SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 198 - May/17/23

May/17/23 12:01:09 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I would request a recorded vote.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/23 12:01:12 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motion No. 11. The question is on Motion No. 13. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

65 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/23 12:01:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I would ask for a recorded vote.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/23 12:01:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-21

The recorded division stands deferred. Normally, at this time, the House would proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. However, pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, May 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

70 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/17/23 12:02:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, it would be okay to call it 12:20 so we can begin the late show.

28 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/23 12:02:43 a.m.
Watch

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request. Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

23 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

May/17/23 12:03:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the outset of the pandemic, a number of very young adults graduated out of foster care. Of course, in the first summer of the pandemic, there was no employment because the economy was effectively shut down for public health reasons. Normally, kids graduating out of foster care, if they did not have employment, would apply for social assistance with the provincial government. The Government of Manitoba told them that it would not even entertain their applications unless they had applied for every other possible source of revenue. Of course, at that time, CERB had just been made available, so the provincial government gave those kids the link and said they should go and apply. The provincial government knew full well that it was a no-fail application process. Those kids did what the government told them to do. They applied for the CERB and started receiving CERB because they were not eligible for social assistance. Then, much later, they were told by the federal government that they were not eligible for social assistance and that they had to pay all the money back. Of course, the provincial government was not going to give them back pay on the social assistance that they otherwise would have been entitled to. These are some of the people who are now struggling to pay back that CERB debt. To insist on these kids' paying that debt back to the federal government is a surefire way to undermine them as they try to get a start in life after a difficult childhood. The federal government says it is going to deal compassionately with these cases using a case-by-case approach, but the evidence is that a lot of people are getting the bills in the mail. They are having a hard time getting through to the CRA. They are not getting the debt relief they require. The compassionate thing to do would be to have a general policy of debt amnesty for low-income Canadians who got CERB but were not eligible. That is the compassionate approach, but the government refuses to do it and, instead, insists on this case-by-case approach. Let us contrast that with the treatment of companies under the Canada emergency wage subsidy program. As early as December 2020, the Financial Post was reporting that at least 68 companies that got the wage subsidy were paying out dividends to their shareholders. Some of those companies include Imperial Oil and Suncor, which would go on to make record profits. I mean that they made more profit than they have ever made, ever in their entire history, over the course of the pandemic. Do members know how much the government has asked them to repay? It is zero dollars. Let us talk about the Ottawa country club that got the Canada emergency wage subsidy. It actually ended up having a banner year because it had a way for people to play golf in a socially distanced manner. It decided to advance its capital plan to repave its parking lot by about three years with the money it got from the emergency wage subsidy program. Do members know how much it has been asked to repay? It is zero dollars, not a cent. In Edmonton, Cessco Fabrication and Engineering Ltd. locked out its employees and used the wage subsidy to hire scab labour to come in behind the picket line and perform the work of unionized employees who were exercising their legal and constitutional right to strike. Do members know how much it has been asked to pay back? It is zero dollars. Why is it that foster kids graduating out of care in Manitoba during a global pandemic, who were told by government to apply for the CERB and just did what they were told, cannot get any compassionate relief policy out of the government, but giant corporations that got money they were not entitled to, which then went on to abuse workers, spend money on parking lots or pay it out to wealthy shareholders, are not being pursued by the government in the same way? Where is the fairness in that?

694 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, Lib.)

May/17/23 12:07:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe our government's approach during the pandemic was compassionate, fair and responsible. I listened tonight to my colleague, and I mentioned before the respect I have for him. He continues to raise such matters, as is his right, but he neglects to mention what the Canada emergency wage subsidy, or the CEWS, a signature pandemic emergency response program, was all about. Yes, wage subsidy support did go to large corporations, but the vast majority of the funds under the program went, in fact, to small businesses. It went to medium-sized businesses as well, but, in the main, it was small businesses, mom-and-pop shops, restaurants, retailers, those in manufacturing and entrepreneurs who had started businesses and had put their blood, sweat and tears into those businesses. They were the ones getting the support. Failing to mention that, in a way, takes us down a path that would misunderstand what the CEWS program was all about. It was about keeping employees on the payroll. It was about making sure those employees who had been laid off as a result of the pandemic could be rehired. By and large, it was an enormous success. If my colleague is looking for perfection, he will look a long time. There is no perfect policy, but I go back to the fact that in the context of a pandemic, where one had to fly the plane and build it at the same time, so to speak, this proved to be an enormously successful program. My friend does not have to take that only from me; he can talk to the business community. He will note that unions have spoken about the importance of the wage subsidy. Again, it is not a perfect program, but it is a program that did help enormous numbers of Canadians, businesses and their employees, by the thousands. In my own community of London, Ontario, I saw it at work. It was quite successful there as well. Whether it is on the street or in the constituency office, I continue to hear about the role it had.

352 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie

May/17/23 12:11:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my friend needs a slight history lesson. He will recall that it was actually the NDP that called for the wage subsidy program in the first place. The Liberals proposed a 10% wage replacement rate, and New Democrats argued for a 75% replacement rate because we understood that this was an important program. This is not to take away from the good work CEWS did, just as the CERB did a lot of good work, but the difference is that in the case of the wage subsidy the people who abused it, who should not have received it, were big corporations making a lot of money. In the case of CERB, there is a whole bunch of people who did abuse that program by committing identity fraud and through other ways of getting it. The New Democrats have been very clear that this money should be pursued. However, for the folks who applied in desperation and who continue to have low incomes, New Democrats believe compassion has to be shown. Why is there compassion for giant companies and not compassion for the poor?

187 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/17/23 12:12:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there certainly is compassion for the poor. I could mention the number of policies that this government has introduced from the Canada child benefit, now the Canada dental benefit to the grocery rebate that we have introduced through budget 2023. However, to the substantive point, individuals do have the option of a repayment plan instead of an amnesty program that I know my colleague favours. That is a fair approach. It still ensures eligibility criteria are verified. If individuals were not, in fact, eligible, I think the vast majority of Canadians would expect repayment but they would also expect a compassionate approach on the part of the CRA. That is why if individuals, as I said before, are not able to pay in one lump sum, they can do so on a periodic basis. Again, in setting that up with the CRA, they can find a plan that works for them. Finally, an appeals process exists for all cases where an individual is dissatisfied.

166 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/17/23 12:13:56 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals do not understand the housing crisis in this country. The Prime Minister said this week that “we have taken significant steps on supporting low-income renters, including a $500 housing benefit top-up”. Five hundred dollars is is supposed to end the housing crisis in Canada? I could not believe my ears. I have some news for the Prime Minister, the price for an unfurnished one-bedroom rental home in Metro Vancouver has climbed to $3,000 a month. Families, persons with disabilities, single mothers, students and seniors in Vancouver can no longer afford to live there. The housing crisis has only gotten worse under the Liberal government. A study out of UBC this week says that B.C. renters are the most likely to be evicted, 10.5% of B.C. renters have been forced to move in the last five years due to sales of their rental home and renovictions. That is compared to 5.9% in the rest of Canada. The Prime Minister said, “We are introducing measures to end rent evictions.”. News again to the Prime Minister, whatever those measures are they are not working and they are doubly not working in B.C. At Winsome Place apartment building in Surrey, the low-income residents got a surprise in their mailboxes this month. The landlord delivered them a document labelled "agreement to above guideline rent increase". The landlord said that if they did not sign and accept a $400 increase in their rents their units would be sold in the next few months. These were seniors who have lived in that apartment building for a very long time. This is the reality in the rental housing market right now. The government is more than halfway through its 10-year national housing strategy, with more than $31 billion spent, yet the costs of housing are not going down. More people are going homeless and CMHC says that we need more financialization of housing to solve the problem. Really, more financialization of housing? They want more investors to use the luxury condos as investment vehicles? The government is subsidizing developers and corporate investors with its low-interest loans. This is not a solution to the rental housing crisis for mid- and low-income Canadians. What the Liberal government continue to not understand is that this is a housing crisis and it is causing other social crises in our communities. It is causing homelessness. It is causing opioid overdoses and it is increasing social problems in the lives of Canadians. The lackadaisical attitude of the Liberals to truly fix this crisis and instead hold on to their market-driven solution of trickle-down “condo-nomics” is hurting people. Just consider the disgusting comments in QP today from the Conservative leader in regards to ending clinically proven safe supply. If the government does not get serious about creating affordable housing and getting Canadians into homes, more people will die. When are the Liberals going to take the housing crisis seriously and make housing truly affordable for all Canadians?

518 words

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

May/17/23 12:17:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Housing affordability is one of the most important challenges in the country today, especially for the most vulnerable people. Everybody needs and deserves a place to call home. It is why we have made housing a priority since the beginning of our mandate. It is why we launched Canada's first-ever national housing strategy in 2017, and it is why we have continued to add new programs, new approaches and new adjustments in subsequent budgets since then. One of our newest programs, the housing accelerator fund, is designed to reduce the turnaround time on new housing. It provides incentives to municipalities to cut red tape and streamline their processes. Applications are being accepted as of this month, but as a former mayor and former councillor, I say we have to work with municipalities. I was incredibly disturbed to see the Conservatives' demands toward municipalities, with respect to what they needed to do for housing funds. That is not the correct approach. We need to work with our municipal partners. What we need is a systematic change to how housing is built in this country and to introduce changes that will pay off long into the future. The program I am talking about is built on collaboration with our municipal partners, and we are continuing that collaborative approach with a new co-operative housing development program. We are working directly with the Co-operative Housing Federation Of Canada and others in this sector on this initiative, and we are backing that work with $500 million in contribution funding and $1 billion in loans. That amounts to the largest investment in building new co-op housing in this country in more than 30 years. These are just a couple of examples of activity happening now through the national housing strategy, and adjustments are being made to build on its success. I can stand here tonight and throw out numbers that show that the plan is succeeding, numbers that show that, generally, we are ahead of schedule on most of the strategy's metrics. I would rather stand here though and tell members about lives that have been touched through the strategy's programs. I would rather talk about Canadian Forces veteran Bill Beaton, who went from being homeless to living in a veteran's house, a supportive housing facility constructed with funding from the national housing co-investment fund, or Krystal in Surrey, British Columbia, who experienced poverty as a child. As an adult, she is helping the next generation of indigenous people in Surrey through the Skookum housing solutions project. There are real people who have benefited from the government's work on housing across the country. We will continue this work in partnership with our friends in the NDP, in pursuit of housing affordability for all, and I hope we can count on the support of the other parties in the House to do that.

495 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

May/17/23 12:20:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly, my colleague across the aisle and I can agree that some of the language we are hearing from the Conservative Party right now is harmful to Canadians. I just wanted to mention that, last night, there was an opportunity to speak for almost four hours on housing. The housing accelerator fund came up by the Minister of Housing tens, if not hundreds of times, last night, yet at the same time the government continues to talk about the housing accelerator fund, more and more people are going homeless in the country. Really, what we need is some real investment in social housing and in low-income housing for Canadians. It has been almost 40 years since there has been investment. I am going to close by just following up on something that the member just mentioned, co-op housing. I cannot get a meeting confirmed with the minister and a co-op housing organization in my riding. It was promised to me 19 days ago. Can the member reply as to whether the minister will make this meeting that he agreed to?

185 words

Mr. Anthony Housefather

May/17/23 12:21:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will close with this thought. First of all, we absolutely share the desire, the hon. member and myself, as well as, I think, people from all of our parties, to make sure that everybody in this country has a home, that everybody in this country who is vulnerable is given the chance to have affordable housing. That is what we all need to strive for. As to the question from the hon. member, I will be very happy to go back to check with the minister's office on the status of her request. I will come back to her tomorrow at question period, when I can find out the answer to that question.

117 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/17/23 12:22:21 a.m.
Watch

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 12:22 a.m.)

43 words