44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. I agree with her that we have to do more for seniors.
One way we could help seniors ensure that they enjoy their retirement is by cutting expenses, one of which is the carbon tax. Recently, the Fraser Institute released its latest investigative report, which proves what Conservatives have been saying since the beginning: The Prime Minister's “Net Zero 2050 Plan Will Impose at Least $45 Billion in Costs with Almost No Environmental Benefits”.
If we could reduce that cost, we could ensure that seniors have more money to support themselves. I just posted a bill from one of my seniors, who showed me that he pays more in taxes than the fuel that he receives. We need to cut expenses and leave more money in seniors' pockets.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have such a good time working with the member on committee.
What I have heard from the Conservative leader is that he plans to cut the CPP. That would place seniors in greater poverty. My question is in regard to a guaranteed livable basic income, particularly for women. We know a lot of women work their whole lives in unpaid care work, and they are now becoming seniors living in destitute poverty. We know GIS rates are not keeping up.
Would my hon. colleague support a guaranteed livable income for seniors?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed working with my hon. colleague on committee.
What we need to do is revisit the tax structure in this country. Right now, the tax structure is not fair. If we could reduce taxes and ensure that there is more money left in the pockets of seniors and every individual, we would not even be having this discussion. Seniors have worked their whole lives; the member is correct about that. We need to provide them with the essential necessities of life.
I look forward to making sure that, when we form government, seniors will not be left behind.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 5:08:58 p.m.
- Watch
I think it is important to all members for the Speaker to make a ruling and brief statement regarding questions raised earlier today concerning the interventions during presenting petitions.
Standing Order 36(7) is clear. It states, “On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.”
In addition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 1192, and I quote:
No debate is permitted during the presentation of petitions. Any comment on the merits of a petition—even a Member's personal agreement or disagreement with the petitioners—has been deemed to constitute a form of debate and is therefore out of order. Members are permitted a brief factual statement, in the course of which they may allude to the petition being duly certified, to its source, to the subject matter of the petition and its prayer, and to the number of signatures it carries. In any event, petitions are not to be read in their entirety and Members presenting them should avoid straying into debate or argument.
As they currently stand, the rules of the House do not allow for petitions to be debated. In essence, the role of members in regard to petitions, and it is an important role, is to act as an intermediary between petitioners and the House for the sole purpose of presenting the views of petitioners to Parliament. Thus, members should not comment on petitions they present. While some latitude is occasionally granted, the Chair has generally been quick to call members to order when they veer too strongly into debate.
This morning, in the moment, I concluded that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was out of order because he was engaging in debate when he criticized another member for not presenting the same petition. I have had an opportunity to further review the matter, and I have concluded that this was the correct interpretation. Members are, of course, free to challenge each other during debates, within the established bounds of decorum in the House, but it is inappropriate to criticize individual colleagues while presenting a petition. This is especially true in that there is no opportunity for members to respond to the attacks launched against them. To use the occasion of presenting a petition to question another member’s commitment to their constituents is clearly inappropriate.
While the Chair frequently has reminded members of the rules for presenting petitions, when the Chair deems it necessary, it can also admonish a member that persists in breaching the rules and defying the authority of the Chair. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 320 states, and I quote:
On occasion, a Member who is called to order by the Speaker may not immediately comply with the Speaker's instructions; in such a case, the Speaker has given the Member time to reflect on his or her position, declining in the meantime to “see” the Member should the latter rise to be recognized.
In the past, there have been numerous instances of my predecessors calling members to order if they persisted in debating a matter when it was not permitted. This could reach the point of not recognizing them for the remainder of the sitting or until such time as they complied with the Chair’s direction.
This informed my decision when the matter was raised. I also considered the decision made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker on December 12, 2023, when a similar situation arose. When the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies made a similar comment, he was called to order and told this was inappropriate. When he then repeated the same comment, he was asked to apologize.
Even if members do not agree with this approach, when the Chair directs a member to withdraw remarks and apologize, the member to whom such a request is directed is bound to do so. Disregarding the authority of the Chair can be considered a disrespect for the House.
Should the member for Battle River—Crowfoot apologize, as requested, he would then be recognized by the Chair.
I hope this clarifies the matter and I thank all members for their attention.
715 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlottetown.
I am thankful for the opportunity and privilege of rising in the House to participate in today's debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The legislation would deliver key measures from the 2023 fall economic statement, as well as budget 2023, to help the middle class by stabilizing consumer prices and making housing more affordable by supporting the construction of homes that Canadians very much need.
Our approach to tackling the housing crisis is multi-faceted. On that note, the federal government is collaborating with the provincial and territorial governments across Canada to do a number of things, such as cutting red tape, speeding up permitting approvals, lifting zoning restrictions and, consequently, building more homes much faster. This collaborative effort has already yielded substantial results, as evidenced by the following. There is the construction of more than 71,000 new rental homes through the allocation of over $25 billion in low-cost financing via the rental construction financing initiative. This is an initiative on which I received a lot of calls in my constituency from the developer, who is very interested in participating in it.
We are targeting the construction of over 12,000 affordable homes for those with severe housing needs or those experiencing homelessness through the rapid housing initiative. There will be 12,000 more homes for those who are homeless and 71,000 new rental homes for those looking to rent. We are also providing housing providers with low- or no-cost options to build 4,500 new homes by utilizing over $200 million through the federal lands initiative by repurposing surplus federal lands and buildings. We are now getting involved by providing those surplus federal lands and allocating and working with partners to build homes. In addition, we are investing $6.7 billion in housing for first nations on reserve, as well as Inuit, Métis and first nations self-governing and modern treaty communities.
To maintain pace with our expanding communities, we recognize that rental housing supply must also increase. Builders need access to low-cost financing, which would enable the construction of more new rental units much faster. The federal government has already made significant strides in this direction, but, naturally, there is more to come.
The 2023 fall economic statement announced an additional $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program starting in 2025-26. This supports the construction of an additional 30,000 new units across Canada by bringing the total loan funding to over $40 billion. By 2031-32, this program will have contributed to the support of over 101,000 new apartments for people to live in.
Affordable and community housing also plays a critical role. We were talking about providing housing and rentals and now we are talking about providing affordable and community housing for the most vulnerable Canadians that they can call home. To build more affordable housing for the most vulnerable Canadians, an additional investment to support non-profit co-op and public housing providers has been announcement in the 2023 fall economic statement to build more than 7,000 new co-op homes.
To help build more homes faster, the 2023 fall economic statement also removes the goods and services tax from new rental home construction for co-operative housing corporations providing long-term accommodations, as well as apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences. This move, alongside the formal establishment of the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, underscores our commitment to support the construction of homes across Canada.
I am particularly proud of the recent initiative in my riding of Richmond Hill. On Monday, November 27, I joined my hon. colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; my neighbour, the member of Parliament for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill; and the mayor of Richmond Hill, His Worship Mayor David West, in announcing an agreement to fast-track over 780 housing units over the next three years in my riding.
This initiative is part of a broader vision to create over 41,500 new homes in the next decade, supported by a $31-million investment from the housing accelerator fund for Richmond Hill.
I am also proud to witness the government's substantive investments in our community that demonstrate what can be achieved with innovation, collaboration and a steadfast resolve to address the housing needs of Canadians in Richmond Hill and across Canada. I congratulate the Municipality of Richmond Hill for its innovative housing action plan and the broader community in Richmond Hill, as well as other municipalities within the York Region that are the recipients of this fund.
In addition to addressing housing needs, the government is acutely aware of the challenges posed by global inflation, particularly the high cost of food, and is actively working to alleviate the burden on Canadians. Recognizing the importance of affordability in daily life, we implemented new measures last fall to make groceries more accessible and more affordable. Key among these initiatives is the amendment of the Competition Act, through Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. This amendment aims to enhance competition in the grocery sector, thereby helping to lower costs and offering Canadians more choices in their grocery shopping.
Furthermore, we are actively working on securing commitments from Canada's five largest grocery chains, which constitute 76% of the market, to assist in stabilizing prices for Canadians. The establishment of a grocery task force further bolsters these efforts. This task force is not only supervising the efforts of major grocers to stabilize prices but also actively monitoring and investigating other practices in the sector, such as shrinkflation. As we move forward, the government remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that Canada's largest grocers uphold their promise to stabilize prices.
The bill would also advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It would introduce measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. The government has been in the position to be the third-largest recipient of foreign investments, which is the envy of the world. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization, which includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit.
It is evident that Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, represents a comprehensive approach to some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation, namely affordability, the environment, housing and security. In essence, supporting Bill C-59 means endorsing a strategy that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship and social responsibility. It is a step toward not only addressing the immediate needs of our citizens but also securing a healthier, more prosperous future for Canada.
1166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have to say I am shocked. In his speech, the member mentioned cutting red tape, and breaking news is that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business' Paper Weight Award for the most absurd red tape just went to the Canada Border Services Agency, Health Canada and Finance Canada. What do they all have in common? It is the $54-million ArriveCAN app.
The member sat with me on committee yesterday and voted against a common-sense motion to cut red tape, so he is upside down. He obviously wrote his speech two days ago. Could he clarify how the federal government, with Bill S-6 languishing in the House, is actually cutting red tape and making that a priority?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that the hon. member did appear at the OGGO committee on Monday, which I believe was his first appearance in the many sittings we have had.
However, a motion for study has absolutely nothing to do with cutting red tape, or citing unrelated and unsubstantiated references as a preamble and asking the government to remove all red tape across all services, across all sectors, within 30 days. So, if there is anybody who is upside down, I think it is the member and his party. It is upside down to be asking us, representatives of the people, to remove all regulations and remove all red tape within 30 days across all sectors.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government brags about being a great environmentalist and bringing in all the necessary measures to protect the environment. Nevertheless, the government has offered the oil companies tax credits to the tune of $83 billion in the last two budgets. We can add to that the billions of dollars it is giving them to set up carbon capture plants, which the International Energy Agency says are an illusion, an experimental technology.
Can my colleague tell me what real measures the government is going to bring in to truly support the economy and the environment?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of working with the member as well in our government operations committee, and I find her quite ethical and supportive.
On the environment, our government, from day one, supported measures that protect the environment, which is one of the four pillars that this government has been focused on.
As it relates to the tax credit for businesses, specifically oil and gas, with a focus on capturing CO2, capturing carbon, this is a best practice and it is being done. I am not sure what the hon. member is talking about in that these are phantom policies; they are not, they are best practices. Also, we are working with industry to make sure that not only do we support it in protecting the environment but also enable the labour force, the Canadians who are in that sector, by supporting them through various labour laws.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as members know, we have an affordable housing crisis in this country. Part of the issue is the current Liberal national housing strategy and the Liberals' definition of affordable. Their definition of affordable is not affordable. We need more affordable housing with rent geared to income. We need more co-op housing. I am wondering if the hon. member across from me feels it necessary to actually create a definition of what “affordable” really is so that more people are not left out on the streets.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, indeed, I agree with the member across that we need more affordable housing, and we need to make sure that the price of the house, whether it is affordable or community-based housing, etc., is reflective of wage growth.
The whole issue of affordability, of being able to secure a home for one's future, is something that our government is committed to and continues to work on. As members heard during question period, we are rolling out, every day, measures to be able to help Canadians secure their homes.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the residents of Charlottetown, the birthplace of Confederation, in support of Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, as tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
These last few weeks, I have had the privilege of spending time in my constituency and having meaningful conversations with residents about their priorities, their concerns and their hopes. In doing so, I have heard their message loud and clear: Canadians want their government to manage the needs of today while having a solid plan for tomorrow. That is why I am pleased that our government’s fall economic statement reconciles these equally urgent demands through a fiscally responsible plan that addresses the concerns of Canadians and lays a foundation for the future.
The statement focuses on several key areas, the first of which is housing. We know that housing is top of mind for Canadians of all ages, from young first-time homebuyers to seniors looking for accessible housing that would allow them to stay in their communities as long as possible. In 2019, this chamber recognized that, in Canada, housing is a human right. Our government is making sure that this right is within reach for everybody, regardless of income or region.
In Prince Edward Island, our housing supply is currently increasing at only a third of the necessary pace for all Islanders to have a place to call home. It is critical that we build more homes, faster. The housing initiatives in Bill C-59 include an additional investment of $15 billion for the apartment construction loan program, which would provide low-cost financing to builders and developers and would speed up financial approvals to federal housing construction programs. These initiatives would directly address the need to increase our housing supply. Indeed, along with existing programs, they would create over 200,000 new homes in the next eight years.
I would like to take a minute to celebrate one of these existing programs, the housing accelerator fund. Since September, our government has signed agreements with municipalities to build over 21,000 new homes from coast to coast. By working with local governments, we are ensuring that we are meeting the unique housing needs of each town and city while also laying the groundwork for long-term housing sustainability.
In Prince Edward Island, one of these agreements has been signed with the City of Summerside. The City of Charlottetown is in the final stages of negotiations to conclude an agreement with the Government of Canada. It has been a long process because the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities has, basically, pushed a hard bargain, but it appears that we are very close to being able to make an announcement. I look forward to that day.
Our government is also increasing access to the existing housing supply by cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals. Bill C-59 would deny tax deductions for those short-term rental operators who do not abide by the proper provincial and municipal licensing requirements. We would also invest $50 million over three years to support enforcement of municipal restrictions on short-term rentals. I am particularly pleased by this measure as short-term rental regulations came into effect in my riding in the city of Charlottetown just last November, and proper enforcement would bring hundreds of units back into the long-term rental market and would make it easier for Islanders to find a home.
Just to give a little local context, Prince Edward Island is a place with 180,000 people, who receive 1.5 million visitors a year. Therefore, if someone is in the short-term rental market, it is a pretty lucrative business. Because it is a pretty lucrative business, it has a significant impact on the housing stock. That measure contained in the fall economic statement would be a very significant aid to ensure that short-term rental operators stay within the established rules. Those rules have been thoughtfully put together by Charlottetown city council to address the challenge we have around short-term rentals, around the housing stock, which is all tied into how lucrative it is because of how popular Prince Edward Island is during the tourist season.
When we look at housing, our government is addressing not only supply but also affordability. I would like to quote the PEI Fight for Affordable Housing, which advocates for safe, affordable and accessible homes. “Governments must be ready and willing to intervene in the market in order to preserve existing affordable housing which is at risk.”
This is the political leadership that Bill C-59 shows, by removing GST from new co-op rental housing and investing $1 billion over three years to support non-profit, co-op and public housing providers in building more than 7,000 affordable homes by 2028.
These are welcome initiatives that will allow middle- and low-income Canadians to access safe, stable homes to live and thrive in. Again, just in the riding of Charlottetown, a city of 45,000 people, under the national housing strategy we have received more than $80 million and have built or are in the process of building 430 homes. About half of those are deeply affordable under the national co-investment fund or the rapid housing initiative, and the other half are below market rents.
These are not just photo ops. All but one of those projects are built and fully rented. When I say fully rented, I mean no vacancy. That is the case right across Prince Edward Island, with the challenge we have with supply.
For current homeowners, Bill C-59 introduces the Canadian mortgage charter, which looks at new measures for tailored mortgage relief and ensures that Canadians are informed of their mortgage relief options at a time when interest rates are high. This is a crucial initiative that will help homeowners keep their homes through financial difficulty.
Through Bill C-59, we are demonstrating the commitment to support all Canadians, be they renters, potential homebuyers or mortgage-holders, in meeting their housing needs for generations to come.
The fall economic statement also recognizes the challenges facing seasonal workers. Included in the fall economic statement is something called pilot project 22. Pilot project 22 will provide four additional weeks of EI benefits for the regions of this country that have the most seasonal workers. That includes all of Prince Edward Island. This will be a significant benefit to all seasonal workers on P.E.I. It is, however, a band-aid.
It is a band-aid that has been proven necessary by a cynical political manoeuvre that happened to seasonal workers in Prince Edward Island in the dying days of the Harper government, in October 2014, when Stephen Harper split P.E.I. into two zones and, in so doing, favoured one part of the island, pitting islanders against one another. People working beside one another in the same seasonal operation were treated differently at the end of the season.
This is compounded, quite frankly, by the last eight years of our government, during which we have not reversed this cynical manoeuvre. I am here, on behalf of the people of Charlottetown, to say that Stephen Harper should never have done it to us, but it should be fixed by now.
That has been a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Human Resources on a couple of occasions. It has been in the mandate letter of the relevant minister, this one and the previous one, but we are still in a situation in which we are putting a band-aid on this problem. That band-aid will help those who are eligible for EI, but it does not help those who are not eligible and who are on welfare because their period ran out because of what Stephen Harper did.
That is the situation. It is a good thing as far as it goes.
Over the last eight years our government has introduced a Canada child benefit, which has lifted over 400,000 children out of poverty since 2015. We have worked with the provinces to deliver $10-a-day child care, which will deliver 250,000 new affordable child care spaces by 2026. Through these measures, we will continue to support families.
The measures I have highlighted, as well as all others contained in the fall economic statement, build on the work that we have already done and set the stage for the next few years.
I am, again, pleased to speak to this ambitious, fiscally responsible statement and how it will address the needs of hard-working Canadians. I encourage every member of this chamber to support the statement and vote in favour of Bill C-59.
1472 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the rosy picture that the member across paints, but in his own province it would appear that there are 700 families each month going to a food bank, which is an increase of 200 per month over two years. In 2015, the average rent in P.E.I. was $790 a month. It is now more than $1,750 a month. Violent crime, from 2021 to 2022, in one year, increased 5.5%. Could this member please explain to all those great Canadians who are listening, including those in P.E.I., why the great job his government is doing has led to the crime and chaos, doubling of mortgages and doubling of rent that we see all across this great country for which his government is responsible? Shame on you.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 5:39:06 p.m.
- Watch
That is shame on, “through the Chair”.
The hon. member for Charlottetown.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I also expect, as someone who has advocated so strongly and so successfully for the removal of HST on psychotherapy services, that the member will be supporting Bill C-59. I expect that it is in Bill C-59 because of the member's advocacy.
There is no denying that we are in tough economic times. There is absolutely no denying that and that is the reason for the measures that are in Bill C-59. That is the reason for $10-a-day child care. These measures are working. There is a lot of work to do; I acknowledge that. There are people who are hurting and we will continue to be there for them.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the budget statement was read for the first time last fall. It is now the end of January, and February is just around the corner. We expect a budget to be presented in March or April.
At the rate things are going, does the member really expect his government to successfully get bills passed? It seems to me that the Liberals' legislative calendar has been very sparse for the past two or three years.
Does my colleague sincerely expect to see this bill passed before the next budget? Are we doing all this for absolutely nothing?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Things are really very difficult here in the House. There is not a lot of collaboration. In the last parliamentary period, a lot of legislative acrobatics went on to delay the progress of any bill introduced by the government.
I look forward to seeing this bill pass. I am sure it will benefit my constituents and Canadians as a whole. However, the pace of this whole process depends on all of the members here. The lack of co-operation is real, and sometimes I think it does not necessarily serve the best interests of Canadians.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in his comments, the member mentioned just how long it has been taking for the Liberal government to take action on employment insurance reform. Recently, there was a social services tribunal ruling that says that denying women access to their regular employment insurance benefits for having taken employment insurance maternity leave is a case of clear gender discrimination within the employment insurance system. Would the member agree that this is something that should also be fixed on an expedited basis?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am repeatedly told as to why the zoning problem in Prince Edward Island has not been fixed is that the government is intent on a major overhaul of the entire EI system. That, for me, is frustrating, but that would give the chance to solve my problem and the problem identified by the hon. member.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the federal government and the Prime Minister has been trying to work with municipalities. We have had the Minister of Housing going across the entire country, talking to mayors and to councils to work out deals on how the federal government can support building housing throughout our country and yet we see the Leader of the Opposition trying to bully mayors, calling them incompetent and subjecting them to ridicule through his platforms at every opportunity he gets. Which approach does the member think is better and more constructive at getting houses built across the country in a way that will benefit Canadians?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
