44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, in listening to my colleague's speech, I take it that he has a very different position on a number of different issues, but I am going to guess that he is for helping people, especially tradespeople and workers who are trying to improve their situation in this current economy. Therefore, I wonder why my colleague is against the automatic advance for the Canada workers benefit, which is very important to my constituents in Châteauguay—Lacolle, and the doubling of the deduction for tradespeople's tools.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have been plagued by this question for quite some time.
All of us have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents, to make sure that we improve their quality of life. If those of us in the Chamber can benefit from publicly funded dental care, we have an obligation to protect the interests of our constituents from coast to coast to coast who need it and should have that same benefit. The Leader of the Opposition has been benefiting from this for his entire adult life. I cannot understand why anyone in the House who has taken that benefit would stand here and say that Canadians who need it most, seniors and kids, should not get that dental care.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one.
We are working with every province to sign agreements that work for those provinces. My belief is that with public day care, not-for-profit day care, there is no profit margin. It has to be more affordable when it is delivered. I would say that would be the first priority.
I believe that what is most important right now is to get as much day care as possible out there for all families, not just for women and mothers, as there are families that have two fathers, or are single-father households, as we heard across the aisle. This would benefit all Canadians, not just women and mothers.
I am certainly in support of what the member is asking.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with the member on that aspect. It is hard to imagine that the Conservative Party does not see the real and tangible benefits of this program, given that the Province of Quebec has had it for many years and we have seen a great deal of benefit, like more women getting engaged into the workforce. There is a wide spectrum of benefits from having this program.
I am wondering if the member could expand on why she believes the Quebec program has been as successful as it has and why it is, in fact, in Canada's best interest to try to duplicate that model nationwide.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for another inspiring and enlightening speech. I think she is absolutely right. As I was saying, the Quebec model of early childhood education centres, the CPEs, has helped people enormously. It is a great social benefit for families in Quebec.
What does my colleague think about the fact that an agreement has been reached between the federal and Quebec governments? It improves funding to perhaps add more child care spaces.
In terms of long-term federal funding, what does she think about the fact that priority has been given to public and non-profit child care facilities, and that we are trying to ensure that families across the country have access to child care?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/23 12:24:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about something that I care very deeply about, and that is affordable housing in Canada.
Before I get to the substantive question, I note that in an earlier debate this evening, we were talking about child care. Since we are talking about home finances, I think it prudent to put down that there is a calculator on the federal government's website where we can calculate benefits. It was suggested by members of the Conservative Party that there is no benefit for stay-at-home mothers and that somebody on this side of the House suggested at some point, fallaciously I would add, that single parents or mothers who stay home are less valued by this government. I would challenge that assertion. The Canada child benefit is an example of something that does support parents who choose to stay home if they earn less.
I ran a scenario through the website. I used a scenario where there is a $70,000 earner and a $45,000 earner in a household with two children eligible for child care. When the $45,000 earner stays home, they receive $250 extra a month. That is $3,000 a year, which actually meets that family halfway on the child care subsidy they would receive otherwise. Given that child care would be available to the family if they are paying more tax, the program pays for a lot of itself, and I think it is quite prudent.
On the substantive question regarding housing, while the member opposite was speaking, he talked about how housing was so much more expensive on his side of the river than on the other side. I found some classifieds on both sides, from Malone, New York, and Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, and I found that apartments were actually a very similar price. Sometimes Conservatives just throw out prices and say that a one-bedroom apartment is now $2,500. The veracity of those claims should be analyzed by people listening. I found apartments in Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry anywhere from $400 for a single room explicitly for a female student to $1,200, $1,500 and $1,600 for a three-bedroom apartment. At the same time, I found two-bedroom apartments for $1,320, or $900 U.S., in Malone, New York, just across the way.
The reality is that Canada needs more homes, and any member of this House who is serious about the issue would agree that we need to focus on getting more housing built, including affordable housing and purpose-built rentals. While some in this House, like the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, say that the federal government has to do less and pull back from investing in housing, we fundamentally disagree. I think most Canadians would disagree as well. Quite frankly, we know we need to do more.
Since 2015, this government has invested more than $36 billion to support, create and repair half a million homes across this country and help nearly two million individuals and families get the housing they need. I am a co-op housing kid. I grew up in a co-op, and I am proud that this government has also invested $1.5 billion in a restart to the federal co-op strategy.
We have made housing affordability a central pillar of recent budgets. For example, budget 2022 pledged billions to boost supply and put housing within reach of everyone in this country, and our most recent budget has provisions to build on that momentum, particularly for indigenous housing, with over $3 billion invested in recent budgets. There is also the housing accelerator fund, a $4-billion fund that intends to yield over 100,000 net new housing units over five years.
I can talk about the leadership demonstrated by the minister, who was in Milton, Oakville and London meeting with the mayors of those communities. He talked about the importance of the housing accelerator fund and how municipalities across this country can step up, find solutions and cut some of the red tape that the member opposite has referenced this evening. Since the member opposite has served in a municipal capacity, he would know that much of that red tape is, in fact, municipal. I would love to hear some solutions rather than just slogans and criticisms of things that have not worked. He is an expert on municipal affairs, and he could probably provide this House with some recommendations on how to cut municipal red tape in the housing sector.
769 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
