SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 242 - Oct/30/23

Mr. Churence Rogers (Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.)

Oct/30/23 3:11:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, homelessness is on the rise across the country. Sadly, this is a reality facing too many veterans, who have bravely served our country. Everyone deserves to have a safe and affordable home. It is vitally important that we do everything in our power to help our homeless veterans. Can the Minister of Veterans Affairs tell us what action the government is taking on this crucial issue?

68 words

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence, Lib.)

Oct/30/23 3:11:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the health, safety and well-being of our veterans is my top priority. We take the situation very seriously. That is why our government is investing in a new program to combat homelessness when it comes to veterans. This program will provide rent supplements and support services, as well as important research to really determine the reasons why veterans are homeless. Canada's veterans have been there for our country. We have to be there for them and we will.

82 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Oct/30/23 3:12:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as grocery prices continue to be sky high, 1,500 students, faculty, staff and alumni are relying on the campus food bank every week at the University of Alberta. The demand has quadrupled over the past two years. The Liberals are nicely asking CEOs to lower prices, and that obviously is not working. The Conservatives are fine with those CEOs getting richer while students and workers are forced to turn to food banks. Why will the Liberals not tackle corporate greed so that students and workers can afford to eat, or does the government only believe that Canadians who vote for them deserve to eat?

107 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Oct/30/23 3:13:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that at a time when Canadians are struggling with affordability, food prices are too high. That is what we have heard right across this country. That is why our government called the five largest grocery chain CEOs to Ottawa and worked with them to create action plans, which they are implementing to lower and stabilize food prices for Canadians. This is important work, we are tracking their progress and we will have more to report soon.

80 words

Mr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, Ind.)

Oct/30/23 3:13:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, every time we ask questions about the Governor General's indecent expenditures, government members act outraged and offer a half-hearted denunciation, but nothing is ever done to change the culture within that institution. The Governor General spends thousands of dollars in meals, alcohol, luxury hotels, travel and cleaning services. Let us consider the fact that, over the course of a single flight, she spent close to $1,000 in lime and lemon slices. I cannot make this stuff up. I will ask the question again: Does the government intend to cut the Governor General's $33-million budget? Obviously, she does not seem to be able to manage taxpayer dollars responsibly.

114 words

Hon. Pascale St-Onge (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Oct/30/23 3:14:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Governor General does important work on behalf of Canada, here at home and around the world. Obviously, we expect all public office holders to spend every dollar respectfully, carefully and conscientiously with due regard for all Canadians.

40 words

The Speaker

Oct/30/23 3:14:54 p.m.
Watch

This concludes question period. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is rising on a point of order.

19 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Oct/30/23 3:15:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, given the government's massive and embarrassing about-face last week, I seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That, in order to support all Canadians struggling with the cost of living, particularly with winter fast— Some hon. members: No.

43 words

The Speaker

Oct/30/23 3:15:23 p.m.
Watch

I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but unfortunately I am hearing noes already. If members are seeking unanimous consent, I ask that they negotiate to get unanimous consent so we can continue to use the time of the House efficiently.

41 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Oct/30/23 3:16:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House (a) take note that 872,000 Quebecers used food aid in 2023 and that 2,000,000 Canadians, including 640,000 children, also used a food bank in March 2023 alone; (b) take note that 71% of organizations working for food security in Quebec ran out of food in 2023; and (c) call on the government to do more to fight food insecurity, while respecting the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces.

101 words

The Speaker

Oct/30/23 3:16:54 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

36 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Oct/30/23 3:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the rule book governing the procedures of the House is very clear in Chapter 11: ...it has always been a fundamental rule of questioning Ministers that the subject matter of the question must fall within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibility of one of its Ministers. This is the only basis upon which Ministers can be expected to answer questions. Earlier in question period, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke asked a question regarding the conduct of the member for Timmins—James Bay, who is an NDP member and not a member of the government. There are a couple of things that I think bear hearing out on this point. The first is that as per the rule that I just cited— An hon. member: Debate. Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is not debate. This is an issue that pertains to the rules around question period. I note that the Conservatives, not that long ago, attacked the Speaker to say that the sanctity of question period is supreme. Presumably, then, they would also be concerned with treating the rules of question period with the respect that something with that level of sanctity deserves. In fact, it was not that long ago that we had a similar question directed to the government about a position of the NDP, and you rightly ruled that nobody was to answer that question because it was not a question about a government policy. That is the issue that has to do with the rule. I think this is also the product of a long-standing phrase that has been allowed in this place that is misleading. It is misleading for anyone who understands the Westminster parliamentary democratic system. A confidence and supply agreement, or another party sometimes voting with the government, does not make a party part of a government. It is not a coalition. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the casual abuse of that misleading phrase in this place is now leading to members disregarding some of our important rules about question period and leading to disorder in the House. I would beseech you to consider the use of that phrase in this House, which is false, and to perhaps come back with a decision on that.

386 words

The Speaker

Oct/30/23 3:19:55 p.m.
Watch

I believe I will be able to make a ruling on that immediately, but I understand that there are two other members who seek the attention of the Chair and of this House. The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

41 words

Regina

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Oct/30/23 3:20:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say at the outset that I completely understand how devastatingly embarrassing it is for the member to be lumped in with the scandals and corruption of the Liberal government. However, that is not our problem, because it was his caucus that decided to enter into a formal agreement with the government. There are many things we could call that. One of them is a coalition. If he does not like the fact that it is a big “c” coalition, we can say that we are using the small “c” coalition term for that, but the fact of the matter is that NDP members entered into this decision. They pledged to their Liberal partners that they would prop up the government no matter what and they have been doing it. While he is hearing complaints from his constituents, I would suggest that rather than getting up in the House of Commons and raising spurious points of order, he talk to his leader and pull out of this costly coalition.

179 words

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

Oct/30/23 3:21:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. While the preceding intervention had absolutely nothing to do with the point of order, mine will. I would also draw to your attention. Mr. Speaker, that during question period there was also a question that was asked of the member for Yukon who is not a member of cabinet. I support the intervention by my NDP colleague that questions are supposed to be of the government regarding government business. We are starting to see a trend away from that. I really hope you can intervene. I seek clarification on this.

100 words

The Speaker

Oct/30/23 3:21:50 p.m.
Watch

I thank all members for their contributions to this point of order. I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for raising an important point and the appropriate point of order. I am going to also offer a bit of a distinction with respect to the issue raised by the member for Kingston and the Islands. To respond to the member for Elmwood—Transcona, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke raised a question that made reference to a third party. This often happens in questions, or even in answers, from hon. members. It is something I would consider fair game. In the end, when the member actually got to the point of her intervention during Oral Questions, the question she did ask was relevant to the affairs of the government. That is the reason why I let the question stand. With regard to the issue that the member for Kingston and the Islands has raised, again a fair point that a question was asked of a member who is not a member of the government, strictly speaking, nor a parliamentary secretary, a minister did stand, and I cannot remember which minister it was, in his or her place to answer that question. Therefore, if the minister chooses to respond to the question, I will let that happen. As members know, in a previous ruling from this Speaker, a question was once asked that was not on government business and no one stood to answer it. I therefore moved on to the next question. Let us continue this. This gives me a great opportunity to remind all members on all sides of the House that perhaps the most effective questions and answers are the ones that are asked directly and are responded to directly. I thank all members for their attention.

306 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Oct/30/23 3:24:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, entitled “Support for Clean Technologies in Canada to Reduce Domestic and International Greenhouse Gas Emissions”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

59 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Oct/30/23 3:24:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition will be tabling a dissenting opinion in response to this report, recognizing, of course, that climate change is real, that we must deal with it and that human beings contribute to it, so we must take responsibility for it and take concrete action. As the member for Carleton, the Conservative leader and leader of the official opposition, said during a speech in Quebec City last September to 2,500 Conservative supporters from across the country, we will address the issue of climate change through effective, pragmatic measures that focus on cutting-edge technology and green energy. We will also give the green light to green energy and proudly maximize Canada's full potential in terms of knowledge, natural resources and energy.

126 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC)

Oct/30/23 3:26:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on June 12, be concurred in. We are talking about the national housing strategy report, which was done by our human resources committee and delivered in June 2023. We should know that the national housing strategy is a program the Prime Minister announced with great fanfare in 2017, as I have said in the House before. He and a number of his colleagues stood in front of a big building under construction and talked about how this strategy, which was going to be about $40 billion, would be a life-changing, transformational strategy. The federal government was back in the housing business, and it was going to be a really big deal. It was a 10-year plan. It is still a 10-year plan. The numbers were ballooned to $82 billion, and at the time of the study, it was going to change the world, which was all well and good. We know the Prime Minister is particularly good at these photo ops and announcements with quite a rhetorical flourish. We received the study in June 2023. Just before that, we had spoken with the former minister of housing. We asked the minister of housing, a couple of different times, if he would describe the housing situation in Canada as a crisis. He could not use that word. What we heard from the minister at the time was that housing was a challenge, and there were some problems and difficulties, but he could not use the word “crisis”. I would also like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kelowna—Lake Country. Fast forward to a few weeks ago, there is a new Minister of Housing, and there is a renewed sense that we need to do something about the housing situation in Canada. The new minister, when asked if Canada was in a housing crisis, a year after the previous minister, acknowledged that, Canada is in a housing crisis. He used the word himself. When I asked him at the time if, in 2015, eight years ago, and 2017, when the Prime Minister announced this life-changing, transformational national housing strategy, Canada was in a housing crisis. He would not use the word “crisis” when it came to that. He said we had some challenges. There were some difficulties, but he would not describe it as a crisis at the time the Liberals launched this national housing strategy, this $82-billion, 10-year program. We heard from the CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is the agency responsible for delivering the national housing strategy and all the programs therein. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is also responsible for insuring a lot of mortgages in this country, millions of mortgages. It does a lot of research on the housing situation in Canada. We have heard a lot from it about the fact that we are in a crisis and that Canada needs to build, in total, about 5.8 million homes by 2030 to restore some semblance of affordability in the housing market. It is important to acknowledge at this point that the most homes that Canada has ever built in a single year was in 1976 when building a home was a little easier. Homes were not nearly as complex, but 270,000 units were built that year. The average today is about 240,000. We would need to ramp up the building of homes to about 745,000 units per year to meet that affordability target that the CMHC itself says we need to do. What was this national housing strategy supposed to do? We know, from the reports and from listening to the CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that this national housing strategy was to remove 530,000 Canadian families from core housing need, reduce chronic homelessness by 50%, protect 385,000 community housing units already in existence, provide 300,000 households with affordability supports, repair 300,000 existing housing units that needed repair and create 100,000 new housing units. With the $82 billion, we are just over halfway through the program, which begs the questions of where we are at and what it has accomplished. Even the CMHC would acknowledge that we have a long way to go, and it would acknowledge that in part because its own research has told us that the situation is worse than ever. At the time that the Prime Minister announced this strategy, we had some housing challenges. Today, it is a crisis. We now know that, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, rents have doubled. We also know that, after eight years of the Prime Minister, house prices have doubled and mortgages have doubled. Frankly, despite the grand proclamations of the Prime Minister and the constant patting of themselves on the back for all the great work they are doing with this national housing strategy of $82 billion, it seems as though the Liberals are starting to catch on that just saying they are going to do good things with photo ops and announcements is not really solving the problem. As it turns out, now the Liberals are announcing new things and new ideas, including things like removing the GST from purpose-built rentals. They are finally catching on, but I worry it might be too little, too late because, in the midst of all of this, in the midst of a housing crisis getting worse and worse, the government has been spending money like it is going out of style. It borrows excessively. The Liberals stand behind this whole business that they were there for Canadians during COVID, but we know that a couple of hundred billion of that borrowing had nothing to do with COVID supports, and that is having an impact on inflation. In fact, Tiff Macklem, the governor of the Bank of Canada, has said that inflation in shelter prices is running above six per cent. Part of this, he says, is due to higher mortgage interest costs following increases in interest rates. However, it also reflects higher rents and other housing costs, and these pressures are more related to a structural shortage of housing supply. He also said it is going to be easier to get inflation down and make housing cheaper if monetary and fiscal policy are rowing in the same direction. Therefore, we know that announcing with great fanfare an $82-billion 10-year comprehensive plan to solve the housing challenge of the time, fast forward to today, has turned into an absolute crisis in the housing market and, frankly, a crisis that is, in part, created by the inflationary pressures that the government, and its excessive spending, is putting on the market. Now we have this report that says that, yes, it is bad. We have work to do. That is effectively the message. Even Ms. Bowers acknowledged that it is going to be very challenging to meet the targets. We know why. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has told us that the inflationary spending of the government is just making it harder. Every nickel it spends is making it harder. The members of the government do not seem to understand that we need to get out of the way and not only incentivize the private sector, but also bring down the inflationary deficit spending and axe the carbon tax, which is making everything more expensive. We need to reduce the taxation burden. We need to reduce the taxation of deficit borrowing on the backs of Canadians so that they can afford to eat, heat their homes and maybe even have a home one day. Nine out of 10 young people in this country have given up on the dream of ever owning home, and the responsibility for that falls squarely at the government, its inflationary spending and its reckless way of borrowing billions of dollars. The government says it is going to borrow money so Canadians do not have to, but its members do not realize that the money being borrowed by the government is being borrowed on behalf of all Canadians. It falls to all of us to pay it back. Therefore, we have a situation today where a government will borrow billions of dollars to give Canadians a few hundred dollars to help them pay for things that, because of the government's borrowing, now cost thousands more dollars. We have a situation where our government is now so desperate that it is playing politics, so it is axing the carbon tax in some parts of the country where the Liberals' poll numbers are really bad, but not in the rest of the country, as we found out, because people there did not vote Liberal. That is the problem. People have to vote Liberal if they want to get treated better by the government and if they want the government to relieve them of the pressures of its inflationary spending. The national housing strategy can be described as a failure. The Conservatives have written a dissenting report on this, and we need to recognize that the government is simply not getting the job done. Even though its members have great talking points and photo ops, they are making life more expensive every day for Canadians. Canadians know that, despite their promises, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

1605 words

All Topics

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Oct/30/23 3:36:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the constructive criticism that the member opposite has levelled at the national housing strategy. However, I think it is important to highlight the fact that we actually have a strategy and that, for almost 30 years, municipalities asked consecutive federal governments for housing assistance. They did it individually as municipalities, and they did it collectively, through organizations such as FCM. For 30 years, the federal government, including government formed by the member opposite's party, decided not to make those investments. Therefore, the national housing strategy represents an answer and a response to those stakeholders who have asked for assistance. My question to the member is this: Why did it take so long for the member opposite and his party to recognize that it is important to invest in municipalities and non-profit associations to help our most vulnerable population?

146 words