44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 14, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/14/23 10:26:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member spent some time discussing the importance of building homes and of the supply side of the housing crisis here in Canada. We, as a government, put forward a national housing strategy that would address that very issue, and the Conservatives voted against it. I would like to understand why it is that the member opposite talks about the importance of building new homes and yet votes against the very measure that would create more supply of housing here in Canada.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 11:09:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague, what I said was that we are there for people having a hard time making ends meet, and we are doing so in a fiscally responsible way.
We know that inflation is improving; the inflation rate is decreasing and, hopefully, will continue to decrease in the coming months. Nevertheless, these are difficult times for many Canadians. That is why we put in place the various measures I spoke about, in particular the doubling of the GST credit, the one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit and the Canada workers benefit.
We are stepping up for those most in need.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 11:27:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne for her excellent speech. I also thank the members of the Conservative Party for giving me the opportunity to speak in the House about the difficult conditions in which thousands of people find themselves and to examine some possible solutions that ultimately do not seem to fix much.
Inflation is real, galloping and impacts the cost of everything, from gas, to housing, to food, to cars. It requires far more comprehensive measures than today's populist proposals. I am not surprised by any of the general statements at the beginning of the motion. It is true that inflation can wreak havoc on families' budgets and that it is currently causing the cost of goods and services to skyrocket.
Social housing is a topic that speaks to me. I was just at a meeting this morning with people from the Coop d'habitation Boréale, a housing co-operative in Rouyn-Noranda. As an aside, I would like to say hello to my friend Jean-Philippe. It is his birthday today, and I wish him a happy birthday.
This co-op's model is adapted to our region's reality, with a total of eight entrances. These are duplexes with backyards. This model provides for affordable housing for families. However, it is incredibly difficult to obtain financing for the necessary renovations, both from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, and lenders.
In order to get this money, the co-op is being asked to increase rents to match market pricing. So much for affordability. The government's maze of red tape makes it hard for volunteers, and it takes far too long to get answers. Not so long ago, CMHC employees were able to guide these volunteers. They no longer have the time to provide the same support.
The co-op housing model is a viable option for tackling the housing shortage. It addresses inflation and rising rents. However, this model should not be seen as mere apartment buildings. It should also be seen as the possibility of having duplexes, triplexes and other types of residences that will better suit families. Having a backyard and parking is also a way to improve the quality of life for younger families with less income.
It is important to ensure that co-operative housing developments like these remain in place to continue to provide affordable and accessible housing. CMHC needs to ensure that the co-op model remains an option and adapt its programs to help small co-op models make the necessary repairs.
If the Conservatives really want the government to help people deal with the rising cost of living, we invite them to support the solutions put forward by the Bloc Québécois. These are more equitable solutions to help ensure that prosperity is more equally shared.
Immediate relief must be provided to those hardest hit by inflation. This must be done by increasing the purchasing power of seniors living on essentially fixed incomes, by providing direct financial support to low-income earners, and by creating a program to support those most affected by a sudden spike in fuel prices, to the point of threatening their livelihoods. This includes farmers, taxi drivers and truckers.
We have to make the economy more resilient by tackling the structural weaknesses that cause inflation; reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, whose chronic instability causes price shocks; restoring essential links in the supply chain; and tackling the labour shortage that prevents businesses from offsetting supply shortages by increasing local production. We also have to take care of health, our children's education, and the environment.
The Conservatives' stubborn refusal to think about things, to ground their choices in this new industrial revolution, will cause a rift. In this motion, the Conservatives are repeating previous motions that were all rejected by the House. When they talk about inflationary taxes, they mean cancelling the carbon tax, reducing EI premiums and reducing Quebec pension plan contributions. They talk about cutting spending, but they do not specify what spending. These proposals would help briefly, but they are not real solutions. They will probably just exacerbate our problems.
Let us come up with solutions to deal with the labour shortage. One good way to do that would be to increase people's income. Another would be to encourage older workers to keep working by not clawing back their guaranteed income supplement. Still another would be to make it easier to hire temporary foreign workers in high-demand occupations by transferring responsibility for that to the Government of Quebec, which is already doing the impact studies the federal government requires of business owners. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology actually just completed a study on this and will be releasing its report in the coming days.
We need to do a better job of protecting what has taken us all these years to build: our expertise in green mining, our hydroelectric capacity, our expertise in heavy-duty electric transportation, and our battery and electric vehicle supply chain. We need to leverage our expertise in quantum technologies and artificial intelligence. We can do even more with centres of excellence on advanced materials and the accelerated commercialization of micro-electronic components.
I could talk at length about Quebec’s capabilities, but my colleagues will be joining the debate shortly to highlight these aspects.
These are the steps that the government could take to address the source and effects of inflation. It is important to understand our approach.
Our monetary policy ensures a balance between supply and demand to keep price increases within a range around 2%. This policy is the responsibility of the Bank of Canada, which makes decisions independently.
The government also has a role to play. Its challenge is threefold: to protect the poorest, especially annuitants and those on fixed incomes, from the effects of inflation; to try to ensure that the inflation we have today, which is essentially due to current circumstances, does not become structural or long-term; and to work to make the economy more resilient and less vulnerable to inflation shocks by addressing its structural weaknesses.
The Bloc Québécois proposes a balanced and responsible approach, namely, targeting support programs for individuals and businesses to help those who need it, without exacerbating the upward pressure on prices, and clearly identifying the drivers of inflation so that we can address it directly.
In terms of solutions, we need to help those who are hardest hit, specifically seniors who live on fixed incomes and their savings, which are losing value at an alarming rate. They are the most affected by the rising cost of living. Before the surge of inflation, Canada was one of the industrialized countries where retirement income replaced the lowest percentage of working income.
The Bloc Québécois proposes to immediately stop reducing the guaranteed income supplement for the poorest seniors who are seeing cuts this year because they received the Canada emergency response benefit or the Canada recovery benefit last year and to increase old age security to protect the purchasing power of seniors who are faced with the rising cost of living.
We need to build more social and community housing. After growing by 6.8% in March, housing costs increased by 7.4% in April over the previous year. This is the steepest increase since June 1983. The housing shortage was already a serious problem, but it was aggravated by pandemic-related factors. Low-income households, which spend a larger share of their earnings on housing, are particularly affected.
Building social housing takes time and requires permanent and predictable programs rather than ad hoc programs, like far too many of the ones we have now. In Quebec, federal intervention has been particularly problematic. Quebec is the only province that provides ongoing funding for the construction of social housing through its AccèsLogis program. Quebec needed an asymmetrical agreement that gave it full control, which the federal government blocked for two years.
The Bloc Québécois proposes to boost the construction of social and community housing. The federal government should permanently allocate 1% of its revenues to Quebec through flexible and predictable transfers, which could provide additional funds for its programs.
We need to safeguard the independence of the central banks and tackle the labour shortage. The Bloc Québécois proposes establishing a tax credit for young graduates in the regions, as well as for immigrants, calling on experienced workers, transferring the temporary foreign worker program, establishing a productivity policy that includes measures such as research and development support based on productivity and support for investments in the empowerment and digital transformation of businesses.
We need to make supply chains stronger and more resilient, which would enable our SMEs to identify weak points in their supply chains, help them connect with domestic suppliers and propose new ways of managing inventory, to make them less vulnerable.
We need to strengthen our competition system through the Competition Act to limit the concentration of corporate ownership and major companies’ ability to abuse their dominant position, which makes prices rise.
We need to limit our dependence on oil. We know that the price of oil rose by 33% between December 2020 and December 2021. We need to accelerate the energy transition to shelter the economy from sudden spikes in the price of fossil fuels. This can be done through the electrification of transportation, energy retrofitting, support for businesses that want to move away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy and redirecting financial flows toward green economic development.
In Ottawa, however, the Liberals downplay the problem and propose waiting for it to resolve itself, while the Conservatives want a more restrictive monetary policy and question the independence of the Bank of Canada.
Then there is the NDP, which is proposing an all-out spending spree that could further fuel inflation.
1670 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 11:39:52 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question and the strength of his values and convictions.
In the current context, I think that we need to make realistic suggestions, but there are some things that we cannot compromise on, such as helping those in need. Not everyone is in need right now. In that sense, the next budget should set out robust measures to support economic development. There are some important things that need to be addressed, such as the construction of housing. With regard to the labour shortage, one of the biggest problems back home is that people are unable to find housing. We need to find solutions to those problems.
I am also thinking of seniors. In my opinion, it is very important to implement a fixed and recurring income increase for them because right now they are not able to earn any additional income. We will approve this type of measure, but we will be expressing our concerns about others.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 12:13:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when inflation and the cost of living go up, housing becomes a key issue.
Does my colleague see boosting funding to buy properties and support affordable and community housing as a solution? If the number of units goes up, would that not bring prices down because of supply and demand?
52 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 12:13:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The current housing crisis is a huge part of the cost of living crisis our constituents are experiencing right now. Investments in co-operative housing, affordable housing and housing in indigenous communities are crucial. That would be part of the solution.
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 2:18:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, eight years of Liberal waste and corruption has driven inflation to record highs, and nowhere is this more obvious than in housing costs. In fact, after eight years of Liberal deficits driving up inflation, the average renter now pays over $2,000 a month in rent.
To a wealthy Prime Minister who brags about his vast family fortune, that might not seem like a lot of money. Maybe that is why he signed off on a $7,000-a-night hotel stay in London last fall.
Why did the Prime Minister think it was okay to bill taxpayers for a single night's hotel bill what the average renter pays in three full months?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 2:19:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have the right to ask themselves why it is that every time real supports for renters come to the floor of the House, the Conservatives vote against them.
They voted against the Canada housing benefit, which is delivering and investing an average of $2,500 to vulnerable renters across the country. They not only voted against the $500 one-time top-up to the Canada housing benefit, but they also played procedural games in the chamber to prevent real help for Canadian renters.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 3:26:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is really like Groundhog Day with the Conservatives. For six months, all the opposition days have been the same. They are always about inflation and the carbon tax. It is unbelievable. Last week, I had the opportunity to give a speech on the carbon tax. When reading the motion, I felt like it was the same thing. They are fixated on this topic. They keep repeating themselves and creating some cognitive dissonance for those tuning in.
I would like to ask my colleague a question.
It is difficult to talk about inflation without talking about housing. A few months ago, the Government of British Columbia launched a very interesting program. It gave $500 million to community organizations so they could buy private homes, taking them out of the market and ensuring that they remain affordable. This seems like a very worthwhile initiative. It is supported by many groups that are interested in the issue of housing in Quebec and across Canada.
Would my colleague support the federal government implementing such a measure?
176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 3:27:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question about housing across Canada. We have to do many things to reduce the cost of housing.
We need to do everything we can on the housing front, working with all partners and collaborating with the provinces, municipalities and regions. That is how our country is made, and that is what we must do. We unveiled the rapid housing initiative and the national housing strategy.
The Bloc Québécois member has many ideas.
I encourage the member to put forward those ideas to the government, and we will most certainly look at them, as we would any good idea that comes forward.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 3:42:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to respond to my colleague who mentioned me in her speech. I very much like and respect that colleague. Unfortunately, in her speech, she echoed the mantra of my Conservative friends, who never have answers to the fundamental questions.
Last week, we were talking about the carbon tax. The Conservatives want to scrap it. That is all well and good, but one of the major challenges of our time is the climate crisis. A carbon tax of $15 or even $50 is not going to cut it. The UN says that it should now be more than $200 a tonne for us to even begin to think about dealing with this challenge.
My colleague also talked about the housing crisis. It is easy to say that there is a housing crisis and that young people cannot afford housing. I know it because I am in the midst of it every day myself. A few months ago, Scotiabank published a study saying that Canada needs 3.5 million housing units over the next 10 years. It has been reported that in Quebec alone, the market will build 500,000 units on its own. The governments need to intervene one way or another to build 600,000. We have to pay if we want to house the least fortunate in society.
I am not hearing any response from the Conservatives. They have nothing to say about housing or the climate crisis, and that is a big problem.
252 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/23 4:17:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, with thanks to the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook for sharing some of his time.
I think it was another colleague who said earlier that he had some rather mixed feelings about today's motion because there is a lot that is true in it, particularly the first parts that name and provide some useful facts and figures about the very difficult situation Canadians are facing. We know that many Canadians right now are concerned about losing places to live, whether because the interest rate on their mortgages has gone up and they are not sure their family incomes can absorb the additional costs, because rents continue to climb, or for various other reasons.
Certainly one important reason is the continuing corporate presence in the Canadian housing market. In Winnipeg, for instance, we just saw Lions Place be offered up to a private developer who has a history of taking over buildings where there used to be affordable rents, doing some superficial renovations and then jacking up the rents. That activity is going on. It is happening and it is a real challenge, putting pressure on the cost of rent.
We know that Canadians are struggling with the 11% increase in the cost of groceries and that that puts pressures on household budgets. It is not an optional extra that people can choose to do without. It is a cost that they either have to absorb or, as the member for Victoria was just pointing out, go hungry because they do not have any good alternatives. We are facing a really difficult moment.
Where I take issue with the motion before us is that it would lay all of that problem at the feet of government and suggest that it is sufficient just to cap government spending, cut waste, fire high-priced consultants and eliminate inflationary deficit and taxes that have caused a cost-of-living crisis for Canadians. There is, again, some truth in that. I am in favour of cutting waste, for instance, but I think my Conservative colleagues and I might have some differences of opinion as to what constitutes a proper cutting of waste, that is, what is truly wasteful and what is not.
As an example, I have been doing a lot of advocacy alongside folks outside of Parliament, like campaign 2000 for a CERB low-income repayment amnesty. I think it is wasteful to chase the poor for money they do not have because they took the government at its word, during a global crisis of unprecedented proportion, that if they needed help they should apply for it. When it turned out that they were not quite eligible because they were not poor in the right way, the government then said that they owe all of that money back. It will pay people to hound them even though it knows they do not have the money, and it will never get that money back. It is going to throw good money after bad. That is waste.
If that is what the Conservatives mean by cutting waste, I will show up any day of the week for that. I suspect it is not what they mean, because I have heard them talk about other things that I value and that I think are good investments. For instance, when we talk about pharmacare on this side of the House, that is a cost. Capping spending is not going to allow us to have a federal pharmacare plan, but do members know what a federal pharmacare plan would do? Ultimately it would save money for Canadians and reduce the cost of accessing prescription drugs in Canada, not just in individual budgets but in government budgets too.
The latest reports, prepandemic, on pharmacare in Canada said that Canadians were paying about $24 billion a year on prescription drugs. That was a combination of government expenditure, private insurance plan and out-of-pocket expenditure. The findings of many different studies over time, including in this particular example, was that a national pharmacare plan would cost about $20 billion a year. Depending on who pays and what ledger it is on, Canadians stand to save at least $4 billion a year on the prescription drugs they are already buying.
To me, it is not the right approach to say the federal government should just arbitrarily cap its spending when there are investment opportunities that could reduce costs to Canadians overall. I think we should be more discerning in our judgment around this place, in a way that this motion simply is not. We have seen a lot of change and we are going to see more change in the economy over the years to come, particularly in regard to energy. We are seeing that happen already.
Many of our allies are trying to lower their dependency on fossil fuel. That is happening, whether Canada wants it and gets on board or not. It is happening for the sake of both the climate and energy security. I do not think anybody in this place needs a lecture on that after the last 12 months, not only with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and what has happened to global energy supplies but also the real pinch from Russia's supply of oil to Europe and other parts of the world, as well as the power that that has given it.
There are many reasons the world is trying to lower its dependency on fossil fuel for basic things that we cannot do without, such as heating our homes. Canada's choice is whether it shows up to that or not. Back in the 1970s, Peter Lougheed made real investments, as did the federal government, to create the oil and gas industry that exists in Alberta today. That was not at all a spontaneous creation of the free market. There was a lot of very deliberate policy work and financial investment by governments in order to create the oil and gas economy of the late 20th century. Those who say otherwise would be kidding themselves and anyone who listens.
Before us is another moment of policy and financial investment to create a new energy economy for at least the next 50 years. Canada has to decide whether it wants to get on that train. We are not going to do so for free. Arbitrarily capping spending right now just takes Canada out of the game at a time when our biggest continental partner, the United States, is finally getting into the climate change game in a meaningful way. It is doing this with the Inflation Reduction Act. A lot of companies that are in the new energy economy and are also making incredible amounts of profit are sizing up the places where they want to invest.
We should value that investment as much as we value investment in the oil and gas sector, but Canada does not. It has not shown up for other industries, particularly new energy industries, in the way that it did for oil and gas in the 1970s and continues to do today. Mr. Speaker, just think of the over $20 billion that the federal government found overnight to get into the pipeline business, something it has no business being in in the first place.
Do not tell me money is lacking for other important things. Of course there is money. The Liberals have proven that by going out and spending on things like pipelines, which they should not have done.
We are in this moment where we are trying to address critical challenges for individual Canadian households, and at the same time, many businesses that are still reeling from the effects of the pandemic. The world is preparing and laying the foundations for the next-generation economy. It is important to my children and to the children of people in this place and across the country that Canada get that right. This will make good-paying union jobs available to the next generation of Canadian children in the same way that those jobs were available for oil and gas workers in Alberta.
We want to make sure that those jobs continue to be available. Some of them will be in oil and gas, but there are going to be fewer of those in the future. This is not because the Canadian government of any stripe decided that was going to be the case. It is because many governments the world over are deciding that must be the case, if we are going to have a planet to have an economy on in the first place. They are not wrong about that. Canada needs to get with the program, and we are only going to be able to do that through serious investment.
I will close because I know my time is running short. I thank the Speaker for his diligence. I will just mention health care. I do not know that we need to do much more than that, but the idea that we are going to solve the very real problems in the health system without investment is false. In this time when people are struggling to get access to care, government will need to make investments. Provincial governments have been willing to pay through the nose for private agency nurses, overtime work and sending people to the United States to get treatment.
That is not a health system. We need to build it, or rebuild it, here. That will require investment. It is worth paying for. This is why it is not the time to endorse a simple spending cap.
1615 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
