SoVote

Apr/25/22 3:55:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Conservatives like to take flights of rhetoric, but in this case, saying the NDP has joined the Liberal caucus is actually misleading the House and misleading the public. I would ask the member to withdraw it.

46 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:55:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member is correct. The hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake will please withdraw the comment. There is no coalition.

22 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:55:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was under the impression that the NDP joined the Liberals in a coalition effort, so I just assumed they are in caucus together—

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/25/22 3:55:54 p.m.
Watch

I remind the hon. member that no such thing exists. The hon. member has the floor.

16 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:56:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will gladly retract that. They are not sitting in the same room, although I still think they are, but I will retract it, no problem.

28 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/25/22 3:56:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is hard not to comment briefly that the hon. member for Miramichi—Grand Lake cannot possibly assert to this place that he honestly thinks the NDP members sit in the Liberal caucus. I will set that aside. My question for him relates to his claims about SUVs and light trucks, and the notion that dealing with the pollution from those vehicles means we do not like the people who drive them. That is not the case. The pollution from automobiles between 1990 and 2015 dropped by 23% in Canada. In that same period, the pollution from light trucks, SUVs and vans increased so much that it actually doubled. I will ask the hon. member to consider that the pollution from these vehicles creates more hospital visits, more smog and more asthma, and drives a climate emergency that his province knows well from extreme flooding. I ask him to reconsider deciding to treat a policy problem as though it is a personal vendetta against people who are still driving vehicles that need to be properly regulated regarding their emissions.

182 words

Mr. Jake Stewart

Apr/25/22 3:57:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish the member opposite could see my riding and could see that within a a radius of two and a half hours, there are two places to plug in an electric car and nobody has one. People drive Camaros, trucks, SUVs and everything else. My point here today is that it is too bad the member opposite does not realize that New Brunswick is rich with natural gas and that we have so much opportunity in New Brunswick. The member opposite, Greenpeace and other organizations have been busy, with the Liberal Party of Canada, disrupting the very industries that would be paying the bills in Canada. She and I are not going to agree on a whole lot. I can say that with certainty.

127 words

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Apr/25/22 3:58:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, as it always is, in this chamber to talk with my colleagues. We are talking about the budget today, so it is helpful to first ask the question and set where we are: Does the budget meet the expectations that Canadians had? Gas prices have almost never been higher. Our food prices are going up and up. Retail prices are continuing to increase. Construction material prices and housing prices are going up too, and that includes rent, so both home ownership and rental accommodations are becoming incredibly more difficult to obtain for Canadians. On the day after the budget, Canadians woke up. There was no immediate relief, no tax holidays and no tax rebates. In fact, on April 1, the government increased the carbon tax, which we know causes inflation. The Bank of Canada has been so kind to tell us that it has provided at least 0.5 of a percentage point to the inflationary measure that StatsCan puts out every year. The real question is, why is the government not doing everything in its power to reduce inflation? I will give it to the government that all the inflationary pressures are not domestic. We have supply chain issues. We now have a war in Ukraine. However, the government has an easy lever to pull with respect to the inflationary pressures that it creates. It is the spending and carbon tax. Let us talk about spending. Let us go through a few numbers and facts that are irrefutable. These are from the government's own documents. In 2015, the government spent about $300 billion. In 2019, the government spent $426 billion. In 2022, it is projected to spend about $452 billion. That is a 25% annual growth rate for this year compared with 2019. It is 53% growth in annual spending from 2015 to today. All the economists have been telling the government to take its foot off the pedal of spending because it is increasing inflationary pressure, so any assertion that this budget is prudent is comical. Furthermore, we are led to believe that, while the government has been increasing spending by 7% to 8% every year since 2015, now all of a sudden, from this year going forward, it will hold the rate of spending growth to 2% to 3%. The only problem is that nobody believes the government. Absolutely no one thinks that it is possible for the current government to hold spending growth to 2% to 3%. In fact, in this budget, we do not even have projections for spending on the promise of pharmacare. We do not have projections for the spending on new health care transfers. We are just coming out of a pandemic and the government is saying that it is not going to increase health care transfers. However, we have a fiscal anchor, we are told. The debt-to-GDP ratio is going to continue going down. The only reason the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to go down is inflation. The entire government's fiscal plan is based on inflation. It is the only way it is going to work. In fact, in just one year, from last year to this year, the government is projecting $170 billion in new revenue that it did not project last year. That money is coming from Canadians in the form of higher prices. That is money people are having to pay. Their dollar is not going far enough. It is a silent tax and it hurts the most vulnerable in our society. In fact, in the tightest labour market in a generation, the government has spent money on hiring 10,000 civil servants a year every year since 2015. What do we have? In the tightest labour market, the government still wants to spend money and hire new civil servants. Where are these people going to come from? All of our small business owners across the country are crying for more people, so the government's decision is to hire some more people. Those are individuals who now cannot work in the private sector, cannot help a business grow and cannot help a business get back on its feet. They pay taxes and salaries. That is going to lead to private sector growth, but let us talk about some specific measures. I am a balanced person. There are some good things in the budget, no doubt. Employee trusts set up an opportunity for individuals to pass their business on to employees, and I think that is a welcome measure. What the government proposes to do with the ready, willing and able initiative, which is a policy, by the way, that was started under former finance minister Jim Flaherty, is to give organizations some additional funds to encourage those people with intellectual disabilities to enter the workforce. It should be applauded. The Great Lakes fishery investments are well needed, and there is some money for freshwater cleanup. On the freshwater cleanup, it was nice to see Lake Simcoe referenced. However, it is a much smaller number than what had been previously promised. Everyone talks about how Conservatives just like to talk about all the spending and not about what they are going to cut. Here we go. Here are some ideas for the government to consider. On the infrastructure investment bank, breaking up is really hard to do, it seems. Instead of walking away from something that is not working very well, the government expands the mandate and gives it more money. Not only that, but it is taking the same failed model and saying it is going to create a new $15-billion innovation fund. Again, superclusters are reintroduced, with some expanded money. It would be unparliamentary to say the word I am thinking of right now. The government is planning on spending money on a buyback program for guns, instead of taking that money and putting it into reducing crime. We need to do much more of a comprehensive spending review. It is nice to see that there was one mentioned, but it is not nearly going to be enough. Let us talk about young people for a minute. The new, shiny, tax-free home savings account sounds amazing, except when one finds out that it is going to take a full year before it comes into effect, and then it is going to take another five years for an individual to max out on the contributions. Also, the home tax-free savings account cannot be used with the homebuyers plan, so people must make a choice. It is one or the other. Really, one program is going to be gutted and replaced with another, for a shiny new object. It is mostly a marketing ploy, in my opinion. Instead, what the government could have done was to tell individuals who use the homebuyers plan that they do not have to pay the $35,000 back. That would have been a far more effective way to accomplish what it is trying to accomplish and have an immediate effect. We asked young people to stay at home for two years. We asked this of all Canadians, but young people in particular put their lives on pause for two years for a virus that represented very little risk to them. Yes, Canada had a very low death rate, and I think that is a positive outcome of the pandemic and some of the responses. However, young people have now come forward and are re-emerging back into the economy. What have they found? The thanks they have found is that they now have a national debt that has doubled and that they are now responsible for, and a housing market that is completely unattainable. The Bank of Montreal released a report and singled out Orillia, which is in my riding, for having a 300% increase in house prices in six years. It is incredible to think of how young people are looking at this housing market and believing it is attainable. I have talked about the bank tax before in this chamber. If the government thinks there are excess profits in that industry, we should really be revamping competition law. My prediction right now is that we will see an increasing number of bank branch closures across this country, particularly in rural Canada. It is no surprise that just last week, after the budget, banks made closure announcements in small communities across this country, including one in Brechin, which is in my riding, along with others in Pefferlaw, Cannington and Stayner. I will close on another matter that is very close to my riding: the boat tax. There are 25 marinas and 15 boat dealers in my region. The government thinks that if a person can afford a boat, they deserve to be taxed. With the price of cottages and housing, these individuals are looking for other options for recreation, and boating is one of them. However, this tax is only going to push jobs and investment elsewhere. These individuals are going to buy their boats south of the border and bring them here. That is going to hurt the people in my community, and that is going to bring in far less revenue than the government believes.

1553 words

All Topics

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

Apr/25/22 4:08:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting listening to the member, and one of the things that comes to my mind is the reality of truth. The member makes reference to there not having been any increase to health care, but there has been an increase of over $2 billion. He asks what the Canadian Infrastructure Bank is doing. Talk to the city of Brampton and other cities and municipalities. The city of Brampton got a $400-million zero-emissions public transit program. When Conservative members stand to speak, they need to take the Conservative spin off the papers that they are reading or quoting from and focus on the reality. The reality is that this budget supports Canadians, supports businesses and provides hope for the future of Canada.

127 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Apr/25/22 4:09:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. I am not really sure the member actually listened to my speech. I said that the government is not planning to increase health care transfers, but if we want to talk about the $2 billion and all the other money that is provided to provinces with strings attached, this budget drips with paternalism. There are no more fearful words to hear in a province than when the federal government shows up and says, “Hi, we're here from the federal government and we're here to help you.” The Liberals should understand about jurisdiction. Anyone reading this budget would think that the Prime Minister wants to be the premier of a province and not the Prime Minister of the country.

127 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Apr/25/22 4:10:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech, when he touched on the savings account, for example. I spoke to a few realtor association groups and talked about people trying to save $50,000 within that account. We also see that about 40% of Canadians are within a couple of hundred dollars of insolvency, so the fact is that most people do not have the means or the wherewithal to save that $50,000 to access the account for a down payment on their home. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts or comments on that.

98 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Apr/25/22 4:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is completely right. If we look at the number of individuals who could use this new tax-free home savings account, which is just another marketing ploy, it is about the same number of people who can use the homebuyers plan. Actually, not that many Canadians can afford to do that every year, so this relief is not going to help a significant number of people. I just offered a suggestion on how the Liberals could have done it more efficiently and quickly, but they wanted a new announcable, with a new name marketing scheme.

100 words

Mrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ)

Apr/25/22 4:11:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. The Conservatives appear to be very concerned about inflation. There are all sorts of ways of countering inflation. One good way is to foster green financing. This is a factor that the Bloc Québécois has been looking into for several months, even years. Right now, as we speak, green financing is becoming key to a healthy economy. I would like to hear how my colleague envisions green financing as a way to foster economic development geared toward protecting the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

103 words

Mr. Adam Chambers

Apr/25/22 4:12:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. It is important to consider what the economy is willing to invest in. I know that our finance committee is considering studying things related to the green economy and how we might support that. We have not seen that study, but I would welcome a discussion at least around how this could impact inflation. I would say one of the most important things that the federal government can do is to look at competition policy across our major sectors as a way to bring down prices for Canadians and deal with inflation, but of course, we should be considering transitions and moving on and helping other industries grow. Admittedly, I did see some investments in this budget for a green economy, including carbon capture and storage, which was a reasonable proposal.

140 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

Apr/25/22 4:13:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a true honour for me to speak in this House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on federal budget 2022. I am very pleased to be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg South. Budget 2022 invests in three main things: people, economic growth and a clean future for everyone. Since the budget is almost 400 pages, I cannot relay everything that is in it, but I am going to focus on a few key things that I know are really important for Davenport residents. They include housing, climate action, immigration, support for workers, growing our economy and prosperity. The first issue is housing. This is a huge issue for Davenport residents, like it is for all Canadians. The issue is not only affordable housing, but it is also housing affordability. It has become a huge stressor for so many Davenport residents that they cannot even imagine being able to afford a house or a condo in the city they grew up in. For those who do not know, my riding of Davenport is in downtown west Toronto. I should mention a little context around housing. The issue around housing has been 30 years in the making. It is not going to be resolved overnight. Indeed, it does not matter how much money the federal government is going to give. All three levels of government have to work together in order to resolve this problem. We have already committed $72 billion in financial support via the national housing strategy, and we have committed those funds over the last five years. In budget 2022, we have the most ambitious investment in housing ever at the federal level. We have introduced a number of initiatives that are very much focused on doubling the number of homes built over the next 10 years and also on providing a number of supports that will help Canadians save for their first home. I will mention a few of the items that are in the budget. The first is that we are continuing our focus on housing our most vulnerable, with an additional $1.5 billion over two years to extend the rapid housing initiative, along with another half billion dollars for Reaching Home. These dollars, rightly, are focused on the vulnerable, because right now, we have to make sure that we are doing everything we can to eliminate chronic homelessness. We have made a promise to do so by 2030, although I am hoping that we will be able to do it much sooner. The other thing I am really excited about on the housing front is that there is strong support for co-ops. Co-ops in my riding of Davenport are super popular, and we have a number of them. I will mention a few of them. We have the Tamil co-op, the Perth co-op and the Primrose co-op. I have a number of groups that have been saying for the last few years, “Julie, we would love to see the federal government put more money into helping to support the creation of more co-ops.” Indeed, this budget has, in a very strong way, brought back a substantial amount of funding, so that we will create a new generation of co-op housing. We are estimating that we are going to be investing enough money that 6,000 units will be constructed. We will also be reallocating $500 million of the funding on a cash basis from the national housing co-investment fund to launch a new co-operative housing development program aimed at expanding co-op housing in Canada. In addition, we will be providing an additional $1 billion in loans to be reallocated from the rental construction financing initiative to support co-op housing projects. Just to remind everyone, for generations, co-ops have offered quality, affordable housing to Canadians, while empowering their members through inclusion, personal development and security of tenure through their community-oriented model of housing. While co-ops are home to approximately a quarter of a million Canadians, nowhere near enough of these co-ops have been built in recent years. I am delighted at the strong support and strong investment in co-op housing in the years to come. Another area that is maybe overlooked a bit and not mentioned enough in this House is the support in budget 2022 that is going to allow our federal government to incentivize cities to build more homes and create denser, more sustainable neighbourhoods while also increasing the housing supply. I will just mention a couple of funds. The first is the infrastructure fund, which we are going to use in budget 2022 to ensure that as we are giving the dollars to municipalities, we are going to create enough flexibility within the infrastructure programs to be able to tie access to infrastructure funding to actions taken by the provinces and municipalities to increase the housing supply where it makes sense to do so. The other is that budget 2022 would also leverage transit funding to build more homes. The pandemic had a huge impact on public transit ridership. What we are trying to do, as we try to build up and create more public transit, is incentivize municipalities to also build greater housing and greater density along transit infrastructure lines. I have a lot more to say on housing, but I want to get to some other topics. The key thing I want to leave everyone with is that we have made a historic investment in housing at the federal level, but it will take all three levels of government coming together to resolve this problem. The next topic I would like to speak to is climate action. Climate change and climate action are super important to Davenport residents. They are one of the key reasons I ran for office. I wanted to be part of a federal government that was not only going to put together a plan but also commit the dollars and actions to implement that plan. Over six years, we have committed over $100 billion and over 100 actions, and budget 2022 would add an additional $13.2 billion. Budget 2022 would focus those additional dollars on an emissions reduction plan, on expanding and extending the low-carbon economy fund, on new measures that would make it easier and more affordable for Canadians and Canadian businesses to adopt clean technologies, and on more funding to make zero-emission vehicles more affordable for Canadians. All of these measures taken together are going to ensure that Canada will continue to lead in global efforts to fight climate change, protect our nature and build a clean economy that would create the good-paying jobs of today and tomorrow. As an aside, at the beginning of last week my heart was in the pit of my stomach when I read that the provincial Ford government was quietly altering its plan to hit its climate change targets. No matter how aggressive the federal government gets with $100 billion and 100 actions, there is no way Canada is going to be able to reach its climate targets if our largest province does not do its part. As our climate is changing more quickly than we had thought, to me these inactions are irresponsible, unconscionable and a crime against humanity. The last section I am going to talk about is growing our economy. We are not going to be able to continue to provide the generous social welfare programs we provide, and are not going to continue to have a great quality of life, if we are not going to become more productive as an economy and if we are not going to invest in economic growth. A key section of budget 2022 is child care. This is now a national program. It is not a social program. To me, this is an economic game-changer for women and families that is going to fully engage all Canadians in our workforce. It is going to help to add up to 4% to our GDP. It is huge for Davenport residents. It is huge for all Canadians. I really love a lot of the investments we have made around immigration and supporting workers with more training and retraining. In 2021, we welcomed over 405,000 new permanent residents. We are going to be increasing that to 451,000 permanent residents, the majority of whom will be skilled workers who will help us address many of the persistent labour shortages we have. On the worker front, the federal government, in budget 2022, talks about its commitment to work more closely with provinces and territories to adjust labour market transfer agreements, and to make sure Canadians have the training and retraining supports they need to help transition more workers and help local economies adapt and prosper. I will end with one key idea I want to get across. We really need to work on harmonizing our regulations across provinces and territories, and we have to eliminate all barriers to people, goods and services. It is one of the key ways that we could increase our productivity and economic growth at no cost. My time has come to an end. There is so much more I want to say, but I am going to end so I can answer questions. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the residents of Davenport on federal budget 2022.

1590 words

All Topics

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

Apr/25/22 4:23:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not entirely surprising that a Liberal member from Ontario would use a speech in the House of Commons to engage in politicking related to the provincial election that is going on in Ontario. The member did actually use the term “crimes against humanity” to refer to a policy of the Ford government. That is quite a serious accusation to be making. I would encourage the member, especially in light of actual crimes against humanity that we are seeing in Europe right now, to take the opportunity to apologize and withdraw that comment.

98 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Apr/25/22 4:24:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question gives me the opportunity to double down and say that in a world where our climate is changing so fast that we know it is going to have irreparable impacts on our economy, our lives, the air and water, to me it is unconscionable that there is a province, territory or municipality in this country that would not do its part to reduce its emissions and would not do its part to decarbonize and make sure that we meet our net zero targets by 2050. It is absolutely unconscionable. It is irresponsible. To me, it would be seen as a crime against humanity.

110 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Apr/25/22 4:25:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her speech. She used strong words to describe reality, which certainly can be unfair sometimes. She spoke about jobs for the middle class and housing, but she seems to have forgotten something. Chapter 6 of the budget is an unacceptable assault on Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. With respect to health care, what will the government do to prevent what seems to be an inevitable conflict?

77 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Apr/25/22 4:25:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, health care is something that Canadians are very proud of. It does not matter which province or territory we live in. Whether we live in Quebec or Ontario, all Canadians are very committed to continuing to support health care across this country. This budget would also continue that support. We are actually increasing the top-up to the Canada health transfer to reduce the backlogs by $2 billion. We have also committed an additional $45.2 billion in support, which is an increase of more than 4.8% over the 2021-22 baseline.

95 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Apr/25/22 4:26:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Davenport for her speech, and I am going to pass over the irony of a government that just passed a new fossil fuel extraction project complaining, however justly, about the records of other governments. I am also going to pass over the fact that, when Liberals speak now about their budget, they tend to emphasize the things that are in the confidence and supply agreement that they forged with our party. I want to go to the question that I noticed the member did not talk about, and that is the fact that people with disabilities in this country continue to live in poverty. There is nothing in the budget to establish a universal income program at the federal level to lift people with disabilities out of poverty, or even to amend the disability tax credit to make it more accessible. Does the hon. member support this failure on the part of her government?

162 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 57