SoVote

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tony Baldinelli)

May/9/24 11:12:05 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.

13 words

May/9/24 11:12:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is an experienced member, and his comment just shows he has not read the bill, which contains within it the establishment of the Canada water agency through an act. He should read the bill. My advice to all my colleagues across the way is to just read the bill. If they are going to raise a point of order on relevance, they should make sure that they know what they are talking about. As I was saying, the collaboration that we would see in Winnipeg at the agency is something that we should all be very proud of and look forward to. Housing is a fundamental concern. I have the honour of working as the parliamentary secretary responsible for housing. We have seen, through the economic statement, GST lifted from the construction of co-operative housing. There are 250,000 Canadians who live in co-ops across the country. We would see many more living in co-ops as a result of this measure, which would lead to many more co-ops being built. In this fiscal environment, with high interest rates, we have to provide incentives to the private sector to respond, and this measure would be exactly that: an incentive on the table for the private sector. I am glad that we have seen collaboration on this in working with agencies, with advocates and with members of the opposition, but not with the Conservatives. In fact I was stunned a few months ago when, let us not forget, the Leader of the Opposition said that co-op housing amounts to Soviet-style housing. What an absurd statement. This is from someone who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country. What would he tell the 250,000 Canadians who live in co-op housing? Would he say they live in Soviet-style housing? That is not serious. If we want to have a serious debate on the issues of the day, and housing is really at the top of that agenda in terms of the challenges the country faces, let us be serious about what we are facing and let us have a constructive debate to that end. On that note, earlier tonight, I will not say I was surprised, but I was disappointed to hear the member for Oshawa equate the government's policies with Marxism and to Leninism. That is not how we advance a genuine dialogue in Canada. Yes, the country's problems are significant. We are living through very challenging times. We have just come through a once-in-a-hundred-years pandemic that has impacted this country's social, political and economic fabric in ways that we are only beginning to fathom. Let us not forget comments such as the one by the member for Oshawa, who just a little while back, about a year ago, sat down, with other Conservative colleagues, with far right politicians from Europe. It is no surprise that the Leader of the Opposition recently sat down with, met with and talked with adherents, those who espouse the message of far right groups like Diagolon. That is the absurdity of the moment we are in. If the Conservatives think that they are going to win the day on social media by advancing these kinds of populist tactics, they might get some clicks, and they certainly do, and they might fundraise off these things, but democracy matters. That is no way to advance an agenda that is constructive and that is going to help rebuild this country. That is what I would say to my colleagues on the other side. I know that my colleague from Oshawa apparently wants to equate our policies with communism; however, they are anything but. Let us look at what Moody's, not a communist organization at all, said. It is a very important organization because it, among others, helps set the ratings for this country. The fundamental fact that we have an AAA credit rating is the result of ratings agencies like Moody's that have recognized that. Its recent report states that the Canadian government's history and continued focus on maintaining a prudent fiscal stance stands out, as does the high rate of competitiveness in the Canadian economy. Things like that stand out. An AAA credit rating is something this country has. We will continue to have it, along with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and one of the highest rates of foreign direct investment. The country is going through a tough time. That is true, but we have a lot to look forward to. I will end on that note, and I look forward to questions from friends across the way.

785 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/9/24 11:17:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way is my constituency neighbour in London. I also have to admit that his daughter is ridiculously adorable. We were at an event a few months ago, and the hon. member was talking about some of the different innovations within housing. He was talking about mobile units potentially being built. I think he was in Alberta to visit a plant there. I had conversations about those mobile units with members of a firefighters union when they were here in Ottawa, and a concern was raised. We spoke about the construction of the units and how the firefighters are maybe not being consulted with respect to codes and so on. Could the member talk about that? Innovation in housing is very important, but so is safety.

132 words

The Speaker

May/9/24 11:17:56 p.m.
Watch

I am certain that all members can agree that his daughter is indeed adorable. The hon. member for London North Centre.

21 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/9/24 11:18:05 p.m.
Watch

She gets all her looks from her mother, actually, Mr. Speaker, but I appreciate those kind remarks. I have talked about the importance of modular home construction. I think it is fundamental to dealing with the housing crisis that is at hand. I have said that. The minister has said that. Advocates across the country have said that. I applaud the member for meeting with advocates, along with firefighters, in the work they are doing in union advocacy. Certainly, the Conservatives would not sit down with unions, or maybe they would but it would not be serious. Regardless, there is a national building code that ensures certain standards of safety are maintained. On my end, I will continue to work with those advocates who want to ensure that. There are many provisions in our national building code, which, of course, is interpreted at the provincial level by governments as well, to ensure safety in the way that the member advocates. I think that she and I are on the same page in that regard. Let us move forward on these things together.

182 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

May/9/24 11:19:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting conversation about modular homes. They are being built in a way right now that far exceeds any normal building standards. They are an option for the housing crisis in this country. The challenge with modular home builders right now is that, although they could scale up and actually build two or three times more than what they are building right now, they have a problem with cash flow. Oftentimes, they are required to pay out the development, which causes problems in terms of their ability to put these modular homes on developed spaces. I just visited a modular home builder and cash flow is critical, so finding some way of advancing or eliminating the cash flow crisis that exists can actually help build these homes and scale them up in a much greater capacity. However, this budget does not address that.

147 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/9/24 11:20:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my hon. colleague, because I know he cares about his community. We may have certain fundamental disagreements on matters of policy, but I know he cares about his community. I have heard how passionately over the years he has raised the issues facing his community. While modular homes are not the focus of the fall economic statement, they certainly have been given attention in the recent budget of 2024. If the member wants to see businesses, perhaps in his community, receive loan support, which is in budget 2024, among other supports, I would advise him to get behind budget 2024, read it and support it, along with the housing accelerator fund, which the Conservative Party has voted against. The member talked about lifting certain restrictions at local levels. I think it is fundamental that Conservatives get onside with a better way of doing things.

151 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 11:21:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Mr. Speaker, every day, Conservatives stand up in the House and cite food bank lineups, as if they care. They are also clear that they are going to vote against the national school food program. One of the other measures that we have taken, of course, in Bill C-59 is competition reform. I wonder if my colleague could speak to the importance of having more competition.

67 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/9/24 11:21:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we do need more competition. In fact, I was very encouraged to hear the Minister of Industry confirm that he is looking at making sure that we have more competition in the grocery sector. It is something I have advocated for, for a very long time locally in London. This is something that we need to see across the country. Whether it is the measures my colleague talked about specifically in terms of the Competition Act, or looking beyond our borders to bring in more competition, this would be a great thing.

94 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

May/9/24 11:22:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, as always, to speak in the House. Tonight, we are talking about the fall economic statement. Yes, members heard me right. We are talking about the economic statement from fall 2023. It is worth pointing out that the Liberals have an arrangement with the NDP to support them, so they actually have a majority. How badly does one have to mismanage the House schedule to not have finished passing the fall economic statement by the time one actually has introduced a new budget in 2024? It is what it is. The reality is that it does not matter which budget or economic statement the Liberals bring forward, because their elements are all the same. The first thing that one will see in every budget or economic statement that comes from the Liberals is huge government overspending, a huge deficit. The fall economic statement did not disappoint in that respect. We see, again, that they continue to pour deficit spending on the inflationary fire. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that this makes it very difficult for him to lower interest rates, something that is hurting Canadians. We know that affordability is an issue, and this large deficit spending is just not helpful. The second feature and benefit that one can always see in an economic statement or a budget from the Liberals is increased taxes. Once again, we see that they are increasing taxes in the bill. The other thing one can count on is that there will be all kinds of programs, but the execution of the programs will not actually benefit anybody in the country. Those are really the main elements in the fall economic statement. Interestingly, I have a new intern in my office. She is 20. She is very interested in getting involved in the political process. I gave her an exercise to go and write a speech about the budget. Without any of the usual talking points or anything, this is what she wrote, and I think it applies, to illustrate my point, equally well to the fall economic statement. She wrote, “After nine years of this Prime Minister and this Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are worse off than ever. Housing costs have doubled, interest rates have skyrocketed, and food banks can't keep up with the demand. Instead of helping Canadians, this new budget proposes billions of dollars in inflationary spending...which will only increase the cost of living and make life harder for Canadians! “To briefly outline some of the main aspects of the budget, this coalition government promises to create economic prosperity within Canada, as well as building more homes and making them affordable. However, these promises are not new. Rather, they are almost identical to the promises made over the past nine years, promises that the Liberals failed to deliver time and time again. It seems this Liberal government believes that if they try the same thing over and over, it will lead to different results. That's the definition of insanity.” That is what a 20-year-old thinks about the budgets and the economic statements that the Liberals are bringing forward. It is no wonder, because, in 2015, when I got elected, the Liberals promised to make housing more affordable. They have promised it and promised it; here we are, nine years up the road, and they are still promising to make housing more affordable. The reality is that housing costs, mortgages, rents and down payments have doubled; the average Canadian is now spending 61% of their disposable income on housing. The Liberals have not made housing more affordable, and I do not see anything in the economic statement that is going to do the trick. In fact, what I would say is that some of the ideas in here are unbelievable. They talk about leveraging the Infrastructure Bank to build housing. The Infrastructure Bank took $35 billion from municipalities, money that was supposed to build infrastructure in those municipalities, and put it into this bank with the idea that they would be able to attract private investment and leverage money to build projects. They loaded up with all the Liberal insider friends to run the thing and never built any projects. Here we are, five years up the road, and now they think they are going to use that bank, which attracted no private investment, to build houses. It is ludicrous. It is not going to happen. What I would say is that the Liberals have taken some of our Conservative leader's good ideas and they have put them in here. Taking the GST off new houses is one, which is a great idea, and there are a couple of other ideas that our Conservative colleagues had. I see a number of ideas from private members' bills that talked about maternity benefits and adoptive parent benefits, things like that, which were adopted in here, so it is good that the Liberals could learn from the good ideas that Conservatives have. Using federal lands and freeing up federal lands to build housing on is another great idea from the Conservatives. Those are the highlights of the economic update, but one of the titles in the economic update is “Making Life More Affordable”. I already talked about the housing part of it. Let us talk about the rest of it. The Liberals have jacked up the carbon tax, and the carbon tax has driven the cost of everything up. It has added 17¢ a litre to gasoline. It is a multiplier on the increased cost of food. If I think about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he was saying that every year food prices have increased. The average person is paying $1,400 more for food than they used to pay. I add that to the carbon tax, which, depending on the province one is in could be $1,800 a year, and then I will talk about some of the other things. I have a staffer who just got her insurance premium update, and it went up $1,000 a year. They said the reason that it was going up was inflation and car theft. Again, it is these Liberal policies that are driving inflation and not addressing the catch and release of criminals who are stealing vehicles. It is unbelievable. Before the pandemic, 50% of Canadians were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills. With all the things I just quoted, if I add those up, it is an extra $500 a month. Everybody is in the red. The Liberals have taken the middle class and they have turned it into the poor hoping to join back to the middle class. It is unacceptable. We see that the Liberals, at the same time, have piled on with increased CPP and EI premium taxes, tax increases at a time when Canadians can least afford it, and they intend to quadruple the carbon tax. They also have increased the tax on alcohol and beer. This is something that is an every-year measure without any parliamentary oversight. It was put in a budget a few years ago, and Canadians are feeling the pinch. Another title in the budget is “Making Groceries More Affordable”. Have the the Liberals been to the grocery store and seen how expensive it is? It is ridiculous. They offer support for Canadians in their energy bills. In addition to the carbon tax, we have brought forward some great ideas like Bill C-234 to take the carbon tax off farmers to make food more affordable, but the government is keeping that from going forward. It has done nothing to help keep food more affordable. What about supporting small businesses? The government would not let them extend their CEBA loan repayments, even with the hard-pressed small business environment from the pandemic, and now they are getting squeezed with a capital gains tax, even though these small business owners were told that this is how they would accumulate money for their retirement because they do not have pensions as they are entrepreneurs. Now the government has changed the rules, and it has changed them retroactively. Instead of saying going forward it is going to change them, now it is punishing small business owners. There are all these programs, and I do not have enough time to go into all of them, but the school food program has no food in it. It is provincial jurisdiction, so that is a waste of time. The dental program has no dentists signed up in most of the provinces. In P.E.I., Northwest Territories and Yukon there are none there. If I look, it is 25% or less in some of the other provinces, and people are left with the impression it is going to be free. It is not free. The government only covers 70%. People who cannot afford dental care cannot pay that other 30%, so it failed. That is my conclusion

1516 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

May/9/24 11:32:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly got a lot out of that— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

16 words

8212

The Speaker

May/9/24 11:32:30 p.m.
Watch

I know it is late at night. People are tired, and perhaps they do not have as much restraint as they normally do. I will ask all members to let us take it on in. There are only about 28 minutes left in this debate, so let us try to keep it together. The hon. member from Kingston and the Islands.

61 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/9/24 11:32:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would be lying if I said that I do not have a bit of FOMO for not being invited to the party in the back room. In any event, I found it very interesting when the member said that the Liberals took all the Conservatives' great ideas and put them into the fall economic statement, yet she still will not vote for it. What is going on here? Does she not like the initiatives that she claims the Liberals took from the Conservatives?

86 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

May/9/24 11:33:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not the great ideas the Liberals took from the Conservatives, but the huge, overspending deficits and the ballooning taxes that are going to hurt and punish Canadians, and are going to increase the misery that the Liberals have already caused.

45 words

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

May/9/24 11:33:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker I will say, right off the bat, that it is troubling to hear the dismissal of the dental care program, the importance of the school food program and the infrastructure investments that we have seen, and much of that is the result of the push by the NDP. My question to the member is this. Her party claims to defend working people and to want fairness for working people. We know that working people are paying more than their fair share when it comes to taxes, but who is not paying their fair share are the rich. I am wonder why the Conservatives are not coming out in support of the increase in the capital gains tax, recognizing it is a way of getting the richest in our country to pay more than what they are paying now, which is not quite their fair share. That would be revenue that could be reinvested in the needs that Canadians have across the country.

164 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

May/9/24 11:34:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say if the member really cares about the working class, she would quit propping up the Liberal government to increase the carbon tax on people, increase their CPP and EI premiums, increase the cost of groceries and all the things that are being propped up by the NDP's support of the Liberal government.

58 words

Class

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/9/24 11:35:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. Did she ever think that Canada would pay more in debt-servicing than it does in health care transfers to the provinces? That is something I never thought I would see, $54.1 billion in debt repayment, which is more than what we are going to give to the provinces for health care. What do you have to say about that, and what do you think your constituents would say about that?

82 words

The Speaker

May/9/24 11:35:46 p.m.
Watch

I am certain that question was through the Chair to the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

17 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

May/9/24 11:35:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, health care is super important to Canadians. Our health care system is ailing. We do not have enough doctors as it is. What drives me crazy is not just that we are going to pay $56 billion of interest on the debt, but also the fact that we have turned down $59 billion for LNG from Germany, $59 billion of revenue from Japan for LNG, another $60 billion from the Netherlands for LNG. Those are all things the Liberal government has turned down. That money could help pay off the debt and help our health care system.

99 words

Mr. Randeep Sarai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

May/9/24 11:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask this. The member opposite was blaming the insurance premium going up on, I believe, her staffer or somebody at her house. I wonder if it was from a car accident or repairs or if it was from a flood to a house or whatnot. How can the government be responsible for insurance premiums? I would really like to know how the budget was responsible for the insurance premium hike of $1,000.

81 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 312