SoVote

May/9/24 7:52:30 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, the member mentioned a bit about housing, and I will ask him a similar question that I have asked other Liberal MPs about the fall economic statement and the lack of investments going to the territorial governments to help alleviate the housing crisis in the north. Does the member agree, for example, that we should have heard the three territorial premiers when they asked for $600 million in the budget? Continuing to ignore those kinds of calls shows a lack of supporting the economy's needs, which could be generated by supporting housing in the north.

97 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/9/24 7:53:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the member opposite, having worked with her on several committees, heard her testimony, and seen her great advocacy for her community. I know the particular bill we are debating tonight, Bill C-59, has a measure to waive GST on new co-operative rental housing construction. That is obviously one measure of many in a package of measures that are included in this year's budget, which would make a difference. I note that the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities had a great intervention earlier with the member opposite. He detailed specific investments that are quite sizable in northern, rural and remote indigenous communities. I know my work on the HUMA committee years ago was part of those studies, and I am glad to see that our government is following through with significant investments.

143 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/9/24 7:54:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this fiscal economic statement has led to a budget where the debt servicing costs $54.1 billion, which is more than the federal government transfers to provinces for health care. We all know health care is very important. How did the member find his way to supporting a fiscal economic statement that led to a budget that spends more on debt each and every year than this whole country spends on health care transfers to provinces?

78 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/9/24 7:55:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can relate to the member's commitment to having a strong health care system in Canada today. That is exactly why our government, through the health transfer, has increased funding to provinces and territories. I would note that the amount is approximately $200 billion over the next 10 years. We have also followed that up with bilateral agreements that add to those investments and identify key priorities across the country. A stronger health care system is essential. It strikes me as a bit rich that the member opposite is talking about health care, when the Conservative Party, and many Conservative premiers, seem to struggle to utilize those dollars to truly strengthen our health care system. My family members and people in my community cannot even get a $3-million planning grant to move forward on building a local hospital. Our government has invested in health care, and we look forward to seeing those investments land on the ground for families.

163 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/9/24 7:56:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague from Whitby, who I work with at the Standing Committee on Science and Research. My question for my colleague is on the effectiveness of implementing, creating a new department of housing. Quebec already has the ministry of municipal affairs and housing and the Société d'habitation du Québec. The last projects that were funded in Quebec, in my region in particular, were funded from money in budget 2022. It took two years to budget the money, transfer it and come to an agreement with the Government of Quebec. I would like my colleague to explain what Ottawa will be able to do better than Quebec. I would like to know what Quebec cannot do with its current expertise.

129 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

May/9/24 7:56:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for the member, having worked with him on the science and research committee. I know him to be a productive member of Parliament who advocates for his community well. It was great to see, in our current budget, the great investments in research that we both advocated for. With regard to housing investments, our government is working collaboratively with Quebec, and all other provinces and territories. It does take time to design programs and roll them out at the national level, but we look forward to the strongest possible collaborative relationship with the Government of Quebec in ensuring that Quebeckers get the housing they need, just like all other Canadians.

116 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, CPC)

May/9/24 7:57:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a great privilege to stand this evening and speak on behalf of the constituents of Lethbridge and, of course, representing those across the nation as well. I have the privilege of speaking to the budget implementation act concerning the 2024 Liberal budget, which was put forward on April 16. These are some headlines that came out in newspapers across the country following the dropping of the budget: “Liberal hike to job-killing capital gains tax is inexcusable”; “Capital gains tax change draws ire from some Canadian entrepreneurs worried it will worsen the brain drain”; “David Dodge wasn't wrong, this federal budget is 'one of the worst in decades'”. Here is the next one: “The Liberals move from borrow and spend, to tax and spend”. Another one is, “Canada's budget 2024: More spending, higher capital gains taxes, and bigger deficits”. This one mentions that the federal budget is “the worst in decades”. These are the types of headlines that came out following the Liberal budget, and they are not wrong. I am not sure if members have heard of an oil salesman. It is a term that originated in the 1900s from an infamous imposter who sold snake oil as a miracle medicine. It turns out that this snake oil was just a concoction of mineral oil, beef fat, red pepper and turpentine, but he would go around and he would claim that it had magical healing properties, so people would spend a whole lot of money on it in hopes that it would deliver the results that were promised to them. Eventually, this con artist was found out, was exposed for what he was doing, and he actually became a very powerful symbol used throughout the land to warn against false advertising. When I look at the Liberals' budget of 2024, I see a snake-oil salesman, a commitment to doing something but actually achieving the opposite, and a commitment to helping Canadians but actually thwarting their success, which is why we get the types of headlines that I just read into the record. On April 16, the Liberals announced that they would be strapping an additional $14 billion in new deficit spending to the backs of Canadians. This makes it the ninth year in a row that the Prime Minister has run deficits, while claiming that the budget would balance itself. We all know that is ridiculous; budgets do not balance themselves. He also said that we would change the economy from the heart out. We also know that this is ridiculous. Hard-working people change the economy in a positive way. A blind or ignorant prime minister changes the economy in a negative way, and unfortunately, what we see is a whole bunch of negative. The Prime Minister continues to promise that Canadians are better off with his budget, but at the end of the day, we know that families are actually worse off. In fact, the National Post just came out with an article this week, saying that if the economy had stayed where it was in 2015, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we would all be earning $4,200 more per year, which means that under the Liberal government, every single Canadian is $4,200 per year worse off. In other words, the Liberal government is not actually helping Canadians; the Liberal government is hurting Canadians to the tune of $4,200 per year. That is alarming. That is a lot of money. That is a good chunk toward the down payment of a house. That is a good chunk towards maybe a new vehicle, maybe toward putting one's child in sports or just being able to pay household bills and to make ends meet. This year, Canadians will have to pay over $54 billion just to cover the interest that has been incurred because of the government's out-of-control spending. That is a whole lot of money, $54 billion, and we lose sight of what exactly that means, so let me spell that out. That is more than what the government collects in GST paid toward just the interest payment. That is double what this government has committed to our Canadian Armed Forces, the men and women who serve this country, who unfortunately are going without proper food, care and equipment because the government refuses to fund them adequately. Meanwhile, double the amount that is spent for the Canadian Armed Forces is being paid just to substantiate our interest payments. Further to that, it is the same amount as what this government transfers to provinces for health care. Imagine the hospitals we could build. Imagine the doctors that could be hired. Imagine the types of care that Canadians could enjoy if we did not have to put that money toward just maintaining our debt. This is the result of a government without vision for its people. It lands us in this place where things are broken. People are desperate. I hosted a town hall just over a week ago, and the room was filled. People were eager to come and share their concerns with me. Overwhelmingly, the things they talked about were housing, the cost of groceries, fuel and other essentials in life. They were desperate for me to offer them hope and, unfortunately, under the current government, I could not do that. All I could do was ask them to hold on for the day that a new government is coming. The way that the Liberal government has ruled and the decisions that it has made, as can be seen in the 2024 budget, simply bring us down. People in my riding have been sending me their carbon tax bills. One shows that the cost of the carbon tax bill for a household is $4 more than their actual consumption. They are spending more on the tax than they are on the consumption. Another shows that this family is spending $18 more on the carbon tax than they are on their consumption. Another bill was double. Their actual gas cost was $33.11, and their carbon tax cost was $63.41. They are paying double on the tax versus consumption. There was another bill where they actually only spent $20 on consumption, and they spent $34 on their tax. There is a business that is spending $600 more every single month just to cover their tax. Imagine that. Another business is spending nearly $1,000 more every single month just to cover the carbon tax. Imagine the impact that it would have for Canadian families if the punitive carbon tax were to be scrapped. We know the Liberal government is not accomplishing any of its environmental objectives. It has failed on every single one of them, so we know the carbon tax is not about that. There is no metric to point at to show success. We are led to believe that it is for no other reason than simply to be punitive in nature. The government has accomplished its goal. Canadians are paying far more for the carbon tax than they are for the actual consumption of natural gas. Canadians are punished. Well done, Liberals. At the end of the day, it means that Canadians are paying that carbon tax not just on their natural gas bills, but also on the fuel they put in their vehicles, the home heating, as well as the groceries and the necessities they require for their households. Folks are struggling. Two million people are lining up at food banks. In my riding, food bank use has increased by 75%. That is a problem. The government could do something about that, should it wish to. However, the 2024 budget shows that it does not. It is the same failed policies that have led this government for the last nine years. Unfortunately, Canadians are caught in the middle of that. Conservatives will do better. That is our commitment to Canadians. We look forward to forming government very shortly.

1352 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

May/9/24 8:07:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, the member opposite must know about the challenges that many Canadians have faced in terms of postpandemic recovery, with mental health issues on the rise and with many Canadians stressed out about an uncertain future. Bill C-59 proposes to waive GST on accessing psychotherapy. I think that is a great measure for ensuring that Canadians can get access to the mental health care they need, when they need it. Can the member opposite tell me whether she supports that measure?

83 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/9/24 8:08:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked me to comment with regards to the mental health of Canadians. There is plenty of evidence to show that mental health is directly affiliated with an individual's economic well-being. When they cannot pay their mortgage, when they cannot pay their rent, and they are lining up at a food bank in order to survive, when they are sending their kids to school without getting the proper nutrition in the morning, yes, that does weigh on them. I am so sorry, you are laughing—

92 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 8:09:06 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the chair and not directly to members. Order, on both sides. Again, I just want to remind the hon. member that she is to address questions and comments through the Chair. I would urge the hon. parliamentary secretary not to egg her on. If he has other questions and comments, he should wait until the appropriate time. The hon. member for Lethbridge.

77 words

Secretary

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/9/24 8:09:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate that the hon. member across from me is laughing at that. The mental health of Canadians and the economic well-being of Canadians are not laughing matters. I wish the Liberals would treat this with some sobriety.

43 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

May/9/24 8:09:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Lethbridge for her speech. Unsurprisingly, she spent a lot of time talking about the carbon tax. Now it is important to look at the objective of pollution pricing. The aim is to get people to change their habits. When too much greenhouse gas is generated, it has an impact on the climate and on health, and it puts the financial system at risk too. I always use the example of cigarettes. When we wanted young people to change their habits and smoke less, we raised the price of cigarettes and we also stopped advertising cigarettes. Given the climate challenges we are facing, what does the member propose to ensure that people change their habits and try to adopt behaviours that are more in line with environmental protection?

134 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/9/24 8:10:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member just compared the carbon tax to advertising against cigarettes. In the same way advertising against cigarettes helped bring down the usage rate, I believe the argument she is making is that a carbon tax would also bring down the usage rate of fuels. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

53 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 8:11:22 p.m.
Watch

Order. I want to remind the hon. deputy House leader to keep his thoughts to himself, and if he wants to try to get up on a question and comment, he should try to do so. Again, I would ask him not to talk out loud and to maybe jot his comments down. The hon. member for Lethbridge.

58 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/9/24 8:11:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this way of thinking put forward by the Liberal government is absurd. We have folks across Canada, about 96% of them, who are dependent on natural gas for heating, which is not exactly an option in this country. I come from Alberta, and we need to heat our homes in the winter. I think most other places, if not all other places in this country, need to heat their homes in the middle of winter. I think that is just a basic necessity of human life. Further to that, I come from a riding that is largely rural. Getting on a city bus or transit train is not really an option, so they depend on being able to drive a vehicle in order to provide for themselves or to get from point A to point B. Further to that, the transportation of goods in this nation is reliant on transportation units, such as semis and trains. If we continue to attach a carbon tax to these necessities, these things that are just a part of our way of life, it is not going to bring down carbon emissions; it has been in place for eight years now. It clearly—

202 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/9/24 8:12:54 p.m.
Watch

I have to allow for one more question. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

20 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

May/9/24 8:13:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Lethbridge is correct when she is talking about the increase in oil prices, diesel prices and gas prices. However, that has coincided with a massive profit increase in the oil and gas industry. Since 2019, their net profits have gone up by over 1,000%. I am curious as to why the Conservatives keep ignoring the elephant in the room. Is it willful ignorance, or are they that afraid of confronting their political masters in the oil and gas lobby?

85 words

Mrs. Rachael Thomas

May/9/24 8:13:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I am not sure what fictitious world the hon. member comes from. In Canada, we very much rely on natural gas to heat our homes, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. We rely on using transportation in order to get our goods to market, and the Liberal government has attached a carbon tax to that. Farmers do tremendous good to actually take carbon from the environment and use it to produce food, and yet they are penalized with a carbon tax. Further to that, grocery stores have a carbon tax applied to them just for simply hosting the goods that we need to purchase. Then all of that lands on the backs of Canadians. A carbon tax is an absolute farce.

129 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

May/9/24 8:14:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑59 today. As tabled, the federal budget proposes a series of measures that will impact all of Canada. However, it is critical that we consider the unique impact these measures will have on Quebec, a distinct society within the Canadian federation. I believe that budgets should always reflect the general needs of Canada, as well as respect Quebec's specific needs and its jurisdiction. The bill in question is a key document, as it outlines both the financial overview and specific allocations for various government programs and initiatives. It is sort of like setting political promises to a musical score. The main objective for the Bloc Québécois will always be to ensure that budgets consistently reflect the specific values, needs and aspirations of Quebeckers. Bill C-59 is a nearly 550-page omnibus bill that contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. Naturally, Bill C‑59 is made up of good and bad elements, but there are two measures preventing the Bloc Québécois from voting in favour of Bill C‑59. Indeed, the bill contains two measures that could be described as very bad. There is $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits, meaning that taxpayers will pay oil companies to pollute less when they do not need that money, which seems very sarcastic. That $30 billion could have been used to help families, who are struggling more and more every day. I think everyone agrees that families are currently in greater financial trouble than oil companies. Instead of greasing the wheels of oil companies, the government could have used that $30 billion to fight against homelessness and increase access to housing. The government could have taken that $30 billion and done some of the good things the Bloc Québécois suggested. For example, it could renew the rapid housing initiative and make it permanent; create a program to acquire and renovate existing rental buildings for non-profit housing organizations; set aside a specific portion of funding in all housing programs to ensure that Quebeckers receive their fair share; increase the transfer for rent subsidies; transfer the affordable housing innovation fund and the new co-op housing program to Quebec; increase funding for renovation of the existing social housing stock currently under contract; support community rental housing projects by providing ultra-low-rate loans; offer lower-rate loans to first-time buyers to give young people access to home ownership again; relax the prohibition on the purchase of a home by non-Canadians for people who live here and intend to stay here, regardless of their status; significantly increase the envelope for indigenous housing to address the housing shortage on reserves by 2030; and tackle homelessness by increasing and renewing the Reaching Home program for five years. We have a lot of homelessness back in Val-d'Or. There is no money. There is no support administered by the federal government or transferred to the provinces. The government could have set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support the homeless in their communities, and could have given them the resources to do it. As we can see, this $30 billion could have been used effectively to make a big difference in the lives of Quebec families. This $30 billion could have been transferred to the provinces and territories so that governments could better support and fund food banks. I would rather see children going to school with full bellies and in good health than give money to oil companies with deep pockets and healthy finances. I also think that our seniors could have benefited from this money, because they deserve a lot more than what the federal government is offering them. They worked hard, very hard, their entire lives and they deserve to live with more dignity today. I am sure they would have been very happy to get that extra money. This $30 billion could have been used to increase old age security starting at age 65 or to implement measures for our seniors. The fact is that the Bloc Québécois made some good proposals to the government. We asked the government to implement an action plan to encourage the retention and hiring of experienced workers, including an increase in the employment income that can be earned without affecting the GIS. The government could have provided a tax credit to encourage experienced workers to stay on the job. It could have continued to pay the deceased's OAS and GIS to the surviving spouse for three months. It could have enhanced the caregiver tax credit and made it refundable so that everyone could benefit, including people with modest incomes. No, none of that was done. This government thought it would be better to help rich oil companies than our seniors. In my riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and elsewhere in Quebec, there is also the forestry sector that could really use a helping hand. Since last summer's forest fires, the forestry industry has taken a beating. Hundreds of people have been laid off at various mills in Quebec. In my riding, for example, Resolute Forest Products announced to its 50 employees on March 26 that it was suspending operations at its sawmill in Comtois, near Lebel-sur-Quévillon, for an indefinite period. The Béarn sawmill in Témiscamingue, owned by Chantiers Chibougamau, closed its doors indefinitely on April 25. A total of 120 workers were laid off. In just over a month, nearly 600 workers have been affected by this wave of layoffs across Quebec. The money for oil companies could have been used to help the forestry industry. We do not know what will happen this summer. Are we going to have to live through the same hell we experienced last summer? How much forest area will burn? The forestry industry in my region is an important player in our regional economy. Is it or will it be in jeopardy? One really has to wonder. I also think that it would have been a good idea to use the money for rich oil companies to increase the health transfers to the provinces thus guaranteeing equitable access to care for everyone, particularly after the challenges posed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. In short, there are many examples of how those billions of dollars could be put to better use. The second bad measure in this bill is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs. Yes, Bill C‑59 creates the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. There is already a minister, but unfortunately, there is no department and we cannot count on an army of civil servants to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, which is the Prime Minister's favourite activity. By creating a full department, Bill C‑59 gives the minister the organizational capacity to interfere more, to impose more conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and to intensify disputes and delays. I wonder who in the House likes to pick fights. This bill definitively answers that question. What about the massive amount of money it will take to run this new department? That is money that could have been used elsewhere, to make life better for everyone. One thing is very clear. Housing, local infrastructure, land use planning and municipal affairs are not federal jurisdictions. In closing, although the budget implementation bill also contains some good things, it remains essential that these proposals be adjusted to more specifically meet the needs of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that Quebec is not just a partner, but a key player in designing policies that affect its constituents. We are at a decisive crossroads. Before us is the chance to shape a stronger, fairer and more sustainable Quebec. In the future, we see an innovative, green and prosperous Quebec, a Quebec that thrives and inspires not only within Canada, but around the world. Quebec has to be master of its domain, and its jurisdiction has to be respected. We do not accept a budget that would treat Quebec as just another province, without taking into consideration its specific realities. We are advocating for a strong Quebec in a just Canada. Accordingly, because of the measures cited, we will be voting against Bill C‑59.

1456 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/9/24 8:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know, and the member most certainly knows better than I do, as I live in British Columbia, that many people in Quebec cannot afford groceries, while the grocery giants and CEOs continue to bring in billions of dollars in profits. It is a very unfair situation. We know that the NDP, the leader of the NDP and my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford have done a lot of work to make changes to the Competition Act that are included in the fall economic statement, which includes stricter prices for companies involved in price-fixing. I wonder if the member feels that we should continue to allow rich CEOs to reap extraordinary profits off the backs of people who are struggling to keep food in their fridge.

131 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 312