SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 59

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 27, 2022 02:00PM
Context: House Hansard - 59 - Apr/27/22
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Apr/27/22 4:31:19 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's thoughts regarding indigenous housing and housing in general. In Winnipeg North, I represent one of the higher percentages of indigenous people, probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 to 25,000 people. It breaks my heart when we see the type of housing they have, and it is one of the reasons why I believe that, as a national government, we have to recognize that we do have a role to play. That is why we have invested literally tens of millions of dollars in Winnipeg alone with regard to emergency housing shelter, the Main Street Project, investing in and encouraging provincial governments and municipalities to also come to the table. This is where my question lies. Would the member not agree that, as a national government, we can show leadership by investing in and generating ideas, but we also need to get provincial and other stakeholders, such as indigenous communities, which have demonstrated incredible leadership on the issue, to continue to work together to try to resolve this problem?
178 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Lori Idlout
  • Apr/27/22 4:32:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I think the member should listen to my statement more intently, because my recommendation is that the federal government needs to listen to the communities. The communities are the ones that have been offering solutions. They have been ignored long enough, and it is the communities that need to be heard when solutions are being provided. It is the federal government that needs to listen more intently so that it can show real reconciliation when it comes to providing solutions that will impact and improve indigenous people's lives.
91 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)
  • Apr/27/22 4:33:17 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the statement put forward by my colleague from Nunavut, and I agree with her. The federal government should do more for housing. I think it is failing communities in northern Canada. I have a question for her about her leader's comments that were made just previous to her speech and the fact that he is basically a carbon capture denier. He does not agree with the science of carbon capture, although it is out there already. I would like to know the member's opinion. Does she agree with her NDP leader about carbon capture not being a way to help clean up the environment? I invite all New Democrats to come to my riding in Saskatchewan and tour Boundary Dam 3, which is one of the largest working carbon capture facilities in the world. It is the equivalent of taking millions of cars off the streets, millions of cars' worth of emissions, and it has been working for five years. The NDP in Saskatchewan actually started this project. Are New Democrats against their provincial cousins and are they actually carbon capture deniers?
189 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Lori Idlout
  • Apr/27/22 4:34:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I have been quite interested in the Conservatives' approach to addressing climate change, to addressing indigenous issues, to addressing what is going on in Europe. They have taken such a different approach to how we as Canadians try to support each other. In my focus, when I decided to talk about housing, I needed to do so because indigenous housing is such a major issue. With most of our communities still operating on diesel, with diesel-operated energy, we need to find ways to make sure that renewable energy is the source of the transition that we move toward. Whatever positions the Conservatives have made, I have not been able to agree with them because of the foundation that they have been trying to use to misinform and disinform a lot of Canadians.
135 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Apr/27/22 4:35:33 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member for Nunavut. I think she understands the concerns of Inuit communities better than anyone in the House. I also think she is best suited to stand up for these communities here in this House and to explain what is happening in the north. Would she have preferred that the agreement between the NDP and the Liberals focus on a concrete plan to help Canada's Inuit communities rather than a dental plan?
84 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Lori Idlout
  • Apr/27/22 4:36:13 p.m.
  • Watch
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. That is a very simple answer for me, and that is yes. I would have preferred more collaboration to make sure that we are doing better for our first nations, Métis and Inuit, and I will continue to make sure that we do.
47 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)
  • Apr/27/22 4:36:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Justice; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Canada Post; the hon. member for Bow River, Small Business.
55 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)
  • Apr/27/22 4:37:07 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise today and address the budget, which I will call “the good, the bad and the ugly”. I am expecting Clint Eastwood to walk through the doors and the music to play. I will say this, just to address the speech. There is a section of this budget that I agree with. The good part is that the government is promising to give Ukraine $500 million and to provide weapons that are so desperately needed right now in the war against Russia. We need to make sure we send whatever lethal weapons Ukraine has been asking for. I am glad to see the government has made this announcement and will be out there on the market buying up as many weapons as possible. I know, for example, that there are lethal weapons being built in Winnipeg by PGW Defence Technologies, which builds sniper rifles. It has already done business on its own directly with the Ukrainian government in the past, and has also sent sniper rifles over very recently. I believe those high-quality sniper rifles being made in Winnipeg would be very valuable to the Ukrainian armed forces, and buying more of those weapons with this $500 million would be welcome news. I have been advocating this for quite some time, going back to early March, right after the invasion started. There is an inventory of Canadian military equipment that is sitting around and that is about to be retired and turned into museum monuments at war memorials and legion halls across this country, but we do have light armoured vehicles, such as the Coyotes and the Bisons. There are 32 armoured ambulances in the Bison configuration that can easily be used and shipped over to Ukraine. The reason we can use these vehicles to provide armoured personnel carrier protection to Ukraine is that the replacement LAVs, the new super Bisons that are being built in London at GDLS, are almost complete. The parking lot is full of new LAVs. They just need to be accredited by the Canadian Armed Forces. Taking those Bisons, Coyotes and our M113 tracked LAVs and sending them to Ukraine would provide much-needed protection, especially for the civilian domestic defence force that has been stood up with recruits from across Ukraine as they battle against the Russian aggressors. I have also been working with people here in Canada who want to buy Role II mobile field hospitals, which Ukraine has requested. Unfortunately, the government here has yet to provide those hospitals. We have extra Role II hospitals that are sitting in containers. They were purchased for the pandemic and were never used, so we could be moving them over. There are some mobile field hospitals that are available for sale in the Netherlands. Again, they are ready to go. The Government of Canada could buy those off the shelf and move them over there in under a week. I hope it will consider that and get it done, because Ukraine desperately needs them and has asked for them as part of the shopping list it has given to NATO countries around the world. Finally, there is the issue of the Harpoon missiles. We had defence and industry experts in Canada who came forward and said that we have over 200 unused Harpoon missiles sitting in inventory. There are launchers sitting on one of the ships that are under refurbishment right now. We could send over a whole cache of truck radar systems, all built here in Canada, with our excess Harpoon missiles that are sitting in inventory, to help protect Odessa from the onslaught that is taking place from the Black Sea. The more we can eliminate the Russian navy's ability to bring its forces to the coastline, the better off Ukraine will be, and the more protected. I welcome the $500 million. I encourage the government to do more and make sure we are repurposing some of our existing assets. We do not have to actually go there and put cash on the table, just send those and donate them to Ukraine, as well as the $500 million that is approved in this budget. Unfortunately, that is the only good thing in this budget, and I am not going to be able to support this budget, because of the bad and the ugly that are still in there. The bad is that the current government continues to print money like it is going out of style. The Liberals have increased the deficit again this year by another $52.4 billion, which has taken our national debt to $1.2 trillion, and all of that has not been entirely tied to, as they would like to say, pandemic spending to support the economy. We know there have been many situations where this budget is about unnecessary spending. It has put increased money into circulation, devalued the Canadian dollar and driven up interest rates and inflationary pressures on our economy. Canadians are now worse off because of the reckless spending by the Liberal-NDP coalition. They know that they have to deal with higher food prices and higher fuel prices, and that continues to increase the cost of living. In Manitoba alone, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's own numbers, Manitobans are now $2,000 poorer just because of inflation created by the government. I know they will try to argue that there are supply chain issues. They will try to argue that this is an international phenomenon, but, at the same time, we are talking about 6.7% inflation rate. That is higher than in so many other countries in the G7 and the G20, and it is because of excess government spending and putting too much cheap Canadian money into circulation, which has taken inflation out of control. The other bad part of this budget is that there is no help there for farmers. We are seeing higher input costs because of inflationary pressures. We are seeing higher input costs on farmers because of the carbon tax, which affects everything from diesel fuel to fertilizer prices. We are seeing that the Liberals continue to push farmers farther and farther down into the deep red hole on their balance sheet because they do not care about protecting our farm families. They may, as a government, expect that they will be able to import cheap food from elsewhere, but why do we want to make our farmers less competitive on the international market? Why would we not let our beef, pork, grain and oilseed producers flourish and be competitive on the world market? Instead, we are increasing their input costs to such a level that they will never be able to compete on that global scale. We expect government to actually care about our farmers, our farm families and our rural communities and give them relief from things like the carbon tax, give them relief from rising excise taxes on fuel, give them relief from the increasing costs of fertilizer. We need to know if the government will ever commit to helping out our farmers. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, our farmers last year dealt with a very devastating drought, the fourth year of dry conditions, and again, the help from the federal government was next to nil. We know that there is no help in the budget for farmers who dealt with that drought, whether it was trying to buy feed for their livestock or having major shortfalls in crop production. The ugly part of this budget is the way the government continues to treat our Canadian Armed Forces. Our members in uniform deserve to be given the best equipment and the best support, and have a warrior culture that is out there actively recruiting and rebuilding our Canadian Armed Forces. We are 10,000 members short as it stands today, and the government seems not to care about making sure that we have a critical mass of soldiers, sailors and aircrew across the country to serve here at home and to be able to stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves around the world, including what we are seeing happening in Europe. Although the Liberals talk about increasing spending and getting it up to about 1.5% of GDP, it is still far short of what NATO members expect of us. Our NATO partners are asking us to spend 2% of GDP, and it is not happening in this budget. On top of that, the government continues to fall short in spending and buying new equipment. Procurement has been well short of satisfactory. We know that in this budget there is a $15-billion gap between what the government is promising to do and what is actually in the Department of National Defence departmental plans for the next year. We know they already have $12 billion lapsed over time that should have been used to buy new ships, new planes and other equipment for our Canadian Armed Forces members. It just comes back to the fact that the Liberal-NDP coalition has not made the proper investments in national defence, at a time when the world is getting more and more scary. We are witnessing what is happening in Europe with the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and we are always concerned with other nefarious actors on the world stage who are watching and seeing what Canada does, as well as our allies. We need to do more, not less.
1597 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)
  • Apr/27/22 4:47:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, the irony here is that the member who just spoke was the parliamentary secretary for defence. We have to remember that, under Stephen Harper, the military expenditure was, at one point, less than 1% of the GDP. I am glad the member recognizes the value of the contributions toward the war effort in Ukraine, $500 million, but what he does not say is that there is an $8-billion increase for defence. Would the member not agree that for the first time since Stephen Harper, we have seen a real, tangible investment in the Canadian Forces today, because it was lacking during the Stephen Harper era, the time in which the member was a parliamentary secretary for defence?
120 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. James Bezan
  • Apr/27/22 4:48:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Winnipeg North that under Stephen Harper, when we were at war in Afghanistan, there was defence spending. This is before the Liberals cooked the books on how we calculate the amount of money that is allocated to national defence by adding things like the Coast Guard, veterans' pensions and other things that are spent under foreign affairs, not under defence. If we had added those numbers in, we would have been well over 1.5% when we were at war in Afghanistan. When we pulled out of Afghanistan, defence spending went down because we balanced the books. The government here continues to spend recklessly. This means that the debts and deficits of today are going to be the taxes of tomorrow on our kids and grandkids, and we know the Liberals still have not made the investments, because the money they promise does not get spent.
156 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)
  • Apr/27/22 4:48:57 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech. I found it very interesting and well structured. In his critique of the budget, there is one thing he did not talk about that I would have liked to hear. It may be something that does not concern him, but maybe it does. He can let me know. In the budget that was tabled, we see the government, or the NDP‑Liberal coalition, intruding significantly on areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, including health. For example, the budget talks about creating federal pharmacare or dental care programs, when that is strictly the responsibility of Quebec and the other provinces. Regarding health transfers, which every province is calling for, here is the answer we get: “Any conversation between the federal government and the provinces and territories will focus on delivering better health care outcomes for Canadians”. How does my colleague interpret the message that the government is sending, and does he agree with these intrusions?
166 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. James Bezan
  • Apr/27/22 4:50:06 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from the Bloc for his intervention, because he is dead right. The one thing the provinces asked the NDP-Liberal coalition government to do was increase health care transfers. About $28 billion was asked for and they got nothing. Instead, they got $5.3 billion for an imaginary dental plan, and that is nothing the provinces have asked for. Again, the federal government, now with the support of the NDP, continues to ignore the interests of our provinces in delivering health care to all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and continues to venture into that type of jurisdiction. The housing program is another example of this. The federal government is stepping into provincial jurisdiction to create housing stock. We all know the money it is offering is not going to create half the housing stock that is required. It also penalizes people who are trying to increase housing stock through property developments, condo developments and flipping houses, which are all now being taxed even more by the Liberal-NDP coalition. That is disgusting.
183 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)
  • Apr/27/22 4:51:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech that my hon. Conservative colleague made. Only a couple of days before the budget was introduced, the House passed a motion suggesting that the Liberals support meeting the 2% NATO target. However, when I read this budget, it fell woefully short of that, promising only a bit of money incrementally spent over time. The Liberals seem to have claimed victory on this issue, but that simply does not line up with the facts. I wonder if my colleague could expand on how far short this budget falls compared with even what the Liberals had promised a few days before the budget was introduced.
109 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. James Bezan
  • Apr/27/22 4:52:01 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, it is a perfect illustration of how the Liberals will say one thing but do something completely different, and it continues to undermine the economic prosperity of individual Canadians across this country. Instead of offering things as simple as tax relief, all we get is more ridiculous spending that is unnecessary, and it is ultimately undermining the government's ability to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
72 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)
  • Apr/27/22 4:52:38 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, almost three weeks ago now, I watched Canada's Minister of Finance deliver her budget speech in this place, and I listened to someone who represents the tone of the government and the doublespeak it continues to deliver to Canadians. However, let me begin with a compliment. One of my Liberal colleagues in the House asked me just prior to the budget what should be in the budget for it to be palatable. My response was that if the budget came in below a $50-billion deficit, I would be surprised. I confess that I did expect a much larger deficit, given the government's and the Minister of Finance's predisposition to spend other people's money with no regard for the negative consequences and no foresight for what this country will need in the future. The minister's budget did not quite get over the bar. It was close, but let us accept that my expectations were very low, given what I have seen from the profligate government. The future is always uncertain. If there is one thing the past few years have shown us, it is that the world's challenges and Canada's challenges will continue to increase. The events that challenge governments are not slowing down, as the eight billion people who inhabit this world are becoming more divided economically, politically and socially. Those events are, in fact, increasing. Natural disasters, pandemics, wars, safety and an emerging world food crisis are challenges that have not tested a Canadian government for some time. Much like the financial meltdown of 2008, from which Canada emerged relatively unscathed thanks to good government both before the event and during the event and a doggedness to get back to balance in this country, we need to focus on the state of the country that we are leaving to those who come after us. We do not prepare for events when we are in the middle of events. We prepare ahead of time to abate the risk that events beyond our control will happen. That is the practice of risk management, and it seems lost at all levels of the government. The rot, as I see it, has taken hold through many levels, but it comes from the top. To say that this is a government large on words and short on outcomes would be an understatement. I could say much of what is broken, but I will keep my remarks today focused on the budget and Canada's failing finances under the government. I appreciate that all politicians bring their own background to this job when they are elected. I appreciate, as well, that the Minister of Finance is learning much on this job. However, I listened to her budget address, and I do need to point out the absolute doublespeak that filled her short speech to the House. Doublespeak is the iteration of two scenarios, both of which cannot exist together, like the so-called “having cake and eating it too”. In Quebec, the saying is “le beurre et l'argent du beurre”. She stated that Canada is doing very well economically and, without missing a beat, justified why Canadians need to go a further $52 billion into debt as a nation. There was a time when public officials showed responsibility and restraint when they bragged about the strength of a country's economy. Those strong economic times were opportunities to pay back debts incurred in difficult times and to prepare the country, financially and socially, for future events, which always arrive without warning. Canada's government seems to have decided that we need to fund our military after seeing the threat of a hostile Russian autocrat invade a peaceful democratic country, yet these threats have been on our horizon for years. Funding Canada's proud military seems to be a revelation to the government. However, the funds are a drop in the bucket of what is required and their delivery is somewhat speculative and down the road. Two years ago, the world was hit with a generational pandemic and Canada was ill prepared in so many basic ways. The foresight to have policies that allowed pharmaceutical firms to flourish here was long gone. Monumental deficit spending has become like a sugar high for the government, and the hangover is going to be massive. The results are already becoming evident: escalating inflation, asset bubbles and an inability to properly fund the basic social services that Canadians thought they had invested in, like health care and recently like day care. Now there is a scheme to buy support by funding dental care. Programs are great until we have to pay for them. The government members seem to think that problems like that belong to tomorrow's taxpayers, not today's voters. Canada has another stimulus budget when the government says the economy needs no stimulus. It is a strange contradiction in thinking, yet someone told me that it is not really untrue if we really believe it. I hear the government members say repeatedly in the House that they will take no lessons. That is obvious, but it has to change. Here is a basic lesson, and I do not mean to sound trite: Economic stimulus causes inflation. Too much printed money pursuing the same pool of goods means the price of those goods will increase. Exhibit one in Canada is housing. My colleagues know I will not dumb this down by pretending that Canada's housing problems are the result of one factor: inflation. How could it be? Inflation has taken root throughout the economy. The latest CPI numbers show us at an annual increase of 6.7%, a 40-year high, and house prices are increasing at three times that rate. Let me address some further doublespeak in the speech from the Minister of Finance: “Inflation, a global phenomenon, is making things more expensive in Canada too.” This is an excuse. The minister's policies caused this outcome in Canada. She can try to blame it on the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but he is already trying to save his reputation in this regard. He is saying governments need to spend less as a first course in taming inflation, and the minister still wants to spend more. This is supposed to be responsible government, and if it really is the minister's opinion that the fault lies with the Bank of Canada, then I will remind her that the governor reports directly to the minister. This is about accountability. The governor knows it and so should the minister. I will give another quote: “we will review and reduce government spending because that is the responsible thing to do.” Okay. Prove it. Words are not matching actions. Let me address the so-called fiscal anchor the minister likes to tout. Debt-to-GDP is a comparative metric but not one that speaks to fiscal accountability for governments. The minister seems to pretend that there is only one government debt in Canada, ignoring 10 provinces and three territories, or perhaps she believes that GDP can be counted twice. When I hear the minister refer to our debt-to-GDP ratio as if the provincial debts should not be included, I know she is either uninformed or misinforming Canadians. It is a ruse. Canadians are much poorer as a country after seven years of the government. Our country's combined capital stock showed a decrease last year. Depreciation of our country's assets exceeded the amount invested in new capital here. These are metrics that matter, and the government has driven investment out of this country. I will give another quote: “Canada has a proud tradition of fiscal responsibility. It is my duty to maintain it and I will”. Does the minister actually believe her own words? Let us acknowledge that the Prime Minister's governments this country has endured have been anything but fiscally responsible, and the saga continues with this year's projected $52.4-billion deficit in an economy supposedly close to full employment. Let me address some of the nonsensical and counterproductive spending in this budget. There is a new Canada growth fund, in addition to the boondoggle that is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It will attract the billions of dollars in private capital that we need to transform our economy at speed and scale. It will invest using a broad suite of financial instruments, including all forms of debt, equity, guarantees and specialized contracts. There is lots of debt available for investing in projects in Canada; there is lots of equity. If the government is guaranteeing returns or specializing contracts, this speaks to its basic misunderstanding of financial markets' search for clarity and transparency. It also speaks to the Liberals' predisposition to increase the risk being borne by taxpayers on projects that do not make sense. I am going to close on a positive note that I heard in the speech of the Minister of Finance. She wants to “tackle the Achilles heel of the Canadian economy: productivity and innovation”, and said, “we are falling behind when it comes to economic productivity.” It is good the minister has an eye on the mess the government has made of Canada's economy. We are falling behind, and we need to address it. This budget falls far short on this important issue, so far short that it does not even address the reason we have fallen. That is evident in the approach of the government over the past seven years. The first step the Minister of Finance could take would be to acknowledge that she has helped create this problem and start to undo some of the significant economic damage her government has visited upon Canadians over the past seven years. To solve a problem, we must first admit we have one and, indeed, admit we have caused it by our own actions.
1673 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)
  • Apr/27/22 5:02:44 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say earlier that there has been no success from the government: The government has been unable to demonstrate any degree of success as it relates to our economic activity and outputs. Meanwhile, we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. We are continually touted to be among the top countries, in terms of our credit rating. We have the lowest unemployment rate. We have recovered more than 100% of the jobs lost during the pandemic. I am wondering this. Is the member using a different set of data to determine that, other than his speculation on what he anticipates is going to be happening in the future?
122 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Greg McLean
  • Apr/27/22 5:03:36 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, we must be dealing with two different sets of data. I appreciate that the member is writing his own press release here. In fact, the debt-to-GDP ratio in this country is much different from how the government explains it, because we do not include the provincial debt. I explained that in my speech. I hope the member was listening just a little, but he does not actually listen. Another thing is regarding $52.4 billion in deficits. We used to say that if $100,000 was put in the deficit, it would buy one job. How many jobs does $52.4 billion of stimulus in the economy buy? It is 500,000 jobs. Congratulations: there is the magic number. I think that might address my colleague's question very adequately.
134 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)
  • Apr/27/22 5:04:27 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my hon. colleague. Also, I would like to thank him for his speech. We all know that the Liberals are great at talking the talk, but not so great at walking the walk. Just think the war in Ukraine. It has been 63 days, and they have yet to charter a single plane, even though they had no trouble getting one for the Aga Khan trip. Look at what they are doing with international aid. There is not much about it in the budget, yet the Liberals see themselves as world leaders championing human rights and international aid. In the budget, however, the current amount earmarked for international aid represents 0.27% of the GDP, whereas even under Stephen Harper, it was 0.33%. The average for OECD countries is 0.42%, and the UN target is 0.7%. I would like my colleague to talk a bit about the difference between the current government's actions and its image.
169 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Greg McLean
  • Apr/27/22 5:05:31 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I agree with him. He is right in saying that we are not spending much money on international financial aid. Now there is a war on in Ukraine, and I think the government has said that it will give $500 million. That is a small share of the financial aid for the rest of the world.
69 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)
  • Apr/27/22 5:06:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member actually raised the issue of housing. As we know, Canada is faced with a housing crisis from coast to coast to coast. In the budget, there are some measures related to it. One of the pieces that I am happy to see is the change with the RCFI initiative: Instead of ensuring that the rent is going to be above-market, which is what it was with the Liberal government's approach, in our agreement we were able to negotiate to get the government to ensure that the rent is below-market. With that being said, one key issue to address the housing crisis is the financialization of housing. Would the member support the NDP's call for the government to put a moratorium on REITs? That would make a difference in the cost of housing.
143 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • menumenu
  • notificationsnotifications
  • home
  • mailmail
  • searchsearch