SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/29/22 12:09:42 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

7 words

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

Apr/29/22 12:09:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week a federal court judge called into question the current government's approach to removing open-net fish farms in the Discovery Islands. Liberal mismanagement has put B.C.'s vulnerable wild salmon at risk. It has also cast serious doubts on the government's ability to meet its commitment to remove open-net fish farms by 2025. When will the government deliver a real transition that supports first nations and workers, and finally remove fish farms from our waters?

83 words

Mr. Mike Kelloway (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.)

Apr/29/22 12:10:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the sustainable management of our oceans' ecosystems, including that of the wild Pacific salmon, is a priority for our government. The decision to phase out fish farms in the Discovery Islands was based on consultations with local first nations. We are aware of the court decision, and the department is carefully reviewing it ahead of determining next steps. We remain committed to transitioning away from open-net pen salmon farming in coastal B.C. waters.

77 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/29/22 12:10:44 p.m.
Watch

That brings us to the end of question period. On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

20 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Apr/29/22 12:10:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board's response regarding whistle-blowers from the CRA who, right now, are being harassed and forced out of their work, is that, as he says, they are going to continue with a review lasting five years. With the House's permission, I would like to table the 2017 OGGO report listing every item needed for whistle-blower protection in the country, and it can be done now.

83 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/29/22 12:11:28 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have consent? Some hon. members: No.

10 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Apr/29/22 12:11:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a second point of order concerning the parliamentary secretary for defence's answer. I would like to retable the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, which was done at the same time as the budget, where defence actually noted that they do not have that added $15 billion either.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/29/22 12:12:16 p.m.
Watch

Does the hon. member have consent? Some hon. members: No. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): If individuals want to have conversations across the way, I would ask them to please do so out in the lobby.

38 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Apr/29/22 12:12:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is not a new point of order, but I would like confirmation that the Standing Orders have not changed in regard to the use of props, the wearing of buttons and other proclamations of positions. I certainly have a number of buttons I would like to wear in the House. However, on this occasion, the hon. member for Bow River, who is a good guy and with whom I like spending time with, as far as I can see, is thwarting and flaunting the rules of this place in continuing to wear a button that says, “I heart oil and gas”. The reality of it is that, when people ignore the rules of this place, it invites further contempt for our rules. Standing Orders 16 and 18 are routinely violated, and those would absolutely eliminate heckling. Is it still the rule that people should not wear buttons into the House?

162 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/29/22 12:13:38 p.m.
Watch

Before I say anything, I see that the hon. member for Bow River would like to add to the point of order.

22 words

Bow
River

Mr. Martin Shields

Apr/29/22 12:13:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The member from B.C. is misleading the House, as that is not what this button says. It says, in symbols, “I love Canada”. That is all that is on it. If people in the House disregard their love for Canada, I have a problem with that.

59 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/29/22 12:14:18 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the hon. member clarifying that button, but I know that earlier it was a different button. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): No? That is my mistake, and I apologize. In order to ensure that we do not have any points of orders on the buttons, it would be best to not use any type of button that is not approved across party lines. Generally, if we have one for something like the Moose Hide Campaign, it is approved by everyone. I think that would prevent any points of order from being raised. However, he is not the only member who has worn a button, and I want to remind members that it is best not to wear buttons in the House.

130 words

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

Apr/29/22 12:15:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions in an electronic format.

30 words

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Apr/29/22 12:16:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled, “Full Participation of Taiwan in the World Health Assembly and the World Health Organization”. It is a very brief report in which the committee sets forth its support of the full participation of Taiwan in those two organizations. I would like to recognize the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for bringing this matter to the committee and all members of the committee for their immediate and unanimous adoption of the report.

101 words

Mrs. Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, Lib.)

Apr/29/22 12:17:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration entitled, “Supporting Uyghurs and Other Turkic Muslims to Find Safety in Canada”. The committee reports that: In light of the fact that Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in China face an ongoing genocide, and in light of the fact that those in third countries are at continuing risk of detention and deportation back to China, where they face serious risk of arbitrary detention, torture, and other atrocities, the committee calls on the government to: a) extend existing special immigration measures to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, including the expansion of biometrics collection capabilities in third countries and the issuance of Temporary Resident Permits and single journey travel documents to those without a passport; b) allow displaced Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in third countries, who face risk of detention and deportation back to China, to seek refuge in Canada; c) waive the UNHCR refugee determination; d) and the government provide a comprehensive response by letter to the committee within 30 days.

186 words

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

Apr/29/22 12:19:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present. It is e-petition 3763, and it has been signed by over 4,000 Canadians. It relates to the issue of animal testing in research. The petitioners point out that the European Parliament has banned using animals in testing. It points out that animal testing does not accurately anticipate the way in which various products or pharmaceuticals will affect humans, and if the European Parliament has taken this step, the petitioners ask why Canada cannot follow suit and end the use of animals in testing. I submit this petition on their behalf.

100 words

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Apr/29/22 12:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition from Prince Edward Islanders who are very concerned about the climate emergency. They are calling on the Government of Canada to enact just transition legislation that reduces emissions by at least 60% below 2005 levels, creates good green jobs, protects and strengthens human rights and workers' rights and respects indigenous rights, emphasizes the support for historically marginalized communities, and expands the social safety net.

76 words

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

Apr/29/22 12:20:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

26 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Apr/29/22 12:21:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-8 at report stage. Bill C-8 has been a bit of a baby on our side over here. I actually helped shepherd this through when it was first introduced in the House, and we looked at it at finance committee for some time. We had a number of proposals brought forward at committee to try to make it a better bill. We are still trying to make it a better bill, but one of the issues we have been focusing on, and I think the government has finally started to try and focus on, although I do not really think the Liberals know what they are doing, is housing. I say that with some concern for our country going forward because I do not think the government has its eye on the ball with housing. I think it has missed the mark for seven long years. If we look at housing in Canada seven years ago and at housing now, the demographics have changed. We are more and more of an investing country for real estate, as opposed to a living country for real estate. That is because we have lost everything else to invest in in this country. If a Canadian wants to put their money safely into an investment that would return l5% a year, their financial advisor would say there is one commodity under this broken government with which they would get 15% a year. The only thing happening in the Canadian economy of any extent right now is residential housing. Everything else has fallen to the wayside. As a matter of fact, combined investment in the Canadian economy has gone negative. That means depreciation of our assets in Canada. Our capital stock, such as farms, factories and buildings, is negative if it depreciates more than the money that has been invested in Canada over the past number of years. That is a problem because we need long-term sustainability. It is the first time in our history when we have experienced this. The government has to start paying attention to that because it has been ignoring too much as far as our economy goes. Part of the reason for that is the regulations that have stopped investment in this country and the regulations that have stymied the development of our best industries in Canada, with no clear thought about the outcome of what happens there. In the bill there is a 1% surtax for non-resident owners of passively held real estate. This is a trap. I am going to tell the government this right now. What Canadian people need to understand is that this is a way for the federal government to find a way to tax what should be within a municipal taxation mechanism, and that is a tax on property. Right now there is already a tax on property. Everybody here who owns a home knows that tax. We pay it once a year in June in my province. It is our municipal taxes. Those municipal taxes are based on the value of our property, and they have an escalation in some provinces. B.C. in particular has started escalating that based on non-resident owners, and in some cases it is as much as 6% higher in British Columbia. Regardless of that application of an extra 5%, plus 1%, plus 2%, or however it happens in Vancouver and different parts of the Lower Mainland, 7.7% of the housing stock in the Lower Mainland is still owned by foreign investors. Not that that is a bad thing, although it is in some cases, which I will go into later in my speech. I think Canada should be a country that does accept foreign investment. I wish that foreign investment coming into Canada was going into productive uses in our economy. Housing is a passive investment, and I do not think the government understands any of that. This is part of the problem we have. The Liberals are being schizophrenic. We now have a budget in front of the House of Commons, in addition to the measures taken in Bill C-8. We have a budget that says we are going to stop foreign buying for two years. We will put on the brakes while we figure this out. That is what the government is saying at this point. Interestingly, this was part of the Conservative platform in the election. I take pride in that because we had identified foreign interference in the Canadian housing market as the one issue that first and foremost we needed to adjust in order to get back to a level playing field, where Canadians could actually buy the houses and the condos they live in. That was identified by the Conservatives in the election, and I am glad that the Liberals have finally, after seven years, figured out how to move this lever forward. Think about that. In Bill C-8 we have a 1% surtax, and the government is saying that it will also stop this for two years. Liberals are only figuring this out now, and I am going to suggest that they are not getting good advice on this file. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is a Crown corporation of the government. I would say that in the last seven years, its non-partisanship has been diminished to the point where it is just an instrument of the Liberal Party of Canada. That is an absolute shame. I look at what is happening here and around the world, and I see this group of people who are continuing to put more money in their own pockets with huge bonuses, but with what outcome? In most parts of Canada, when we get a bonus it is based on the fact that we did our job very well. The bonuses being received by our public officials in this case are being received because they are ruining the Canadian housing economy for Canadians. How are they doing that? Well, they are coming up with all kinds of programs, none of which are working and all of which are throwing words against the wall and have no real outcome for Canadians. I am going to suggest that perhaps we need new leadership and perhaps we need a new minister. The minister disclosed earlier this week, and I am reporting what I heard on the news, that he has also recently invested in the Canadian housing market. It is good that he has a financial adviser who says that since there is nothing else to invest in in Canada, go into housing. However, I think that is part and parcel of the problem here, and maybe the people advising him to do that are at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I do not think he would have invested in housing if he saw a correction on the horizon. We need a slowdown in the escalation of housing prices in Canada. That is what the country requires in order to get back to a basis where new families and new Canadians can afford to buy a home and live here. Part of the problem we have in the Canadian housing market, of course, is foreign influence and money laundering. I am going to go through money laundering here with the House. An amount between $43 billion and $113 billion is laundered in Canada each year, and it contributes to domestic problems such as higher house prices and fentanyl. I have knocked on doors in Calgary Centre in two elections now, in 2019 and 2021. The number of homeless people, the number of people dying of fentanyl and the amount of drug addiction in my riding in downtown Calgary has grown exponentially. Part of that is linked to foreign money that is coming in, bad foreign money. There is good foreign money coming in to invest, but there is also laundered foreign money, the proceeds of crime, that is just looking for a home. That is what we need to combat here in Canada more than anything else, and it is the main issue on which the government has failed. I have always said that the number one thing we could do is address the money laundering laws in Canada to stop this from happening any further. Now, $43 billion to $113 billion is a big gap because it is an estimation, but a bunch of that is going into investments that are safe, like houses. I have called on the minister and called on the government to stop that trade, and the Minister of Finance says they will look at doing this in 2025. I am curious as to why. If they know there is a problem and know where the worst perpetrator of money laundering is in the G7, why are they going to wait another three years before they decide to look at it? I am going to suggest that there might be some link there. Is it a long-term exit, where they get a whole bunch of buyers coming in and laundering money in Canada who are associated with people they know? I am going to suggest that maybe there is no impetus on the other side of the House to actually reduce the price of houses for Canadians across Canada. This is a travesty. Take the first step first, and get toward a base of housing investment in Canada that makes sense. In the budget, the government came up with this crazy idea of building a whole bunch more houses in Canada. We have lots of houses in Canada. As a percentage of our economy, it is actually more than any other sector at this point in time. By throwing more money at the wall, we are going to further inflate the cost of houses because there are not enough trades out there to build them. There is also not enough money out there and lumber out there to do it. Let us think about all that is going to go up in this process. As I said, this is a crazy approach from a government that is only trying to find its feet. It does not have good advisers on housing and does not have good policy on housing. It needs to set itself back, say that this is a major problem in Canada, particularly for young Canadians and people buying their first home, and get back to a basis where we start making sense in this country again.

1772 words

All Topics

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

Apr/29/22 12:31:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Mr. Speaker, this is a bit much when we think about it. We have gone from the days of Stephen Harper, who completely ignored the housing industry as a whole, to a government that brought in the first national housing strategy, committing literally billions of dollars to low-income, non-profit housing and supporting the provinces and territories in providing units, repairs and so forth. In many ways, in the first-time homebuyer program we have recognized the value and importance of housing. At the end of the day, the federal government needs to play a leadership role and has been been playing a leadership role. There is a shortage of housing stock, so would my friend not agree that the best way to deal with the housing shortage, inasmuch as we play a leadership role, is for municipalities and, to a certain degree, provinces to also come on? It is an issue of supply. Does he have any recommendations on what he believes we can do to increase the supply of housing?

173 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 61