SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 280 - Feb/12/24

Feb/12/24 6:36:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been paying attention to my speech, he would know that I made it pretty clear that we believe that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples should have been included; I have mentioned on a number of occasions the fact that it was not. The ends do not justify the means. I have looked at the composition of both of the councils, and there are some truly stunning people who will do some amazing work. I have no issue with the composition of either council. However, it was not done in ways that advance reconciliation, but in a top-down approach, where the minister got to name people. I do not believe that if we are actually trying to work on reconciliation, old paternalistic approaches to the problems are the best ones going forward. I truly believe that if we want to have transformational change when it comes to reconciliation, we are going to have make a transformational difference.

163 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/12/24 6:37:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's riding has a very large number of indigenous people within it. It is also central to Canada's energy sector, and she spoke a bit about that in her speech in the context of the carbon tax. It seems to me that when the government talks about reconciliation, what it actually means is listening only to some indigenous people who share its views on resource development and environmental issues, and that in the process it very often ignores indigenous people who are looking for economic reconciliation and opportunity, and who are part of the development of Canada's resource sector. I have posed this question to the government in the past with respect to what reconciliation means in the context of the indigenous communities that are asking for and benefiting from energy development and wanting the projects to proceed instead of being blocked. The response I always get back is essentially that it claims indigenous people agree with it. We recognize that there is a diversity of perspectives within indigenous communities, but many are involved in the resource sector. I wonder whether the member could share a bit about what she is hearing in her riding on economic reconciliation and the role indigenous peoples are playing in energy development.

214 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Feb/12/24 6:39:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-372

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague rightly pointed out, I very proudly get to represent a majority of Canada's energy industry, in the Fort McMurray—Cold Lake riding in the oil sands. It is really interesting that, last week, the member for Timmins—James Bay brought forward a piece of legislation, a private member's bill, Bill C-372, that would make it illegal for people to talk positively about fossil fuels. Just today in the National Post, there was an op-ed by Stephen Buffalo, who is the CEO of the Indian Resource Council and also a member of the Samson Cree Nation. He is a really wonderful man. He stated, “In other words, it would make it illegal for anyone with a connection to the fossil fuel industry, including First Nations involved in oil and gas development, to discuss the benefits this will bring to Indigenous communities.” It is a pretty sad state of affairs that the NDP thinks that is the way toward reconciliation with first nations.

174 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/12/24 6:40:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague publicly on the arrival of an addition to her family. There was a lot of discussion in her speech about resource extraction. I have said many times in the House that I firmly support the human right to free, prior and informed consent. Often, I hear the Conservatives talk about nations that choose to participate in resource extraction. I am wondering if my hon. colleague supports, with the same level of enthusiasm, the free, prior and informed consent of communities that do not wish to participate in the resource extraction sector. If so, how would her Conservative government, should they ever form government, deal with that?

116 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Feb/12/24 6:41:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her congratulations on the birth of my little boy. He is nine months old, and it is very tough for me to be here while he is at home in Fort McMurray, but this is exactly the kind of work I have been sent here to do by the people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, and I am very proud to do so. What I do know is absolutely not okay for first nations is to point-blank tell them, through a private member's bill, like the one that was brought forward by the member for Timmins—James Bay, that they are not legally allowed to say anything positive about an industry that supports them and that they could go to jail for up to two years or have a half-million-dollar fine simply for telling truth and facts. That is both censorship and goes against any form of economic reconciliation, so I am very disturbed. Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to talk to a number of indigenous people throughout my riding who shared the concern they have with that bill and how tone deaf it is to tell indigenous communities in my riding and across the entire country what they can and cannot say about industries they want to participate in.

228 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Feb/12/24 6:42:57 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the member a similar question to what I asked a previous Conservative member, because she spoke to it as well. She mentioned that, by CAP not being mentioned as one of the board members, it is being prevented from being a voice in this board. However, I give the same reminder that the national council for reconciliation will have a minimum of nine members and a maximum of 13, so in addition to the four, there are going to be several other board members that can be on this national council for reconciliation. Can the member tell us where she sees, in the bill, that CAP is being prevented from being on this board?

120 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Feb/12/24 6:44:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate learning from the member opposite on the INAN committee, and I know that her kindness is one reason we do better in this place. I do want to highlight the fact that, yes, the bill would not preclude CAP from being on the committee, and I really hope that, at some point, it would be named to it. However, I think it is an absolute oversight to not include an organization that represents 800,000 people who live off-reserve, and I believe that is an important voice that is missed. Yes, the bill does not preclude CAP, and I hope it is included, but I do think it is a mistake not to have included it to begin with.

125 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/12/24 6:44:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member spoke about humility, and sometimes we do not get things right, but it is important to recognize when we do get things wrong and correct them. In this case, I am wondering if she has any further comments on that.

48 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Feb/12/24 6:45:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe that humility is absolutely key in doing good in the world and that the government could learn a thing or two, and all of us could learn a thing or two, if we simply admitted when we made a mistake and tried our best to make things better. That is, unfortunately, not something I have seen very much of from the current government since I have come here.

72 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/12/24 6:45:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-29

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to address the House on Bill C-29. My understanding of the schedule today is that I have about 12 minutes and then we will continue when we next come back to the bill. I know some members are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to ask questions or make comments, but they will sadly need to wait until this bill is next up for consideration. It has been a pleasure for me to listen to many of the interesting and insightful speeches that have been given by my colleagues. There might have been a few less interesting and insightful speeches given, but I will not name any names. I wanted to, first of all, identify some of the key aspects of this bill and then drill into a few specific areas around reconciliation. Bill C-29, for those just joining us, deals with the creation of a national council for reconciliation. This is a body that was called for in the calls to action associated with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and it now seeks to, through legislation, give life to that specific recommendation by creating a council that would be responsible for, in various fora, providing advice and recommendations around reconciliation. This specifically responds to calls to action 53 through 56. I would just note out of interest that we do seem to see a number of these legislative proposals from the government for the creation of advisory councils or bodies that would be representative of some community of concern and provide advice to the government on specific issues. What I always look for in these kinds of proposals is whether these advisory bodies would have the capacity to authentically represent the people they are supposed to represent or whether these advisory bodies are subject to such a level of control by the government that they would be more limited in being able to be representative or operate independently. I can think of a similar case of the creation of an advisory body on child care, where the government said it was going to create a child care advisory body. In every case, the impulse of the government is to say it is going to create this consultative advisory body that will be an important stakeholder that will inform it of situations on the ground, but then to, at the same time, create a system in which the power of creation of appointment, and maybe in some cases in an ongoing way and in other cases just in the first instance, is by a minister. This obviously creates challenges for that body to be authentically representative or to challenge the government with an alternative conception of how to proceed in a policy area that may be different from what the government is proposing. If the government says it wants to have an independent body advising it that is going to be championing specific issues such as child care, reconciliation and some other issue and yet it is going to choose the people on that body, then to what extent is that body able to be a meaningful check on what the government is doing? This is an important area of caution in general. I would hope to see, and suspect the framers of the calls to action were more thinking of, a council for reconciliation that could provide that check on government. I note the legislation, Bill C-29, does identify certain organizations that should be represented on the council. The problem with that is if the minister is still choosing the individual, that there must be someone from this group and someone from this group, or if the minister exercises a greater degree of discretion for a majority of those individuals, again that creates some obvious problems. It is something we need to be cautious about. I note as well, as my colleagues have, there was no representation for the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Members have pointed out in questions and comments it is possible the council might choose someone, in replacing a position, with an affiliation with the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, but it is also possible it might not. The fact that there are protections for the inclusion of specific voices and not for the inclusion of the voice that represents indigenous people living off reserve is a problem as well, and one that Conservatives have highlighted. We have also spoken about economic reconciliation, and I will come to that. However, I want to add to the conversation with some reflections on diversity in procurement and on the inclusion of indigenous businesses in procurement. This is something that has been on my mind and the minds of many members today, of course, with the release of the explosive arrive scam report from the Auditor General. This report contains a variety of findings that I know we have had an opportunity to discuss and will have more opportunity to discuss in the House. Basically, the Auditor General found multiple levels of incompetence and corruption in government procurement associated with the procurement of the arrive scam app, with $60 million spent, but no certainty about how much money was actually spent; a complete lack of documentation and tracking; a two-person company that was hired, with no IT experience, to do an IT application; and on and on. Why in the world was this company hired? Who made this decision? We are still asking these questions. However, the Auditor General's report builds on work that was done by the procurement ombudsman, who identified aspects in the procurement system that are loaded towards insiders. This is important for the discussion that I want to have in the context of the bill before us, which is diversity and inclusion in the context of procurement. For a long time, there have been asks from indigenous business owners. I have also met with leaders in the Black business community and representatives of other communities, who are saying that they want to see more inclusion of businesses from their community in the procurement system. Governments have talked about this. They have set targets, which they have not always achieved. There has been discussion about whether we should set quotas or targets, how we should do this, and all of that. However, if we look at the existing system, and this was revealed through the procurement ombudsman's report, we have a situation where there is actually strong protection in place for incumbent businesses. Therefore, we had a situation with GC Strategies, which is not what we think of as an incumbent business. It is not massive; it is a two-person company with lots of close connections with government. It gets the work, it subcontracts and it makes a lot of money in the process. There are a lot of problems there. However, we have this incumbent business with close relationships to the government. Then we find out that GC Strategies sat down with the government to discuss what the terms of the contract were going to be. Therefore, this company has a significant advantage, because it is sitting down with people in government that it has a relationship with, and it says, “We think you should ask for these specifications in the contract.” I think that process is effectively rigged. The government then puts requirements in, where it says, “You have to have a certain amount of experience of having procured with the government.” This is a structure that advantages existing incumbent businesses with a lot of privilege. If a company is part of a historically disadvantaged community, such as an indigenous business owner or a business owner from another community who does not have the same privilege of access or incumbency in the existing system, then it is disadvantaged. It is not a matter of saying that people who may not have the best product should be advantaged. No, it is actually saying that, if we took out the protections for insiders who are not providing a good product, which is clear in the case of ArriveCAN, then we would probably see more diversity in procurement. If we had a more open, democratic, accessible procurement process where we were not protecting incumbent bidders, I think we would see more indigenous-owned and minority-owned businesses being able to engage in the procurement process. When we talk about this issue of economic reconciliation, providing jobs and opportunity for people of diverse backgrounds, one easy way to do that is, to coin a phrase, to remove the gatekeepers. We can break down the systems in place that are preventing people who are in a situation where they may not have generational money, privilege or access to government, but who have good ideas and who have started their own businesses, from being able to access government procurement. Part of economic reconciliation is to authentically democratize procurement to allow the opportunity for more businesses in Canada that have not sold to the Government of Canada before to nonetheless pitch their product as the best product. The other thing we heard from the procurement ombudsman is that they actually had a system for disadvantaging those who present low prices. It is crazy. People who did not ask for enough money when they were selling their product to the government got cut out. One can imagine how, for someone who has not sold to the government before, but who says that they know what they are doing, that they can build this app, that they have a great product and that they are going to charge less to try to get the business, to still make a decent return but to try to charge less, with the existing system that the government has put forward, that new entrant, who might be trying to pitch at a lower price, is actually disadvantaged in the evaluation system purely because of the low price he has charged. We want to create jobs and opportunity for all Canadians. Part of how we do that is by removing the gatekeepers that prevent authentic diversity and inclusion in our procurement system. I might be on the verge of being done. When I come back, I will have more to say about economic reconciliation, jobs and opportunity for indigenous Canadians and how Conservatives will remove the gatekeepers to help make that happen. I know that there is some discussion of a possible UC motion to allow me to speak more, but I think I will save the surprise for when I come back.

1773 words

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

Feb/12/24 6:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the living, breathing, flesh and blood women and men of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. That Canadians are real is never something I expected to be debating in this place, yet in response to my question about my constituent Edmund's gas bill, the Minister of Natural Resources denied Edmund's existence. He claimed that Edmund was not an objective fact but a Conservative opinion. We have seen these proud socialists engage in inflation denialism. We have seen them resort to balanced budget denialism. They have now reached a new low of Edmund denialism. The only thing they will not deny is giving fentanyl to children. I would like to assure the House that Edmund is not some Conservative opinion. He is real. His gas bill is real. The $72 he paid in carbon taxes in December alone on his gas bill is real. The $9.41 of HST he paid on the carbon tax is very much real. The quarterly climate bribe this NDP-Liberal government loves to brag about works out to be $39 a month, but 72 is bigger than 39. I understand that math denialism is central to the NDP-Liberal coalition's ideology, but most Canadians I know can count past 100. These proud socialists can scream “fake news” all day long, but 72 is larger than 39. The minister is entitled to his opinions, but he is not entitled to invent alternative facts. If the minister would like to come up to the Ottawa Valley, I would be pleased to introduce him to Edmund. The minister could tell Edmund to his face that, according to Statistics Canada's Social Policy Simulation Database and Model, he does not exist. In the minister's response to my question, not only did he claim that Edmund was just my opinion, but he also took the time to mansplain what I already know or, at least, what he thinks I know about the often cited statistic that 80% of Canadians get more in climate bribes than they pay in carbon taxes. It is actually a great illustration of what former extremist Liberal environment minister Catherine McKenna said about repeating a big lie over and over again. These Liberals, along with their media allies at The Canadian Press and the CBC, have repeated the 80-20 claim so often that they forget it is not real. Reality is complex. It is messy, so we make models. Those models inform us about reality, but we must never forget that they are not real. No model can capture the full lives of people like Edmund. When one locks oneself away in a social media bubble, it becomes hard to tell the difference between the real world and simulation. It is time that these Liberals took the red pill or pulled off their Apple goggles and wake up to the reality that Canadians like Edmund are facing. Edmund is not alone. There are millions of Canadians just like him. Like Edmund, they have worked hard all their lives. They follow the rules, yet after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, they are being left behind. As long as this socialist coalition clings to power, they will fall further behind. The Liberals can deny that these Canadians exist until they are red in the face, but it will not change the facts. Canadians are hurting. The common-sense Conservatives have a plan to turn that hurt into hope. That is why we are going to axe the carbon tax, build new homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Working together, we will deny this NDP-Liberal coalition another four years in government.

623 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/12/24 7:02:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thought maybe what I would do is reflect on the word “real” that my friend amplified during her four minutes. I give her credit, she knows the four priorities of the Conservative Party. She probably even has the bumper stickers already produced, ready for circulation. In fairness to the member, I suspect that if she does not have them, she will likely be the first Conservative to have the actual bumper stickers. She sticks to the points. I know she puts a great deal of effort into her every word. Sometimes we hear that we should not let the facts deny a potentially good speech. I suspect that my friend across the way adhered to that. She made reference to the 80%, so let us take a look at the 80%. It is the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, not the Liberals or the NDP or anyone else, who has said that 80% of people will receive more back through the carbon rebate than they will pay in the carbon tax. She would say that if we do this or that, then maybe people might pay more. All of “this or that” does not take into consideration things such as weather patterns or the impact that climate change is having on farms, and that also needs to be taken into consideration. For now, what we should do is acknowledge that the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer is correct when he says that 80% of Canadians will actually receive more money back than they are paying in through the carbon tax. The rebate is bigger than the tax for 80%-plus. In Winnipeg North, I suspect the percentage is even higher. I do not know that for a fact, so I cannot say that as fact. What I can say is that the Conservatives do not talk about cancelling or getting rid of the rebate portion. All they talk about is getting rid of the tax. In reality, it would do two things. One, it would reinforce that the Conservative Party is loaded with climate deniers. Two, it would take net disposable money out of 80%-plus of the residents I represent. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives. If we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that it is for everyone in Canada, yet provinces like British Columbia and Quebec do not have the carbon tax. However, that does not stop the Conservative leader from going around saying, what I would suggest is misleading information, through social media and other forms, to Canadians that they are going to be better off because if they axe the carbon tax, they would have more money. However, that is factually incorrect on a number of fronts. The bottom line is that I think it is good to have a sound, solid environmental policy. It would be nice to see the Conservative Party share what their new environment policy is. We know that back in 2021, their environmental policy also had a price on pollution or, dare I say, a carbon tax. In fact, the first administration, virtually in North America, to have a carbon tax was the Conservatives in the province of Alberta.

541 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Feb/12/24 7:06:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see the parliamentary secretary continue to deny Canadians the truth. The carbon tax is not a price on carbon. It is a tax on individuals. It is a tax on energy. It is a tax on everything that uses energy. It is no more a price on carbon than income taxes are a price on earnings. The truth is the government does not know what the price on carbon is. They even admit it on their website. They are trying to get farmers to make costly investments to reduce methane emissions by promising to give out carbon credits. Yet, the one question every farmer asked was, “How much is the credit worth?” The government cannot say. It cannot say because it does not know. When it comes to a price on a carbon offset, the government admits that the price of something is determined by the supply and demand for that thing. Only a proud socialist could believe that government could set a price by decree. It did not work for Pierre Trudeau and it will not work for the Prime Minister either. That fact is just undeniable.

196 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 7:07:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing in terms of the places around the world where we see a price on pollution actually being implemented, or a carbon tax. We could talk about Ukraine, which has a price on pollution, a carbon tax, as do countries like Poland, many European countries and, in fact, Mexico. People often say the United States does not have it. It does not have a national carbon tax, but many states have a carbon tax. The reason I say that is, at the end of the day, having a price on pollution, making the polluters pay, is sound public policy. Unfortunately, it is being distorted to the nth degree by the Conservative Party, all in an attempt to have a shiny bumper sticker of deceit for Canadians. I think that is sad. We are supposed to be here to develop and to encourage sound public policy.

149 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Feb/12/24 7:08:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, every home bought by fraudsters is one less home that Canadians can buy. It is basic demand and supply. All else being the same, when demand increases, naturally prices go up. When there is less supply, prices also go up. In the GTA, and in many real estate markets across Canada, we see not only the increasing demand as our country continues to receive from immigration, but also the alarming allegations of mortgage fraud where fraudsters are buying up homes and, in turn, reducing supply. This double whammy of increased demand and decreased supply due to fraud has made home ownership so out of reach that, in Toronto, people will have to save, on average, for 26 years for a down payment. That is a quarter of a century. That is why I asked the Prime Minister on February 7 about the incidents of very significant alleged mortgage fraud being conducted at a major Canadian bank. I had mentioned unbelievable evidence of a person living in Canada, having no income or employment, somehow still able to obtain HSBC mortgages to purchase not one, not two, but at least four homes, simply based on a fake statement that the individual had equally fake high incomes from employment in China. That astounding information was lost on the Prime Minister, who either did not understand the question or simply did not care to address the issue of mortgage fraud. I then asked how the government could make more housing available and affordable to Canadians when fraudsters are out there buying multiple homes that, in turn, create housing scarcity and drive up house prices. I would like to have been told that the government is aware of the issue and is doing something to address the damage created by money laundering and mortgage fraud in Canada. Instead, the Prime Minister seemed more interesting in waxing poetically on the foreign ownership ban. Given housing unavailability, unaffordability and record-high interest rates, it is a little late in the game for the Prime Minister to be suggesting that the government is stepping up on housing and will continue to do so while the Conservatives have no plan. Quite frankly, Canadians, at this point, do not care which party has a plan as long as it works. Unfortunately, the Liberal plan has been failing. Home ownership is out of reach for so many Canadians that even if they found a home, they could not afford it. To top it off, we have money launderers and mortgage fraudsters adding fuel to real estate markets, especially those in urban markets. They are gobbling up multiple homes under false pretenses. In one case, a casino worker owned three homes, claiming to earn $345,000. In another, someone, somehow had $10,000 in student loans that they still owed, but claimed to earn $700,000 annually working remotely in China. The most incomprehensible one was the one that I cited to the Prime Minister of an individual with no income or employment who was somehow financed to own four homes. Just from these three examples, those are eight fewer homes for Canadians. That might not matter to the Prime Minister, but it sure does to Canadians struggling to find a home. Therefore, I have to ask, yet again, how can the Prime Minister make housing more available and more affordable, when he and his government are turning a blind eye to money laundering and mortgage fraud in Canada?

579 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/12/24 7:12:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree entirely with the impression that the member is trying to give, which is just not even remotely close to the reality of the situation. For example, I would challenge the member to cite a prime minister in the last 50 or 60 years who has done more in terms of investing in housing in all sorts of ways. That is not only in terms of financial commitments; we have seen other budgetary measures whereby we have attempted to deal with issues such as fraud and foreign ownership. We understand and very much appreciate the value and the importance of being able to own a home. That is why this government, like no other government in the last number of decades, made a decision years ago, not just in the last 24 hours. Shortly after being elected to government in 2015-16, we consciously said that as a national government we wanted to be proactive in dealing with housing going forward, and we brought forward the first-ever national housing strategy. It is important that we recognize that it is not just the national government's responsibility. We can lead, which we have done, both financially and legislatively, and we have reached out to the many different stakeholders. We need the stakeholders also to come to the table, and we are seeing that. We are seeing literally hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in working with mayors and other jurisdictions to ensure that we can increase the housing supply. I am a bit concerned that the member talked about the issue of immigration. I do not believe we should even attempt to blame the issue on immigrants. At the end of the day, whether it is provincial governments or the national government, we have recognized and believe in the power of immigrants and how they have lifted all of us higher. It is in good part something that we will continue to work on with other jurisdictions. I do not like the tie-in to immigrants on the issue of fraud. This is a government that has recognized the issue; we are working with others to resolve it. Most importantly, we are recognizing the national government's lead in ensuring that we have more housing and more affordable housing, because we understand the importance of it. Unlike the Conservatives, we will work with other jurisdictions. We are not going to go around saying that this or that person is a bad mayor. I have not heard the Conservatives say anything good about mayors. It is important that we recognize that we need to work with other jurisdictions, because often it is the councils and in some areas the provinces that actually have more tools than we would have, outside of financial supports.

467 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Feb/12/24 7:15:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have to give it to the parliamentary secretary, to home in on one word, “immigrants”, and try to spin it as some kind of xenophobia. I am the son of immigrants. I am the son of refugees. It is simply stating a fact that as immigration increases and there is not the housing supply, there is more demand and there is pressure for housing prices to go up. The parliamentary secretary speaks about reality and says that no one has done more than this government. Let me tell him about the reality. Let us accept what he has said at face value. The reality is that it takes 26 years for a Torontonian to save up enough for a down payment for a home. Is that the best the Liberals have? Is that plan working for them? Is that success for the Liberal government? Give me a break. Therefore, I will ask it again: How are they actually going to address housing unaffordability and unavailability and record-high interest rates, so that the dream of home ownership can actually be possible?

186 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/12/24 7:16:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the government is very much concerned about the cost and affordability of housing. That is one of the reasons it is imperative that the Government of Canada continue to work with municipalities and provinces in particular, but also the non-profit organizations that are out there. I am a big fan, for example, of Habitat for Humanity. Without that organization, there are literally hundreds of people in the city of Winnipeg alone who would never have had the opportunity to own a home. The organization does a lot of good work. There are a number of advocates and organizations out there to give that helping hand. We need to work collectively to try to make things more affordable. All I can tell the member is that the Government of Canada is at the table, and we are going to do what we can.

145 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Feb/12/24 7:17:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in follow up to my last session question period rhyme, we will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Poverty, chaos, and gross food inflationHave become severe across this great nationLiberals they deny it, but these are just factsAnd that’s why the Tories will first axe the tax.You know costs are up if you know how to addSo many young adults must live with their dad While Liberals just think of their photos and combsA new Tory government will build the homes. Deficit spending kills jobs, drives up prices On things ranging from homes to cheap kitchen spices Liberals promise change, but at best they'll nudge itThe Tory party will soon fix the budget.Car thefts, extortion, drugs, deaths and disorder Under the misrule of PM wakeboarder It's getting dire, it is surely past time For some new leaders that will quickly stop crime. This session, these topics on which we'll opine Axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime The call will resound across this great nation As people prepare for bright transformation As we prosecute government trespasses Liberals do nothing and sit on their...hands.

205 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/12/24 7:19:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will withhold my comments on the poem itself. I wish I had been given it in advance because I would have taken it line by line and provided a few thoughts. The poem might not have rhymed as well, but it definitely could have been a little more factual. When we are in the House, facts are really important. For example, the member is concerned about inflation, as well member should be, and ties it to axing the tax, along with axing the rebate. I have to make sure we include both of them, which is only fair, because that is telling Canadians what Conservatives would really do, but it would only be for the provinces that both pay the tax and receive the rebate. I would add that qualifier, too. Therefore, B.C. and Quebec would not be included, which is a fairly high percentage of Canada in terms of population. We could ask farmers about inflation and how it is impacting food production into the future, but I believe the greater threat to food production in the future is climate, things like floods. Earlier today, in the first hour of debate, members on all sides of the House talked about floods and the impacts they are having. Floods, droughts, fires and other natural disasters, which are all on the increase, are all based on climate change, something the Conservative Party refuses to recognize. I can tell the member opposite that there is a very good chance they will have a much larger, more significant impact on inflation. When the Conservatives talk about axing the tax, it might sound nice, it might even look nice on a bumper sticker, as I referred to earlier, but, at the end of the day, it is not sound government policy, even if we try to tie it into inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada indicated that the percentage of the carbon tax increasing inflation was 0.15%, just a fraction. Let us compare Canada's inflation to countries that do not have a national price on pollution, like the United States. I pointed out some of the states do, but we would find that in many areas, their inflation rate is higher than Canada's inflation rate. This whole idea of cutting the carbon tax and the rebate would somehow drive the price of food down is quite misleading. In the poem, the member said the Conservatives are going to build homes. The leader of the Conservative Party was responsible for housing when he was minister. I need to remind my colleague across the way that he bombed on the issue. He did not even come close to dealing with the housing issue. I want to be nice, so I had best leave that one. On car theft, let us look at Manitoba. It was at its very worst when Stephen Harper was prime minister.

488 words