long. The government needs to be more efficient.
We have other ideas for measures to address the labour shortage, such as tax credits for people aged 65 and over. I see that as a simple measure that everyone would support right away. I look forward to seeing that implemented, but it has not happened yet.
We can be creative. Why not bring in a tax credit that would apply once a certain threshold of hours is exceeded in a given week? Let us sit down and get to work, because our entrepreneurs need these workers.
There is also the whole issue of the supply chain. I am willing to believe that Bill C-8 was prepared some time ago, since it has been around for a while now. On this point, I agree with my Liberal friends. However, we can always improve things, especially in the next Parliament, in order to do something to help our farmers.
There has been a lot of talk about agriculture today, particularly about an additional credit for the carbon tax, but now we have other problems, such as the fact that fertilizer from Russia is now subject to a 35% tax. This will have repercussions on all of eastern Canada, which gets its fertilizer from Russia.
We had meetings with the parliamentary secretaries and ministers to explain the situation, and they told us that they would always be there, that they would monitor the situation and act accordingly.
We need to do something, because our constituents are sounding the alarm. We raised the issue in question period last week, because this is ultimately going to have an impact on the cost of groceries, and that affects everyone.
There is nothing about tax havens either; it boggles my mind. Every time that we talk about the budget or the money available to deliver services to the public, I am sorry, but I cannot not talk about tax havens. It is estimated that at least $7 billion is lost to tax havens every year. These amounts are rather fuzzy because nobody is sure of what is really going on.
At the same time, the government is dragging its feet on bills such as Bill C-208, which deals with the next generation of farmers. This is about agriculture. If we respect our farmers and want to provide for the next generation, we have to get rid of the vagueness surrounding this bill. I just quickly touched on this, but I hope that the government will hear my message.
I did not bring up compensation for people in supply managed industries either. Wherever it is paid out, we will be happy, but it has to be paid somewhere.
Let us talk about health transfers. How can we not talk about them? We are being praised for bringing in a dental plan. Again, the same principle applies as to the underused housing tax. We all agree on the substance, but there are areas of jurisdiction in this federation, and they are the responsibility of the provinces. Why not increase health transfers to the provinces and Quebec, which is something they have been calling for?
When we talk about health transfers, we are talking about increasing the federal portion to 35% of expenditures, or $28 billion per year, which represents $6 billion for Quebec alone. That needs to be ongoing funding, not just a sexy press announcement about a one-time shot of $2 billion to show just how generous the fine Canadian government is. That is smoke and mirrors. The pandemic was temporary, but the problems with the health care system have long been an issue and they are not going away.
Of course, then there are seniors. Those 65 and older suffered the most during the pandemic. The government still has its head stuck in the sand.
I see people are looking at me with interest. Earlier, when I was being asked questions, I was expecting to hear that they were there for seniors, that they increased old age security starting at age 75 and that they handed out $500. Those are all temporary measures. We want to see an increase to old age security starting at age 65 so that we do not have two classes of seniors. That is important.
There are other measures in Bill C‑8, including the underused housing tax. We have expressed our reservations about who would implement it and how it would work. Essentially, will a 1% tax actually be effective, considering countries like France have taxes as high as 12% or 13% the first year and 25% the second year? That may be more effective. Why not go a bit further? Again, it is all in the execution.
As far as help for businesses is concerned, we also agree. It is good that the deadline for repaying Canada emergency business account loans has been pushed back, but that is not enough. We have proposed other measures.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also sounded the alarm, saying that its members are struggling. They have taken on heavy debt loads, and the concern is that many of these businesses will not weather the crisis.
For example, why are we not providing more support to brick-and-mortar businesses facing unfair competition from e‑commerce? That could be a solution. We could also decide to make a larger share of the loan non-refundable. Why not help businesses set up online purchasing and electronic marketing so they can compete?
There is also the issue of shipping costs. I do not understand why it only costs $2.50 for a Chinese company to send a package to Canada when it costs me $20 to send a package to Lac‑Saint‑Jean. Something is not right. Can we help businesses with shipping?
There is also the $2 per book to help bookstores.
These are all Bloc Québécois proposals. These are suggestions we have made, and we will be there to collaborate if the government wants to make improvements.
Some members have given speeches about agriculture and education and a tax credit for electronic devices. These are good measures, but they are too small. Let us get serious and provide appropriate support to our farmers and teachers.
1473 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 1:38:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that at least one person understands what we want. Ultimately, what we want is for Quebec to be independent. In the meantime, why are we here?
We are not here to cause trouble. We are here to salvage something from the wreckage and to work together in a positive way. That is what we try to do every day. I would like the parliamentary secretary to understand that part too. It is all well and good to keep repeating that we are trying to pick a fight, but I think that, if the parliamentary secretary is even the slightest bit serious, he will see that we always propose real solutions.
What we want is respect for the essence of the contract that was signed behind our backs for as long as we are stuck with it.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 1:39:54 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I really enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Obviously, he wants me to talk about Bill C-234, so that is what I will do. The Bloc Québécois is extremely rational. We want to protect the environment in a way that makes sense. The reason we are supporting this system is that there is currently no other alternative. However, we need to do a lot more than this. That is why we are proposing an environmental partnership with our farmers, something serious that will not be controlled by the great, all-knowing Canada.
We need to decentralize funding for farmers, these entrepreneurs, so that they themselves can bring in technological and environmental innovations to improve yields. These innovations must be recognized, and compensation must be given for them. That money needs to be available to farmers for the next innovation. If we trust our farmers, I guarantee we will not be disappointed.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 1:41:41 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
The federal government certainly has a role to play, but the parliamentary secretary opposite will be happy to hear that the what the federal government needs to do here is to provide funding, because this is Quebec's jurisdiction. That is fundamental. My colleague said that he is sure that Quebec is no different than any other province, but it is a little different. I am not trying to cause trouble. We are here to teach others about the reality in Quebec.
Quebec's AccèsLogis program is not being taken into account. I must point out that the last time there was money for social housing, the government transferred money to the other provinces but took three years to send the money to Quebec.
We are behind, which is not right.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/22 2:42:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, three things are certain in life: death, taxes and federal government delays in bringing in temporary foreign workers.
However, there is nothing more predictable. Spring arrives at about the same time every year, as does the harvest. Every time, the federal government seems surprised. Every time, farmers face the same delays. Every year, they wonder if the workers will arrive on time.
Ottawa's machinery is broken. If they do not want to fix it, they should transfer the file to Quebec.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
