44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 18, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/18/22 2:43:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, here is a fact for us: 15 LNG projects were proposed when the Prime Minister took office. Zero are completed. Even the one that we approved in our final days in office, he has still failed to bring to completion.
Now, after the Prime Minister stood in the way of LNG Quebec and east coast LNG projects, Europe is totally dependent on Putin to keep the heat on this coming winter, funding that war. What has the government contributed? It has sent Putin back his turbines to help him pump his gas.
Why are the Liberals funding Putin's war instead of paycheques for Canadians?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 2:55:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that the comments made by this individual and this organization are absolutely appalling. We condemn the anti-Semitism, racism and hatred that he has spread over a number of years.
I want to thank my colleague, the member of Parliament for Mount Royal, for bringing this individual to our attention. When this issue was raised, we immediately asked the department to confirm the project funding details and inform us about the procedural next steps. After the review, we followed the process in place, cut the funding to this organization and demanded the money back.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 3:02:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, for the important announcement she made about the community volunteer income tax program on Friday.
Can the minister tell us more about the enhancement of this federal grant, which helps individuals access the credits and benefits they need, and in particular, can she tell us about the funding for organizations that serve northern and indigenous communities?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/18/22 3:03:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Yukon for his kind words and his hard work.
This past weekend, I announced an increase in funding for free tax clinics. This funding will help organizations that serve northern and indigenous communities in particular by helping people access the credits and benefits to which they are entitled. We will continue to do whatever it takes to improve access to benefits and credits.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing this debate.
However, I do question the timing of this announcement, which was made in the middle of Quebec's election campaign, when seniors' groups were making their demands known to the Quebec government.
The government announced dental care funding, but groups like Réseau FADOQ responded that this was not what they were expecting from the federal government. They are asking for health transfers to increase to 35%. Their request was for the government in Quebec.
They understood that. When will the government understand it?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member and I have spoken specifically on the carbon tax in the past and I have been very complimentary of Quebec's very aggressive position when it relates to pricing pollution. It understands it. It gets it.
As it relates to this particular bill, conceptually I am very much supportive of ensuring that individuals under 12 years of age who are in families that make less than $90,000 a year get access to this funding. If the member is suggesting that we need to further look at the bill to ensure individuals are taken care of and that Quebec in particular would have an opportunity to realize some savings due to the fact that it is already doing this, then that is something that could come up in committee where the bill is going to next.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women is another example of our very complicated history, of the multi-faceted nature of reconciliation, and that is why I feel this bill is so important. It holds up indigenous women, girls and two-spirited peoples in such a positive way. It is about celebration, and that has its own role in addressing the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women.
I have been a bit frustrated by the pace we are taking as far as addressing these injustices is concerned, but again it goes back to our individual ridings. I have seen incredible support by local communities. Fredericton had an incredible funding opportunity with our local friendship centre. Monoqonuwick is going to be a new space for women to feel safe and to receive programming on intimate partner violence. There is also social enterprise there and there will be housing options.
Again, these types of projects are going to have far-reaching impacts that will also help to deal with missing and murdered indigenous women, but I want to see that task force get to the real work as well.
191 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I offended my colleague. I hope it was clear that, physically, I was not talking about her, but about other members who were speaking very loudly in the House. I found their lack of respect very disturbing and insulting.
I certainly was not talking about her. I know that she is a conscientious member, that she listens to me and is interested in what I have to say. In answer to her question, I just want to tell her that I think every province and territory, including Nunavut, should describe its needs, set up its system and demand the federal funding it needs to make sure all the children who live there get the services they need.
We really think the solution is federal transfers to the provinces and territories so each community can make decisions based on its own needs and its own priorities.
I think that if Nunavut had the resources, it could set up everything it needs. What Nunavut needs is the financial resources to do it. I hope the federal government will give Nunavut what it needs.
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to inform the hon. member, who is not from Alberta, which I will forgive him for, that we have a great system for ensuring that everybody who needs dental care gets dental care. I think that is a fact across the country. Many provinces have in place a system to ensure that the people who need dental care get dental care. That is a fact. If there is concern around the funding of dental care, as the Bloc has pointed out, why is the government duplicating some of these systems and not just transferring the money to the provinces?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not feel that the government is recreating something that already exists. It seems to me that it is interfering in something that is none of its business.
It is up to the provinces to develop a health care system. If they want to do it, they will do it. The federal government should do what it has the power to do, which is transfer money to improve health care funding.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise tonight on the subject of Bill C-31, which is meant to help address the affordability of day-to-day life for Canadians. I want to start with what I often do in speeches like this, which is what I appreciate about what is in this bill.
We see the beginnings of a dental care program in the bill. When I knock on doors in my community, as I have for the last four years, and I ask my neighbours what is most important to them, so often I hear some variation of an interest in truly universal health care from mental health to eye care and dental care as well.
In this bill, there is a proposal for an interim dental benefit for children under the age of 12, for those without dental coverage already and with an income of less than $90,000 in their household, providing their parents or guardians with upfront, tax-free funds to cover dental expenses eligible back to October 1 of this year. If this House passes Bill C-31, it would provide payments of up to $650 per child. This is an important, necessary measure and it is being proposed because it has been prioritized by this House, specifically in the supply and confidence agreement between the governing party and the NDP.
That being said, it is unfortunate that there are some items, like funding the Canada disability benefit, that are not there and are not being similarly prioritized. There are also other items in this same agreement that are not being followed all together, like addressing the climate crisis through early moves to phase out fossil fuel subsidies through public financing.
What we are actually seeing in this year's budget is a new fossil fuel subsidy being introduced. It is a tax credit for an unproven technology called carbon capture and storage to the tune of $8.6 billion a year. What is encouraging and what I am glad to see in this bill is parliamentarians working together for what is in the best interests of Canadians across the country, and dental care is a critical part of that.
The second part of this bill is, in my view, a missed opportunity. There is a $500 rental housing benefit proposed in the bill. As is the case in many communities across the country, in Kitchener, the average rent is around $1,725 a month. This benefit is a drop in the bucket in the midst of a crisis. More importantly, it does not address the root cause of this crisis.
I would like to suggest that we start by naming and being clear that this is a housing crisis that we are in across the country. As I do that, I also want to help my colleagues understand what that looks like in my community specifically.
There are a lot of parliamentarians in this place who like talking about things that have tripled. It is a dubious claim, but this one is actually quite accurate. The homeless population in Waterloo region has tripled from just over 300 to over 1,000 people who are living unsheltered. Those are members of my community who we are collectively letting down.
Homes continue to become increasingly unaffordable. As I mentioned rent earlier, we can talk about house prices also. Since 2005, house prices have gone up 275%, when wages have increased a meagre 42%.
What does that mean? It means that back then, house prices were three times more than the average annual income. Today, they are eight times more than the average annual income. That means, for a young person in my community, buying a home is not even an option and, increasingly, renting one is not either. For those who are on the wait-list for an affordable one-bedroom unit, that wait-list is almost eight years.
It is obvious that all levels of government, the federal government included, need to meaningfully address this crisis. The federal government, in my view, has two ways of doing this. One is recognizing that the federal government has the largest budget of any level.
It is why I am glad in this year's budget we did see $1.5 billion in the rapid housing initiative and another $1.5 billion for co-op housing. This is getting us closer to the level co-op housing used to be funded at. I would encourage the governing party to ensure that this money is spent and that in future budgets we get closer to where those funding levels were.
The federal government, of course, also sets the market conditions, and this is where we have the conversation about it being only supply and demand. Well, that is not totally true. It is supply and demand within the conditions the government sets. Homes should be places where people live and not commodities for investors to trade. If some corporate investor wants to make a bunch of money, I would encourage them to invest in the stock market and not do it on the backs of young people and other low-income folks in my community.
The governing party could fix this by removing incentives for corporate landlords to treat our housing market like the stock market. I will give an example. I was speaking with Omar in my community last week. He is lucky that his rent is a fairly reasonable amount. The institutional investor who owns the apartment building he is in recently painted the exterior of the building, and then Omar saw the rental notices coming in slowly, with increase after increase beyond the Ontario guideline. They demanded that he pay for these increases with interest on top.
Omar is lucky in that he knows this is not appropriate. He knows that this is a bullying tactic by his landlord. All the same, there is a level of anxiety when he gets a notice in the mail saying there is interest due on top. However, he knows what the landlord is really doing: trying to bully him to leave so that when he does, they jack up the rent. This is what we are seeing in communities across the country, and in this place we have a role to play to address it.
One example of these institutional landlords is real estate investment trusts, which have grown their ownership portfolios. In 1996, they did not own any rental suites across the country. Today, they own nearly 200,000. In fact, institutional investors across the country today own between 20% and 30% of our country's purpose-built rental housing stock. We do not know exactly how much, because another issue is that we do not have proper disclosures from these corporate investors in our real estate market and in our homes. However, we do know that they are in housing not for what they can contribute, but for what they can take out of it, which is the largest return possible.
This is the reason I introduced Motion No. 71 on the floor of the House. It calls for simply taxing real estate investment trusts, one type of corporate investor, at the regular corporate tax rate, without the exemption they currently enjoy and that currently tilts the market in their favour. If we did that, it would be a new revenue that we could use to invest in the affordable housing that I am pretty sure almost every parliamentarian in this place wants to see built.
One way to build more of it is to ensure that large corporate investors are paying their fair share and that we use the revenues to build that housing. It was a Conservative finance minister back in 2006 who began to remove some of these tax exemptions for various income trusts. I would encourage the governing party to simply take the text of this motion and put it in the fall economic statement and budget 2023. In fact, it could announce this tomorrow, if it likes, to ensure that we address the fact that homes should be places for people to live and not commodities for investors to trade.
We will often hear that we need to do more studies. Well, the good news is that the studies have already been done. The Shift Directives have called for the removal of a tax exemption for real estate investment trusts. The Office of the Federal Housing Advocate has called for the same, in a study written by a researcher from the University of Waterloo, Martine August, as has the Social Development Centre Waterloo Region in my community. From local groups to national groups, there is a unified voice saying this is a reasonable measure that will meaningfully begin to address the commodification of housing.
In conclusion, as is the case for my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, I will be proudly supporting this legislation since it includes important measures that go in the right direction. However, if the governing party is serious about addressing the housing crisis, I would encourage it to demonstrate that through more meaningful legislative action.
1530 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. It was rigorous and well researched. We can see that he knows his constituents and his community. It is always moving to see members who have such a good understanding of the needs of their community.
My question is quite simple. The federal government is known to have dabbled in social programs in the past. For example, it funded a program for the homeless for a few years. Then it changed the rules of the game and disengaged.
Who got stuck with the full bill and less funding? It is the provinces.
Is my colleague not concerned that by becoming involved in a major program without the provinces' agreement, the federal government is meeting a need but that the provinces will not be able to cover the cost down the road and will have to pay the political price?
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
