SoVote

Nov/2/22 6:41:32 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, as stipulated in section 5.7.3 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the hunters and trappers associations and organizations in Nunavut have an essential responsibility to regulate and manage harvesting in their communities. I say this again: They protect harvesting rights in Nunavut. The Liberal government has consistently refused to meet with impacted hunters and trappers organizations, or HTOs, regarding the impacts of the current project and the implications of approving phase 2. With such an important role the HTOs have in feeding their communities, I must ask again if the ministers met directly with the HTOs after the Nunavut Impact Review Board made its recommendation to reject phase 2.

112 words

All Topics

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Nov/2/22 6:42:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am really happy the member opposite has raised this issue. As I mentioned earlier and I just want to reiterate, prior to the Nunavut Impact Review Board's May 13 phase 2 recommendation, the Minister of Northern Affairs travelled to Pond Inlet, Nunavut, in August of last year. He met with the community, project proponents, the designated Qikiqtani Inuit Association and, in specific answer to the question, also the Mittimatalik Hunters and Trappers Organization, so there was a visit in August of last year.

87 words

All Topics

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

Nov/2/22 6:43:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the people of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Recently, I rose during question period on behalf of Bonnie, a constituent who lives in a remote part of my riding. Bonnie and her husband are seniors living on a fixed income of $25,000 a year. Bonnie had just learned her oil bill this winter will be over $2,000, almost triple that of last year. I asked the government why it was not cutting the taxes fuelling energy inflation. As is often the case in this House, when asked about taxes or inflation, the government's only answer is climate change, which confirms what the Conservatives have been saying for years. The carbon tax is not an environmental policy. It is a tax policy. That was not all the minister said in response to Bonnie's predicament. The minister said that higher energy prices were needed to address the existential threat to humanity. This belief in a climate apocalypse is a dangerous illusion. It is one thing for juvenile delinquents to throw food at priceless works of art and justify their actions with climate change, but it is another when a government itself is delusional. This should terrify Canadians like Bonnie. The Liberals already declared their ends justify any means when it came to the freedom convoy. If government members truly believe the carbon tax is saving the world, saving humanity, then what is it to them if senior citizens freeze to death this winter? Of course, the carbon tax saving the world is nonsense. Humanity has witnessed sea levels rise by hundreds of metres. Our forebears spread to every corner of the world using stone tools, yet somehow the government believes that a two-metre change in sea level over 60 years spells the extinction of the human race. Emissions reductions require thoughtful policy that balances the interests of post-industrial economics, industrial economies and developing economies. Conservatives have argued that Canada, having a small size, can maximize our efforts by focusing on replacing coal with natural gas. Canada can lead in developing new technologies such as carbon capture and small modular reactors. The best part of those policies is that they do not leave people like Bonnie freezing over the winter. The problem with calling it a climate emergency is that it can be used to feed greed through a carbon tax. We saw how this government crushed civil liberties such as the right to due process when it declared a public order emergency because of illegally parked trucks. What rights are they willing to lock down to stop their climate emergency fantasy? History is full of examples of good, decent people doing horrible things because the end was near. Our culture has even had an expression for those people. We say they drank the kool-aid. The government has been binge drinking the green kool-aid. It has embraced the myth of a climate change apocalypse with a cult-like zealotry. This type of extremism is driving the polarization in our country. If one does not sign on to the leftist narrative one is attacked as a denier and a conspiracist. It does not matter if one believes that climate change is measured in millions of years. It does not matter if one supports reducing global emissions. If one does not support making energy unaffordable for the most vulnerable, one is shunned by the cult. Does the government's parliamentary secretary agree with the minister that climate change will lead to the extinction of the human race? If she really believes that, can she tell us exactly how many seniors the government is willing to see freeze to death this winter?

624 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Nov/2/22 6:47:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue of inflation. The elevated inflation experienced now in Canada and, frankly, the rest of the world is a major issue for all Canadians. We do understand that Canadians continue to experience higher costs of living and that many are struggling to make ends meet. However, it is important to remember that inflation is a global phenomenon. It is a lingering result of the COVID pandemic, which has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and by the snarled supply chains that are affecting people and businesses around the world. While Canada's inflation rate of 6.9% is less severe than that of many of our peers, like the United States at 8.2%, the United Kingdom at 10.1%, and Germany at 10%, we appreciate that this will continue to be a difficult time for a lot of Canadians. While it is not a made-in-Canada problem, we do have a made-in-Canada solution to help those who need it the most. We are moving forward with our affordability plan, which includes targeted measures worth $12.1 billion. For example, now that Bill C-30 has received royal assent, individuals and families receiving the GST credit will receive additional support starting this week. With Bill C-31, we are proposing the Canada dental benefit for children under 12 in families with an annual income of under $90,000 who do not have access to a private dental plan. I am confident the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke can appreciate the positive impacts that our affordability measures are having on her constituents. I would like to remind the House that all of these support measures are targeted and fiscally responsible. Now is not the time to pour unnecessary fuel on the flames of inflation. When it comes to pollution pricing, we know that a national price on pollution is the most effective and least costly way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we have moved forward with this system. Climate action is no longer a theoretical political debate. The reality is that it is an economic necessity. Most provinces have their own pollution pricing mechanisms. In the provinces where the federal backstop had to be applied, families get payments to offset the costs of the federal pollution pricing. The reality is that most households are getting back more than they pay. Indeed, in the four provinces where the federal system applies, the climate action incentive payments mean that a family of four will receive $745 in Ontario, $832 in Manitoba, $1,101 in Saskatchewan and $1,079 in Alberta. In addition, families in rural and small communities, like those living in Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, are eligible to receive an extra 10%. This is putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians. This is important work, but I want to also highlight that it is not the entire climate plan. It is one of the tools in the tool box. We are working hard on affordability and at the same time addressing climate change.

520 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Nov/2/22 6:50:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every cult needs a chorus. It is such an irony that the Liberals would opt for the line “price on pollution”. According to this climate cult, every word the parliamentary secretary just said was pollution. Nobody looks to a cult for consistency. If the government really thought carbon dioxide was pollution, it would never utter another word. Of course, cult leaders never hold themselves to the same standard they set for their followers. It is why the Prime Minister can fly to Tofino for a one-day vacation. It is that same climate hypocrisy which galls Canadians. In one carbon-spewing breath, the Liberals call it an existential threat and then they will turn around and fly hundreds of envirocrats and groupies to the next COP meeting in a human-rights-violating state. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us what number of climate cultists will we be paying to fly to Egypt's resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh to attend COP 27 this year?

169 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Nov/2/22 6:51:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sure most Canadians agree that taking action on climate change is important not only from an environmental perspective, but also as an economic necessity. However, if we are talking about economics too and affordability, there are good reasons for Canadians to be confident. Canada is already supporting those who need it the most with our affordability plan at the moment they need it the most. Tomorrow afternoon, our colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, will present the fall economic statement, which will lay out some of the steps our government will take toward a brighter future for our country. I am looking forward to that presentation tomorrow.

115 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Nov/2/22 6:52:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come back to the need to urgently act on the housing crisis. I would like the parliamentary secretary to understand why I am coming back to it. First of all, it is because the number of people living unsheltered in my community has tripled in the last three years, going from just over 300 people to over 1,000. Also, homes continue to become less affordable. Dating back to 2005, for example, it used to be that house prices were three times the average median income. If we fast-forward to today, homes are eight times as much, which is completely out of reach for the average person, while the wait-list for an affordable one-bedroom unit is now almost eight years long. The housing crisis will continue to define my community, as it already has, whether it is a young person who is unsure if they will ever be able to move out of their parents' place, a senior living on a fixed income or a health care worker. A nurse I spoke with a few weeks ago said they were not sure if they would be able to continue living in our community at all. It is clear that across all levels of government, we need urgent action. At the federal level, we need to invest at the rates that are required to build the units we need, while also addressing the underlying conditions that have led us to this crisis. The fact is that homes should be places for people to live and not commodities for corporate investors to profiteer from. If a corporate investor wants to make a bunch of money, they should invest in the stock market, not do it on the backs of low-income folks in my community. Multiple studies show that one very reasonable measure that would help is removing the existing tax exemptions for one type of corporate investor: real estate investment trusts. Back in 1996, REITs did not own any rental units across the country. Today, they own nearly 200,000 units. In fact, although institutional investors across the country do not fully disclose the number of units, we know it is somewhere between 20% to 30% of the purpose-built rental housing stock. In my community and across the country, what we are seeing is these real estate investment trusts buy up affordable units, quickly raise rents and then make it more difficult for renters to afford a place to call home. These corporate investors are in it not for what they can contribute, but for what they can take out, with the largest return possible. It seems pretty reasonable to tax them appropriately and invest the funds in affordable housing. That is exactly what a motion I put forward in the House, Motion No. 71, would do. When I last raised this motion with the Minister of Housing, the reply I got was that the governing party needed to study it more. Well, the good news is that the studies have already been done. One was done by the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, which recommended this. There was another study by The Shift, which was in its directives. Locally, in my community, a study was also done by the Social Development Centre Waterloo Region. As a result, groups across the country, including Citizens for Public Justice, Canada Without Poverty, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in its proposed alternative federal budget and the National Right to Housing Network, are making this same recommendation. They recommend to remove this tax exemption from real estate investment trusts and, in the words of the motion, to put the funds toward affordable units. Knowing that the studies have already been done and knowing that civil societies are recommending this change, will it be in the fall economic statement tomorrow? If not, why not?

651 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.)

Nov/2/22 6:56:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear members of other parties in the House agree with us on the need to increase housing supply and preserve affordability. It is vital that responsibility for this goal be shared amongst all levels of government, the private sector and the non-profit sector. We all need to do our part to maintain affordability. Too many people in this country are struggling to find housing that they can afford, that meets their needs and that also meets the need to live with dignity by having a safe and affordable home. There is simply not enough supply to meet the demand. Our government has implemented a number of programs under the national housing strategy to increase the supply of housing. However, as my colleague pointed out, supply is only one of the factors driving up the cost of housing. Financialization and speculation have artificially increased prices to such an extent that prices no longer reflect the true value of housing. That is to say nothing of the “renoviction” phenomenon. That is why we brought in a 1% annual tax on vacant residential properties belonging to non-resident, non-Canadian owners. That is also why we adopted a measure prohibiting foreigners from purchasing residential property in Canada for a period of two years. That is also why we are planning a suite of other measures to guarantee that housing in this country is used for its intended purpose, in other words, as a place to live for people in need. Earlier this year, we announced a federal review of housing as an asset class. This fiscal review will help us better understand the role of large corporate players in the market and their impact on Canadian renters and homeowners. We also announced measures to protect buyers and renters against bad practices. We are implementing a homebuyers' bill of rights that will make the process of buying a home more open, transparent and fair. We are also proposing new measures to crack down on illegal activity in our housing market and make sure that property flippers and speculators are paying their fair share of tax. Our government has made housing affordability a priority since we were first elected, and we will continue to do so. It was the cornerstone of our 2022 budget, which proposed measures to address the issue from every angle that could have an impact. I thank my colleague for asking me this question and for giving me another opportunity to talk about housing. Again, it is a shared responsibility. He can count on my full co‑operation in providing affordable housing for all Canadians.

446 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Nov/2/22 6:59:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to highlight again that what I am raising here is not that the governing party is doing nothing. There is more nuance than that. What I am raising is that the measures that are being put in place are insufficient. In my community, the number of people living unsheltered has tripled in the last three years, so it is clear that more needs to be done. In her response, the parliamentary secretary again cited the study that is being done. I would like to highlight for her that others have already done the work. These studies have already been done and in those studies one of the obvious recommendations that I think parliamentarians from all parties could agree on is that these corporate investors should at least be paying their taxes, and if they did, we could use those funds to invest in affordable units. Would she address the substance of the motion I have put forward on the floor of this House or help us understand why this is not being undertaken by the governing party?

184 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Nov/2/22 7:00:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that we must do more. That is exactly the commitment we have made. We have committed to implementing more measures to improve housing affordability. The plans we announced in the spring budget take into account the complexity of this problem by addressing it from several angles, including increasing supply and fighting financialization and speculation in the housing sector. We will continue to make housing a priority, as we have since we were first elected. I am very pleased that my colleague from Kitchener Centre shares this concern. I hope we will be able to count on his support for the suite of measures that we will be introducing in the House.

124 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/2/22 7:01:14 p.m.
Watch

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 7:01 p.m.)

38 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 123