SoVote

May/3/22 1:09:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, this is a great opportunity for me to talk once again about Bill C-234, being the measure we referred to that could potentially give a carbon tax exemption to farmers for propane and natural gas to dry and heat their shops, etc. It is a perfect opportunity. It is not finished yet; there are still votes. We still have an opportunity to support it. I would hope that the members across, from the Liberal Party, would support a measure like this, because they missed the opportunity before. If they really want to do great things for our farmers in this country, that opportunity is still forthcoming. Again, I hope to see support for that across the way.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

May/3/22 1:09:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies obviously cares a lot about the farmers in his riding. He also, I know, has a lot of small businesses in his riding and a lot of tourism operators, yet the government has abandoned small businesses and tour operators in the last year, because it has not extended the supports they need to get through this last omicron variant. The tourism industry has pleaded to extend those benefits to the end of the summer. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business wants CEBA loans extended for two years, and the government has abandoned them. I am just wondering why the Conservatives are siding with the government in abandoning small businesses and tour operators.

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Bob Zimmer

May/3/22 1:10:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I really respect the member, but to say that we are siding with the other side is really rich when we have seen the terms of the NDP-Liberal marriage. It is clear for all to see. I will just bring up one example of when the government promised one thing. It said that carbon taxes were going to be neutral. Here again, the PBO said that just that one carbon tax exemption alone would save farmers across Canada $1.107 billion. That would be huge for our farm families and farmers across this land. My hope, again, is that Bill C-234 passes. The government has made a good change to Bill C-8, but I digress.

120 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/3/22 1:11:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to enter into debate in this place and on such important issues. Before I get into the substance of Bill C-8, and I have a lot to say about that and there is a lot my constituents expect me to say, I trust I will be given a bit of latitude. I wanted to share specifically how much I appreciated being able to join this morning with members from all parties at the Sam Sharpe Breakfast. There, I joined with other parliamentarians, veterans' rights groups and organizations, and folks from across the country, including some both current and retired military personnel, to hear from an esteemed guest speaker and to talk about the need to ensure that mental wellness, operational stress injuries and PTSD are part of the central conversation related to the realities our men and women in uniform face on a daily basis. I just wanted to start my remarks by thanking the member for Durham and the retired general and senator Roméo Dallaire for their work in helping make sure we could have what I think was very important. How fitting it was for the first public event in two years to bring together members of our military to talk about something as important as mental health. It is so very important, so I thank all those who made that happen, and I look forward to more of these sorts of events happening in the heart of what is supposed to be Canada's democratic infrastructure. The second part of the context for this debate is very important. We are debating Bill C-8, a bill to implement various measures related to the fall economic update, but the context here is incredibly important. The Liberals have claimed a lot of things, as they often do, about how it is somehow Conservatives' fault that we are now in May, still debating the implementation of various measures in the fall economic update. What the Liberals have failed to mention is the fact that it was only a day or two before Parliament rose for the winter break that this bill was introduced. If they were serious about their legislative agenda, they could have prioritized this to see that it was passed and to allow for the fundamental function of this place to ensure that members of Parliament are able to speak to such important pieces of legislation. I find it really ironic that members opposite will talk about how it is all the opposition's fault. It is a little like the coach of a losing team blaming the fans for its performance on the ice or on the field. I am deeply troubled by the passing of Motion No. 11, which I think could have serious consequences to democratic discourse within our country, and I certainly hope the Liberals and their partners in the NDP will think long and hard about how we all have the responsibility to take our jobs very seriously. On that note, I will jump into the substance of what Bill C-8 is about. I would just note that I heard comments from my colleague from Prince George and earlier the member for Regina—Lewvan, and there is important context for some of the measures that are included. Part 1 of Bill C-8 talks about various amendments that would be made to the Income Tax Act when it comes to providing a refundable tax credit to eligible businesses on, for example, qualifying ventilation expenses. In the midst of a pandemic, I think most Canadians would think that is very reasonable. However, this is another example of where, according to many health professionals, we are moving into an endemic stage of COVID-19, yet this is what the Liberals are moving forward. They are also expanding the travel component of the northern residents deductions to $1,200 and expanding the school supply tax credit, which would include electronic devices. There is one part of the amendment to the Income Tax Act that I want to focus on specifically, and that is for farmers. I have heard members opposite talk a lot about how Conservatives debating Bill C-8 are somehow not serving farmers well. Let me be absolutely crystal clear. For members opposite, I happen to be from a farming family. We are the fifth generation to work the land in what is called Alberta Special Areas. It is in the north part of the Palliser Triangle. I hear often from farmers in my constituency and across Canada who are tired of the Liberal government's approach to try to control everything they do. This amendment is another example of that. The Conservatives are opposed to the carbon tax: let me make that very clear. When it comes to the reality that farmers face, they are paying significant costs when paying the carbon tax on the fuel they burn. This is not an option for farmers. A large tractor can burn hundreds of litres of fuel per day. There are many green eco-activists, I am sure, on the Liberal and NDP benches who would like to suggest that somehow that should change. The fact that we are feeding the world is the reality that these farmers face. There are many examples where the taxes and expenses that are imposed on farmers by the government are inhibiting their ability to do what they do best. The fundamental policy difference between Conservatives and the left in this country seems to be that Conservatives believe that farmers can and should be able to do what they do best, while the Liberals simply want to control and have a say in everything that they do. Let me again be crystal clear. Farmers tell me that it is not bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa who know how to farm: it is the farmers themselves, and this is simply another example of how the Liberals seem not to be able to catch on to that. I would suggest that, as my colleagues alluded to earlier, when it comes to expenses related to farming, the Conservative bill to bring forward an exemption to the carbon tax for agricultural activities is common sense. It is something that, quite frankly, should have had universal support within this place. There were, I believe, 18 Liberals in the last Parliament who voted in favour of this bill, and I am sure that they heard from their constituents in that regard. Again, there is that fundamental difference: the common sense of keeping dollars in the hands of farmers so that they can do what they do best and feed the world, versus heavy government bureaucracy controlling farmers. That is not to mention the massive costs and the fact that the government is talking about a fertilizer mandate that could have devastating implications for global food security. There is the fact that fertilizer is directly related to the oil and gas industry. There are many other dynamics. There is so much more to say on this. There are seven main parts to this bill and I only got through one of seven, so I could truly go on for probably another 60 minutes or so as I address all seven aspects. If there was unanimous consent, I would be happy to continue indefinitely. I would simply sum up the next six parts by saying this. The Liberals have significant questions that need to be answered when it comes to even the most simple aspects of how they would approach this bill. I read through the costs for things such as their vaccine passport system. As provinces end the mandates—

1287 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:21:40 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

12 words

Secretary

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

May/3/22 1:21:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, when the member was speaking earlier, he was talking about the desire of the Conservatives to continue to discuss this bill. He expressed his displeasure with the fact that a new motion that was introduced and passed last night gave the ability to give it even further discussion and debate in the House over the next few months. If I heard him correctly, he referred to that as being undemocratic or as somehow an abuse of powers, or the opportunity to debate, in this place. I wonder if he can explain that to me. The motion we passed last night was to extend the ability of members to speak in the House and gives more members the opportunity to speak so that when another motion or bill comes forward and over 50 Conservatives want to speak to it, such as with Bill C-8 at report stage, they would have an opportunity to speak to that. How can he phrase that motion in such a way?

168 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/3/22 1:22:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, let me simply conclude the sentence that I had started before I get into the substance of the member's question. Because the government wants to spend $300 million on something the provinces and the public health experts have so rightfully suggested we need to move away from is why the Conservatives have said clearly that it is time to end the mandates. I would simply suggest to the member opposite, who at length spends time in the House equivocating on Prime Minister's Office talking points and defending the indefensible, that if he was so interested—

100 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:23:36 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

11 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/3/22 1:23:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, am I not entitled to the right to speak in this place when I am recognized by the Chair? The member suggested and indicated through his comment that somehow I am not entitled to do that. If I am acting out of line, I would—

48 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:23:54 p.m.
Watch

That is an issue for debate. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

14 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/3/22 1:23:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:24:02 p.m.
Watch

I did not recognize the point of order, so the hon. member will pursue his answer briefly.

17 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/3/22 1:24:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is ironic. I will just leave it at that.

12 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/3/22 1:24:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, in Bill C-8, there is some mention of housing, but there is a bit more in the budget. Canada is the worst country in the G7 for the average number of homes per 1,000 population. This is already a scandal, it is already something quite significant, and it is a major problem. The budget even contains an admission of failure, since it recognizes that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units in order to solve the crisis, but it does not indicate how it is going to be solved. It does not propose any measures for addressing it. I frequently hear my Conservative colleagues criticize the government on housing. During question period, they keep asking the Minister of Housing question after question on this issue, with good reason, but I do not hear them suggesting any solutions. What are their solutions for fixing the acute housing crisis that Quebec and Canada are currently experiencing?

162 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/3/22 1:25:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the member is certainly right. There has been a litany of failures when it comes to housing. I did not have a chance to get into the fact that the Liberals' approach to try to address the overinflated housing market certainly has not worked in other jurisdictions in Canada that have tried. I am doubtful that it will work in this case. Here is the reality. Canada needs to become a country that says yes again. Canada needs to become a country that allows homebuilders to build houses again. Canada needs to become a country that ensures there can be investments in things like property so that people can have affordable housing—

115 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:25:57 p.m.
Watch

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

12 words

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

May/3/22 1:26:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, one of the things that concerns me is that so many people across Canada go without dental care. I was recently contacted by a senior in my riding who is on a very small, fixed income and was told by her dentist that she would have to pay $6,000 to have several teeth pulled and appropriate dentures made so that she could eat. She said that without them she would simply not be able to eat and is looking at maybe buying a blender as a cheaper alternative. Could the member talk about how important it is for all people to have dental care, just as all the MPs in the House do?

116 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/3/22 1:26:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I actually had an extensive conversation with my brother-in-law, who is a dentist and serves some communities that have a great need for these sorts of services. What I find very interesting is that there has been a lot of talk about how the NDP have somehow solved the challenges related to ensuring that all those Canadians who need it have access to dental care. They have basically claimed victory when nothing has yet been accomplished. That is typical—

84 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/3/22 1:27:17 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

10 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 63