44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 17, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/17/23 12:57:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful for me to have the opportunity to participate in today's opposition day debate on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport.
The topic touches on Canadian debt levels, inflation and mortgages. It is not a surprise, as I am sure it is the case right across the country, that inflation is top of mind for Davenport residents. Affordability is a huge issue, so it is an important topic for us to be discussing today.
I always like to start with context. It is always good to remind ourselves of a few things.
In early 2020, we had the start of a global pandemic. During the first half of 2020, 95% of the world's economy suffered a simultaneous contraction. This has never happened before. Three billion adults were laid off from their jobs or tried to work from home.
The sum of lost earnings just in the first months of the pandemic was $10 trillion U.S. That is more than one-tenth of the global GDP. It was a massive shock to the global economy, the Canadian economy and all economies around the world, and our economies have been recovering ever since.
Never mind that since then we have also had the unprovoked and brutal attack on Ukraine by Russia and the recent violent and shocking attack by Hamas on Israel and Gaza, among other events in the world. All of these events are putting a further strain on our global economy and its ability to fully recover.
In addition, during the pandemic the Canadian government spent a lot of money to support individuals, small, medium and large businesses and non-profits. We did everything we could to support Canadians and the economy, and to provide an economic foundation from which to pivot, as we knew we would inevitably start coming out of the pandemic at some point.
We spent a lot of money and accumulated debt. We had to do that because we needed to save lives, businesses, non-profits and protect our jobs. We provided a strong financial foundation from which the economy could pivot.
Canadian economists have lauded our actions and have verified that federal government actions have provided that strong economic foundation we need in order to pivot away from a massive recession or depression. We have succeeded.
We have also recovered all the jobs that were lost. I think we have recovered more than 129% of the jobs lost from the initial days of the pandemic.
Given that the opposition day motion speaks to mortgages and the risk of higher interest rates on mortgage defaults, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the work we are doing to help Canadians have a safe and affordable place to live.
Let me begin by reminding everyone in the House that our federal government is focused on building an economy that works for everyone, with a strong social safety net, and where everyone plays by the same set of rules. An important component of that is ensuring that every Canadian has a safe and affordable place to call home. We know that for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach and paying rent has become more expensive across the country. This lack of affordable housing has an impact on our economy. That is why our government has launched the most ambitious plan that Canada has ever had to ensure they are able to afford a home sometime in the future.
We introduced a national housing strategy in 2017. We have committed over $82 billion to that strategy and to other housing initiatives. We are investing in building more homes and bringing down the barriers that keep them from being built, with the goal of doubling the number of new builds over the next decade. We are ensuring that houses are being used as homes for Canadian families rather than a speculative financial asset class. We are investing in the rental housing that so many count on right now.
I go to the doors quite a lot in my riding of Davenport and housing is a big topic. In response to when people ask me if I think they will ever be able to afford a home in their lifetime, I tell them that I have full confidence they will.
Right now, if all levels of government are working, if we continue to invest the dollars that we have allocated, if we continue to get the red tape and road blocks out of the way, I have full confidence that we will have excellent rental supply, new affordable housing and housing for our most vulnerable come on stream, and the ability for people to live affordably in our cities and towns right across our country.
Let us get into some of the programs we have introduced.
Our federal government is making the down payment on a first home more attainable with the first home savings account, also known as an FHSA. The new tax-free first home savings account is a registered plan to give first-time homebuyers the ability to save up to $40,000 on a tax-free basis. Like a registered retirement savings plan, contributions are tax deductible and withdrawals to purchase a first home, including from investment income, are non-taxable, like a tax-free savings account. This means that savings for a down payment are tax free in and tax free out.
The first home savings account can be combined with the homebuyers plan, which allows Canadians to withdraw from an RRSP to buy or build a qualifying home. This means that individuals who can take full advantage of both the FHSA and the homebuyers plan can accumulate up to $75,000 or up to $150,000 per couple, plus the interest they have earned tax free within their FHSA, toward a down payment on a first home. They can also benefit from the first-time home buyers' tax credit, which our government has doubled to provide up to $1,500 to eligible homebuyers to offset closing costs involved in buying a first home.
The FHSA has been available from financial service providers since April of this year, and as of the beginning of October, over 150,000 Canadians have already opened an account. This is an amazing uptake and proves how effective the program is in supporting a first home purchase.
I also want to talk about the housing accelerator fund. We are requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments and rental housing near public transit in order to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. This was launched in March 2023. The housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities, towns and indigenous governments unlock new housing supply, about 100,000 units in total, by speeding up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density and incentivizing development close to public transit.
Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster so we can reduce the cost of housing for everyone. I believe the City of Toronto has also applied for the housing accelerator fund, and I really look forward to that getting approved, because we need far more homes in the city of Toronto.
I could talk about a lot of other initiatives, but I know that I am running out of time. However, there is the rapid housing initiative, which has created a lot of homes in less than a year for our most vulnerable. It has been a game changer in my riding of Davenport, and in the city of Toronto, in providing spaces for those who are homeless or near homeless. There are two spots in my riding of Davenport, and I know hundreds of thousands are being built across the country.
Our global economy has had a huge shock with advent of the pandemic. Recovery from this, the global wars under way and other global events are impacting the global economy in its recovery. This is also having a huge impact on inflation and the cost of living.
Our federal government is taking action. We are doing all we can to support Canadians, while striking the right balance to ensure that our efforts do not amplify inflation. We know this will make it harder for Canadians to keep up with the cost of living, and this extends to making Canada's housing market—
1433 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 1:37:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's opposition motion debate. I first want to congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward a motion that is not directly associated with the issue they have been bringing forward time after time in the House. Now, we get to talk about something a bit different, although I do have great concern with the premise of the motion they have brought forward. The “whereas” clauses and the assertions they have made are, I think, wholly inaccurate, and I look forward to explaining that in the next 10 minutes or so.
This country certainly took on a lot of debt in order to support Canadians from coast to coast during the pandemic, and we have certainly had to take on our fair share to do that, much of which was unanimously approved by the House, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic. However, it is always important to look at things in terms of context. Obviously, debt is significantly affected by GDP, the amount a country is able to produce in terms of economic activity, because that is exactly what will end up supporting that debt. When we talk about the debt in this country and when we look at the debt-to-GDP ratio, Canada is actually doing quite well.
As a matter of fact, if we look at our debt-to-GDP ratio, we are at 14%. Some people might ask whether that is good or bad. That is fair, because I do not think everybody is an economist and knows the default answer to that, but let us compare that 14% in Canada to the percentage for our G7 partners. France is at 99%. Germany is at 47%. Italy is at 129%. Japan is at 161%. Probably the two most comparable to us, the U.K. and the United States, are at 95% and 96%. When we talk about our debt levels, it is extremely important to compare where we stand on them to the position of our G7 counterparts, our most comparable economies in the world. In that regard, we are in an extremely good position.
I would add that I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants today.
That is very important for context. I know that Conservatives, including this lot here, like to come into the House and routinely tell us about how theirs is the only party that knows how to introduce a balanced budget. They may want to go ahead and cheer and clap now, because usually they do that when I try to pay them a compliment, before I add the “but”.
It is really important to consider this: Conservatives will tell us that they know how to balance budgets, but if we look back to—
An hon. member: We do.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, they said “we do”. They will then have to explain the following facts to me and why they did the following. Since 1990, there have been only two prime ministers who have significantly added a surplus or balanced a budget. They were Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. This is interesting, because Conservatives will always say that Stephen Harper balanced budgets, but no, he did not, and Brian Mulroney never had a single balanced budget. Stephen Harper did not really either, and I will explain why. The first two budgets Stephen Harper brought into Parliament were on the heels of Paul Martin's surpluses that he had been running for years. The Conservatives certainly squandered those surpluses and went into a deficit position very quickly.
Of course, Conservatives also like to tell us, and I have heard it already this morning, that they left the fiscal state of this country in great shape in 2015 with the last budget they presented in a last-ditch effort to get Canadians to vote them into office one more time. They brought forward a “balanced budget”, and for the purposes of Hansard, I should say I am putting “balanced budget” in quotes, but they did it on the backs of veterans by closing Veterans Affairs offices. They sold off our shares of GM at the time at bargain prices in order to get that off their balance sheet. They did a whole host of things in order to portray the illusion that they had balanced the budget, when they really had not. They did it at the expense of Canadians and the investments the government had on behalf of Canadians.
I know that many will say this was so long ago, 10 years ago for Harper and even longer for Mulroney. Fine, let us just get back to this lot of Conservatives right here. All of them who are here today ran on Erin O'Toole's plan in the last election, and that plan was to run deficits for a minimum of 10 years. Here we have a group of Conservatives who are now coming into the House with a motion that says to develop a plan for a balanced budget by October 25 of this year, a week and a half from now. Meanwhile, they had no intention of doing so when they were running in the last election. They did not care when they were knocking on doors and presenting their plan to Canadians. The plan from Erin O'Toole and the Conservatives was to run deficits for at least 10 years. That is the reality of it.
This should be concerning to Canadians, because this is not the first time that we are seeing hypocrisy come out of the Conservatives. It is actually the second time. They also ran on a plan to introduce a price on pollution and to modify the existing price on pollution that this side of the House had. They ran on that, too.
This morning, somebody challenged them and asked a Conservative member why they ran on that. That Conservative member stood up and said, “I did not believe in it.” That is funny, because that is the second or third Conservative I have heard say they were not running on a price on pollution or a carbon tax. However, they had no problem going along with the plan during the election. They did not say a single word in opposition to it at the time. Now, suddenly, they come in here and think that the buzz phrase of the day is going to be “axe the tax”, and this would bring them into power. That is not the position that somebody who is aspiring to be the leader of this country should be taking, asking what buzzwords happen to work today that would get him into power.
I also find it very interesting when we talk about inflation specifically. Today we have seen that Statistics Canada has reported that the inflation in Canada has dropped to 3.8%. I should add that all the economists who were predicting this in advance of today said it would be anywhere between 3.8% and 4.2%. It ended up being on the lower end of that. Conservatives are laughing.
Maybe it is time to compare that. I did it earlier, and I can compare it again. Let us compare it to the G7 countries. Again, Canada and the United States are tied for second place in terms of the lowest inflation. I think it is extremely important when we talk about our comparative countries.
Canada is heading in the right direction when it comes to inflation, but interestingly enough, when we look at inflation and the different sectors of the economy, transportation is one of the only sectors of the economy contributing to inflation, and it is the biggest contributor. It is interesting because the member for King—Vaughan was up earlier, and I asked her what proposals she would have to reduce the inflationary impact around transportation. Of course, the exact answer that I think everybody in this room would have expected, and I certainly did when I asked the question, was to get rid of the carbon tax, because the carbon tax is contributing to inflation.
The reality of the situation is that the carbon tax is not contributing to inflation. Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, recently said that the overall impact of the carbon tax to inflation is 0.15%. I believe he was in Alberta at a Chamber of Commerce meeting. We could chalk that up to a rounding error. Now I know the default for my Conservative friends would be to jump up and say that they do not trust Tiff Macklem; they have already made their position on that very clear.
I have a whole list, and I will not bother reading it right now, of Conservative MPs who have stood up in this House and invoked the name of Tiff Macklem as the expert when he has all the right things that they want to say at the moment. They cannot pick and choose when they want to use somebody as an expert in the field.
It goes without saying for the rest of us in the House, other than Conservatives, that Tiff Macklem is an expert in this field. When he says that the carbon tax contributes 0.15%, I am sorry to the member for King—Vaughan, but getting rid of the carbon tax is not going to be helpful. It is not going to be the solution as it relates to inflation specifically.
Once again, we are confronted with a motion by Conservatives. All they are interested in is political games and cheap shots at the Prime Minister.
1632 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 2:00:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, October 17 is the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. This day is a moment to reflect on the amazing strides we have made as a world in reducing poverty, but also to recognize that there is still much to do.
Between 1990 and 2014, the world made remarkable progress, with Canada being a leader in helping more than a billion people to move out of extreme poverty. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine have caused the cost of food to skyrocket throughout the world, putting 150 million people on the verge of returning to extreme poverty.
Canada has long been a leader in the fight to eliminate global poverty and we are well positioned to continue that leadership. I would like to thank Results Canada, a non-profit agency with over 500 volunteers across the country, for its more than 35 years of work to end extreme poverty. Let us continue together to explore ways to eradicate poverty in Canada and around the world.
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 2:48:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have more good news for my Bloc Québécois colleagues.
Between 2019 and 2021, our greenhouse gas emissions in Canada declined by 50 million tonnes. That is the equivalent of removing 11 million vehicles from our roads. The pandemic was over in 2021, something my hon. colleague on the Conservative side fails to understand.
On this side of the House, we are committed to fighting climate change, developing an economy that will be there for decades to come and create tens of thousands of jobs across the country.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 4:15:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member's passion, if not the substance, of his remarks.
Let us look at history and the facts. Every year prior to the pandemic, the Liberal government had a deficit. The government is now spending $120 billion more than prior to the pandemic. In addition to that, there was $200 billion of non-COVID-related expenditures during the pandemic. These monies were spent on things like arrive scam. There was millions of dollars for fridges for Loblaws and millions of dollars for Mastercard. These are not proper ways to spend money.
Yes, we will debate this, and if we are skeptical of some of your solutions, forgive us since you have doubled household costs and put us into poverty.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 5:38:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague, who represents the riding east of mine. My riding covers a very large territory. It is always a pleasure to collaborate with her, and I appreciate the respect she shows me. I can tell her that it is mutual, and I will always have a great deal of respect for her.
Now, I want to make it clear that we are prepared to help people who are in need. During the pandemic, this government sent money to various groups across Canada that it could not get back. We were there from the start during the pandemic to help these people. We we always be there.
As for the magic wand, we do not claim to be magicians, unlike the Liberals. We will work responsibly and we will help people who are truly in need, but only them.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/17/23 6:25:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am here tonight on behalf of the 40,000 Canadian families that have lost loved ones since 2016, since the Liberals formed government, due to the toxic drug supply. I am here also on behalf of those living with problematic substance use and recreational substance use who are dying from preventable deaths.
Just to give some context, right now in Canada, about 180 Canadians per million die due to toxic drugs. In British Columbia, my home province, it is 430. In the Island Health region, it is over 500, and in the Alberni Valley, where I live, it is over 1,000. For those under the age of 49, it is right now over 2,100 people per million who are dying from toxic drugs. It is off the chart.
I have been asking, and New Democrats have been asking, for the federal government to come up with a plan, a timeline and resources to respond to this health emergency. In fact, not only has the Liberal government failed to do that, but it also has not spent even 1% of what it spent on the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Why is that? It is because of the stigma. That is the only reason it has not responded. There are solutions out there.
I took it upon myself to go to Portugal last summer, on my own dime, to learn from Portugal, because it had six deaths per million. To paint the picture of how many people are dying in Canada, just to put things in perspective, more people have died in Canada from a toxic drug supply than in all of the European Union, with a population of over 450 million people.
The Portuguese story is quite interesting, because that country had a massive drug crisis that was claiming the lives of many people in the mid-nineties. Over 1,000 people were dying, primarily heroin users. There were 1,000 heroin users in a population of 10 million people. Just to put things in perspective, in my home province of British Columbia, we have 100,000 chronic substance users in a population of five million people. We have double what they had, in terms of per capita usage, of chronic substance users.
The Portuguese realized it was a health emergency and responded like it was a health emergency. They convened a table of experts. They decided to move forward with expert-based policy. They created treatment on demand and a safer supply of substances. They scaled up. They had 250 people on methadone at the start of their program, and they scaled that up to 35,000 in two years. They used the military to create labs, to lower the cost and to get supply out the door. Today, they have 20,000 chronic substance users. They focused on harm reduction, making sure that people got the support they did.
I will talk about the politicians and what they did. They were the heroes. They took the gloves off, stepped out of the way, stopped playing politics and got rid of their ideology. Portugal focused on evidence-based decision-making led by experts, and put forward a plan with resources, a timeline and a strategy. It was unbelievable.
We actually had an expert task force on substance use from Health Canada. What did the federal government do? It chose to ignore them. There is still no plan, no timeline and no resources. When is the government going to treat this as a true public health emergency? Where is the urgency?
597 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
