SoVote

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Apr/25/22 5:55:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his mention of the new homebuyer program. We have listened at the finance committee to some of the very real problems that exist in the housing market. This particular policy innovation, let us call it, is not something that we have heard a lot of people talking about or calling for. I wonder if the member would like to give some reflections on the kinds of housing policy items that would be constructive and would make a difference to make more housing available for more Canadians, versus the risk of a program that allows Canadians to save more money to put into a hot market with constantly escalating prices. The problem is that people continue to throw more money at the same houses in competition. What is the role of the government if not to try to tame that competition so that Canadians can get value for the money they have?

158 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Apr/25/22 5:56:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention. He is very thoughtful and I do appreciate his work at the finance committee. Let us start with supply. Supply needs to happen, rather than giving CMHC $4 billion over the next five years for a program that says it is going to be flexible with municipalities but does not actually say what the money is supposed to do. One of the key aspects we need to do is to have that ready supply. I read in a book recently about the issue that if we do not have housing, then, with the constraints around that, the wealthiest take the best spots and then all the way down it is cruel musical chairs, except with housing. We need to focus on the supply issue, and I believe that the Government of Canada and the provinces need to start pounding the table with municipalities and saying we have a societal goal here, and that is to get young people where they have that first chance. We need to deal with this. We already have rents that are going out of control. If there were no government controls at the provincial level, we would be having people who would not be able to afford where they are. That is a terrible state for a modern economy. We need to fix this. We are the second-largest land mass in the world. We have always been open to immigration, and yet we have allowed ourselves to be stuck into this problem.

257 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Apr/25/22 5:58:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been promising a high-frequency train in my riding of Trois‑Rivières since 2015. This train is an election promise more than anything else. In the current budget, the sum of $400 million appears to have been allocated to finding an external partner to draw up plans that may be used for something. How confident does my colleague feel about the government's proposals when the train project has been in the works for 10 years and will probably never see the light of day?

95 words

Mr. Dan Albas

Apr/25/22 5:59:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a challenge because the Liberals continually promise things that they either have no idea how to deliver or no intention of delivering. We have seen this with infrastructure. Again, they dangle out that they are going to fund certain things and then they do not do them. When they are promising to deal with transit or even military spending in this budget, here is the question. Three times they tried to procure Browning pistols, yet somehow they say that we are going to be putting more into military spending. They can say they are going to, but whether they actually do it is another thing, until they fix that broken system.

115 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Apr/25/22 5:59:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to rise and add the voice of the people of Thornhill to today's debate. I am deeply concerned on their behalf by the latest NDP-Liberal budget. Every single day, we ask the government what it is doing to make life more affordable for Canadians, and every day it tells us how much it is spending. I was hopeful today that we could see some results for the money spent rather than just a projection of answers we will get when, again and again, we ask the government what it is doing to make life more affordable. The answer for the people of Thornhill and Canadians across the country is that it is doing nothing much. We can skip the partial answers and gloss over the large sums of money in an effort to distract Canadians from the government's failure to deliver actual results for a while, but Canadians had every reason to fear the federal budget, especially after a deal between our colleagues on the other side of the House. The deal is frightening to the future of the fiscal health of Canada, driving the government further and further astray in an effort only to hold on to power, because after seven years, many simply cannot understand the plot. Canadians were treated to over $50 billion of new spending, which, of course, could have been far worse given the government's propensity to spend beyond its means at every available opportunity. I suppose aiming for “it could have been worse” is the best that we can hope for, but with spending levels that far exceed the prepandemic highs, it could have been much more responsible, and it should have been. Most troubling, however, is what was absent from this budget, which was any meaningful attempt to address economic growth by lowering taxes and reducing the choking regulations raised by nearly every industry, every stakeholder and every union at every opportunity, only to fall on what are seemingly deaf ears. Families are struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. That much is clear. In survey after survey and poll after poll, they have made their voices heard loud and clear. Two-thirds of Canadians say that inflation and affordability are their top concerns. It is hard to get by. That is what that means. I know members of the House hear that refrain constantly when they are at home in their constituencies. It is hard not to. It is hard not to run into somebody we know at the grocery store or the gas station who does not bring up the cost of living as the first issue they talk about, yet after two of the highest spending sprees in Canadian history, even before the gigantic splurge during the pandemic, the Liberal government had bigger spending plans all along. Child care, dental care and the possibility of pharmacare in 2023 represent the biggest social program expansion in the past couple of decades. While there might be gleeful cheers from the other side, I think Canadians, including members opposite, need a reality check on the numbers. They tell a very different story about our fiscal health than the fairy tales we have been hearing about. Liberals are coming in with a federal debt projected to reach $1.25 trillion this fiscal year. Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio is 47.6%. We have a $52.8-billion deficit. We have a record high of personal indebtedness to disposable income of over 186%. We have inflation at a staggering 6.7%, and the reality that the Bank of Canada will aggressively raise interest rates beyond what we have already seen. There is more. There will be more reality checks for those who will be responsible for the sharpest rise in cost-of-living expenses in a generation. The problem is that inflation is only going to get worse, not better, over the coming months. It will be much worse than I have ever seen and than most adults today have ever seen. Maybe they heard stories from their parents' trials and tribulations or saw a historical reference in a book, but while some in the House are not students of monetary policy, and that is fine, others will know that the latest inflation numbers do not account for the increase in the carbon tax or the annual increase in alcohol and tobacco taxes. Also missing from that number is the recently hiked interest rate. It is the first of the aforementioned number of raises that may, of course, lower inflation over time, but in the immediate term, will drive up housing and borrowing costs. There is more. We also learned that Stats Canada will add used-vehicle prices to the CPI in next month's report. For those who are still keeping score, that may bring us to about 8%. This will be a new number for many Canadians, and most certainly a disastrous new number for average Canadians. While members opposite will twist themselves into a frenzy listing off the countries and their corresponding inflation rates, Canadians should know that, if this was an entirely international problem, then others would mirror our rates, others like Japan or Australia. I could do the same thing. There are two ways to control inflation. One, of course, is the rate hikes, the aggressive rate hikes we are about to see, and the other is to slow spending. We see no evidence of slower spending. That should be of great concern to the over 65% of Canadians who have indicated that inflation and affordability top their list of anxieties. Many of these numbers may be abstract to those across the aisle, because it is the only plausible explanation for why they continue to spend at this rate, but let me remind members of the real toll that these abstract numbers have on Canadians working harder and simply not getting ahead. Gasoline is up 11.9%, compared to just February, and a shocking 39.8% compared to a year earlier. Some might find glee in that, whispering to themselves quietly that the plan is working. To them I say that it is actually not working. It is hurting Canadian families. It is hurting our industry. It is hurting our recovery, on the odd chance that the government might want to include oil and gas in their plans. How about the groceries? I cannot think about why a government would be ideologically opposed to food as they would be opposed to oil, so let me try to get its attention with the cost of groceries in the country. It is an area where people notice it the most. It is an area that I am sure members opposite have heard about in their constituencies from their neighbours time and time again. Overall, grocery prices have gone up 8.7%, but most items are much, much higher. On average, the basket was $100 last March, and it is almost $109 this March, but for some items, the increase is much, much more severe, such as for milk, cheese, butter, cereal and beef. These are the staples. These are unsustainable increases for most family budgets, and most families will tell us that. To make matter worse, our country is confronting supply chain constraints, scarcity of materials and labour shortages, all compounded, of course, by a war in Ukraine. We are seeing the continued rise of unaffordable housing for those trying to make the dream of home ownership a reality, as well as urgent military commitments in a time of global instability and an infrastructure deficit lacking the private capital investments we need to actually get things built. Even more concerning is the lower productivity and lagging long-term growth and what that means for GDP per capita. Its decline relative to those of our allies is the appalling reality of the government's policy failures and the likely failure on the horizon for the magnitude of promises in the wings, which we have not even seen reflected in the government's upcoming fiscal document. The government's approach has become a silly mix of virtue signalling and expensive promises and rerun after rerun of not being able to deliver on them. How does a government spend so much and accomplish so little? How does a country rack up so much debt for the goodies that it believes we need today without thinking for a moment about tomorrow? What is of greater concern are the policies of intrusion into people's lives, the intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, the pretend projects about tree planting and an ideological drive against the country's natural resources at a time when the world is begging for them. The government has trafficked in divisiveness, othering those who do not agree with them while affecting economic fortunes at the cost of choosing winners and losers in different geographies based on different identities they see as tolerable and therefore worthy of their reward. Now the concern is that the NDP influence will accelerate this spending, pump up the virtue signalling and leave future generations with a bill, just so activists and alarmists could be placated in 2022 without thinking about a day in the future. A laser focus on growth would have helped the multitude of fiscal, economic and social problems brought on by the government, and still, I suppose we should be relieved, though hardly gratified, that this could have been worse. If the government was aiming for “it could have been worse”, then, I guess, mission accomplished, but on this side of the House, we think Canadians deserve better.

1615 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/25/22 6:09:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech from my colleague from across the way, and she particularly talked about the debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada. I think what she misses is the bigger picture, and in the bigger picture we have the second lowest debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 countries, at least for 2021. We have prepared ourselves in a way that allows us to benefit from the investments we made in Canadians during the pandemic by coming out stronger on the other end of the pandemic. We are seeing that with the levels of employment and we are seeing that with the economic growth in Canada. I realize that Conservatives will quite often say, “Do not worry about what other countries are doing; just worry about what is happening in Canada.” The reality of this situation is that in a global economy and with a global market, where we are continually interchanging goods and services throughout the world, we cannot look at one country in isolation. I am wondering this. Can the member at least comment on the fact that we do have the second-lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 countries, and does she think that is a good thing?

210 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Apr/25/22 6:11:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member is explaining to someone in his riding who is telling him that the cost of groceries is going up, that the cost of gas is going up, that the cost of rent is unaffordable or that their kids cannot move out of their basement, I am wondering if he states the debt-to-GDP ratio as a statistic for his support.

66 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/25/22 6:11:52 p.m.
Watch

You said it, not me.

5 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/25/22 6:11:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to say I was asking her a question about something she said.

24 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Apr/25/22 6:11:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I know that he is yelling about it now, but I am wondering if that is the answer he gives to constituents when they talk about an affordability crisis that has happened under his government's watch.

39 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Apr/25/22 6:12:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks a lot about inflation. She also talks about housing. Access to housing is a huge problem. One way to combat inflation is to increase housing supply. I would like her to tell us about the measures announced in the budget, which, in my opinion, are still too weak. I would like to hear her thoughts on this. What measures could we take to quickly increase housing supply, and in particular social housing?

77 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Apr/25/22 6:12:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right on the issue of supply, when it comes to the government's housing plan. I think the government has lacked any creation of supply or any significant creation of supply within our housing market, which is why we are seeing unaffordable 50% rises in places like the GTA, where I am from. I think the government needs to get on an aggressive track to build more, and we know from this budget that not a single home will be built this year. I asked the minister about it earlier today and he certainly could not give an answer, so I agree with the member that this is a supply-side solution where more of the same programs are not going to get houses built.

131 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Apr/25/22 6:13:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago Conservative MPs, including this one, were in the House arguing that we needed to increase our defence budget by $24 billion, but they opposed the increase in dental care that many Canadians, including ones in her riding, would benefit from. How does the member justify denying people the dental care they need because it is too expensive, but also wanting to spend three times as much on our defence spending?

77 words

All Topics

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Apr/25/22 6:14:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the government does neither in this budget. The government promised to increase defence spending to the 2% NATO target, and it fell short of that. If the member wants to come to my riding, he can run in a provincial election that is happening in Ontario on June 2 to provide dental care for the residents of Ontario. That is an incursion into provincial jurisdiction. The member knows that, and this is a false promise.

78 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/25/22 6:14:41 p.m.
Watch

It being 6:15, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment now before the House. The question is on the subamendment. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the subamendment be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

79 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/25/22 6:15:35 p.m.
Watch

I request a recorded division.

5 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/25/22 6:15:39 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/25/22 7:03:17 p.m.
Watch

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

8 words

All Topics

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

Apr/25/22 7:04:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-216

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been advocating for a very long time on the issue of direction and control. Direction and control are regulations that severely limit the ability of the charitable sector to do its job. They require that any charitable activities be fully under the direction and control of the charitable organization. This creates problems and needless red tape for organizations that are operating in Canada. It is a particular problem for organizations that are operating internationally. As many members know and understand, the best practice of international development is when organizations in Canada are able to empower and support those who are acting in their own countries to support development, which really recognizes that the people who are in the process of doing the developing are the heroes of their own story, and the role of international organizations is merely a supporting role for those who are doing that important work. However, direction and control regulations require effectively that those organizations operating overseas be fully under the direction and control of that Canadian organization insofar as it wishes to maintain its charitable status. Not only does this create inefficiencies, needless bureaucratic red tape and millions of dollars in lawyer fees that charitable organizations have to pay every year, it also perpetuates this kind of colonial structure of donor control and the requirement for the foreign organization to be in control of the development activity that is happening on the ground. We have been advocating for a long time for reforms to direction and control. It was a commitment in the last Conservative platform to make these reforms. It also reflected a unanimous recommendation coming out of the foreign affairs committee in the last Parliament, which directly called out these regulations for being neocolonial in nature. I want to recognize the work of the Senator Omidvar, who put forward a Senate public bill on this, Bill S-216. That bill passed in the Senate twice and is currently being sponsored by my colleague in this House. With that in mind, I raised the question on this issue in the House a number of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I did not get a very good answer. I was cautiously pleased to see a reference to direction and control on page 195 of budget 2022, which is the first time the government has acknowledged that direction and control regulations are a problem and need to be reformed. The section references Bill S-216 directly, and that the government intends, in its budget implementation acts, to implement the spirit of that bill. We cannot assume that the fix will fully address the issues. We cannot assume until we have seen those proposed changes what the actual change in the nature of the regulations will be, because Bill S-216 removes the “own activities” requirement and replaces it with an accountability requirement for charitable organizations. The budget does not reference removing the “own activities” requirement. It simply references trying to facilitate mechanisms for easier transfers. It claims it will implement the spirit of Bill S-216, but it does not say it will implement the letter of the bill. As we have seen before, the devil can be in the details, so although the development sector and charitable organizations across Canada are very pleased to finally see at least a recognition of the problem, we are far from certain about whether the solution will be adequate. Therefore, I would like to hear more from the government on this, because the reference is there in the budget, but it is lacking in clarity. When can we expect the government to implement these changes? Is the government prepared to actually implement the changes in Bill S-216, removing the “own activities” requirement and replacing it with an accountability mechanism? Is the government prepared to work with the charitable sector, including those who work in international development and members of other parties, to ensure that we get it right? It would sure be a shame to get people's hopes up and then not deliver the fix that is required.

690 words

Mr. Terry Beech (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Apr/25/22 7:08:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-216

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to clarify the government's position for my opposition colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I also heard him inquiring about Bill S-216 during the budget debate today, and I am very happy to have this opportunity to address the issue directly. Let me begin by pointing out that budget 2022 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to allow a charity to provide its resources to organizations that are not qualified donees, provided that the charity meets certain requirements designed to ensure accountability. I thank the member opposite for citing the page number for that reference. This is intended to implement the spirt of Bill S-216, Effective and Accountable Charities Act, which is currently being considered by Parliament. I personally have had the opportunity to meet with parliamentarians and senators over the past number of months in order to better understand the spirit and to help navigate some of the concerns that have been raised. We have proposed changes in recognition of the fact that Canadian charities carry out a wide range of important work, including vital international development and relief activities around the world and direct support to Canadians here at home. Our government recognizes that Canada's tax rules should support their work and minimize their administrative burdens, while still ensuring accountability for how charitable resources are used. Both the charitable sector and parliamentarians have put forward a number of proposals to achieve these goals, while allowing greater flexibility for charities to support non-profit groups that may not have the ability to pursue charitable status on their own. Our government supports these efforts and our budget proposal reflects this support. Our support for charitable donations is also reflected in the fact that Canada's tax assistance for charitable donations is recognized as being among the most generous in the world, in fact. In 2022, tax assistance associated with the charitable donations tax credit and deduction is estimated to be over $4 billion. However, given the generosity, registered charities are required to follow the rules set out in the Income Tax Act that ensure the funds are applied to charitable purposes. We recognize the need to ensure that these rules are as up to date as possible and that they support the important work that charities do. Our budget proposal reflects this. I look forward to working with this member and all parliamentarians to implement the measure in the most appropriate way.

414 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 57