44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2024 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a moment off the top to ensure the memory of my father is forever etched into the record of this place. Over the holidays, my brother and I, and our families, suddenly lost our father, Michael Lantsman, whose sacrifices were the sacrifices of heroes. We know that he could not wait to see the love of his life and the centre of our universe, whom we lost three years ago, my mother, Ora Lantsman, in the next world.
Together, I think they are reunited knowing that they built a life for us, which has given me the opportunity to ensure that Canadians will know their selflessness, their sacrifices and their hardship as I will continue to be guided by the values they imparted and to tell their story, as I have in the House. Their story is the story of so many Canadians who chose this country, made it their home and built a better life than the one they left behind. His memory will be a blessing, and I certainly will make sure of that.
I will go back to the regularly scheduled programming. For some, the holiday break was a chance to rest, to see family and to do important work in the community. However, for the Prime Minister, it was a chance, again, to flaunt the rules and to demonstrate just how out of touch he is.
Let me start by saying that the Prime Minister has bad judgment. We have seen it. This is a guy who thought it would be a good idea to dress in blackface, to dress up in costumes on a business trip, to flagrantly and blatantly break ethics laws multiple times and to confide trust in ministers who do exactly the same things.
We were still shocked to see him accept a free luxury stay last month valued at over $84,000. Mr. Speaker, $84,000 is more than the average family makes in a year. It is a sum that could buy 20,000 meals for a homeless shelter. It is a sum that translates to over $9,000 a night. I would be very interested to learn from the Prime Minister at a future question period what $9,000 a night might buy.
I would be even more interested to learn why he did not have the common sense to refuse that free stay, knowing just how ethically dubious and out of touch it was. It is evidenced, of course, by the PMO changing its story three times on who paid for the luxury vacation and when. Let me say, and I think Canadians would agree, that the Prime Minister has every right to take some time off, as do all Canadians.
However, that luxury vacation, its cost, its size and its magnitude, is just another example of conveniently deciding to set aside any personal or professional principles to profit from his status in office. It further proves that he is simply out of touch, and it underlines that he understands nothing about the Canadian middle class.
The fundamental truth is that the Prime Minister, who is so comfortable in the lap of luxury, cannot pretend to understand Canadians who are struggling. It is evidenced by this bill we have seen in the House that fails to meet the needs of the middle class, to meet the needs of struggling Canadians from coast to coast to coast who tell their MPs, and I am sure they hear it on the other side, of their struggles.
We now have rent prices that have doubled. We have seen the reports throughout Christmas. Housing prices have doubled under the government. The cost of home heating has doubled. The price of groceries has increased by 25% this year, all after eight years of a Liberal government led by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says that Canadians from all walks of life who are struggling, because of statistics like this, are just “grumpy”. That is what he said in a year-end interview.
I have to say to the Prime Minister that “grumpy” is something that happens when, perhaps, one's private jet breaks down, or when the custom sock store runs out of one's favourite pair. What is happening right now is not people being “grumpy”. These are people who are faced with the fear and the anxiety that come with thinking about the survival of their families. These are people confronting the reality that their generation, or their kids, might not be better off than they were. That is real fear and anxiety in the Canadian public right now.
People fear for their lives in the face of violent crime, which is up 39% since 2015, and gang-related crime, which has doubled. People are scared when they are faced with the highest murder rate in 30 years. People in the GTA cannot even park their car in the laneway because auto theft is up 50% in just two years; it is up 217% since the Prime Minister has come to office. That is if they are lucky enough to even have a laneway at all, because to buy a home in Toronto, one needs to commit nearly 85% of one's income just for housing costs.
Under the Prime Minister, Canada is still on track to have the worst economic growth out of 40 OECD countries, while inflation and high interest rates take more money out of Canadians’ pockets and off their paycheques. Housing remains unaffordable thanks to the refusal to force gatekeepers to get out of the way and actually build homes.
On top of this, it is the former immigration minister who broke our immigration system and overwhelmed our housing market with policies that, according to his own cabinet colleague, the current immigration minister, caused the system to get “out of control”. Despite this, and, as usual, people fail upwards in the current government, the minister’s failure was recognized when he became the new housing minister. He is expected to fix the problem that they in fact created over the last eight years. As well, two million people a month visit food banks just to put a decent meal on the table, or worse, they go without.
The response to all of this is the fall economic statement. It is an anemic response to a country that so many beyond these walls do not recognize anymore. We know the source of the misery, and we all want it to be over. It is out-of-control government spending that drives up the cost of the goods we buy and the interest we pay. It is the out-of-control taxes that make it more unaffordable to buy a home, to put gas in the car or to buy groceries. It is the out-of-control bureaucracy that makes it harder to build things and to create good-paying jobs. The solution, of course, is to cut spending, cut taxes and cut the bureaucracy, but instead, the bill would continue the deficit spending that is putting us way beyond our means.
Now Canadians are realizing that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. However, this is what we expect and this is what we get after eight years of the Liberal government. We should now expect that the government will do the opposite of the rational thing. We should expect that the Prime Minister is going to remain detached from the everyday realities and ignore every single point of view that differs from his own.
The country needs a lot of change after eight years. We cannot trust the people who have gotten us into this mess to get us out of it. After a cabinet retreat in a downtown luxury hotel about the middle class, of course, far away from anyone in the middle class, and after a Christmas when Canadians actually cut back without anyone over there taking notice, my Conservative colleagues and I are looking forward to a day when we can see a fall economic statement that actually addresses the misery that Canadians have been telling us about every single time we are at home in our communities.
There is going to be a clear choice. People can have the Liberals, who will raise taxes and inflate regulation and red tape, pump up inflation and interest rates and let crime, chaos, drugs and disorder run rampant, or they can have Conservatives, with a simple plan of axing the tax. We are going to build homes, fix the budget and stop crime. That will be the future choice for Canadians. It is a future where housing is affordable and food is affordable, where communities are safe, and where our nation is strong at home and back to being respected abroad. We know that future is possible, because we knew it before. Life was not like this before the current government, and life will not be like this when it is gone.
1516 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my friend from a neighbouring riding stand in the House and speak to the fall economic statement. Again, to the member for Thornhill, I give my condolences on her father's passing.
In the city of Vaughan a few months ago, we announced an investment of $59 million from the housing accelerator fund to assist the City of Vaughan in accelerating the approval and development of housing projects for homes for individuals who live in our city and families who are moving to our city. There are about 7,000 to 10,000 people a year who move to the city of Vaughan, which the hon. member is well aware of. Much like the hon. member at one time worked in a private administration that collaborated with the provincial government to announce the building of the subway that is now in the city of Vaughan, the government is collaborating with the City of Vaughan with a $59-million investment.
Does the hon. member not agree with this investment, which will benefit the city of Vaughan and the residents, current and future, who will live in the member's riding, in my riding and in the other member's riding?
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the member opposite and my neighbour standing in fancy photo ops with the mayors and the housing minister making announcements, the homes have not been built in Vaughan.
In fact, after eight years of the Prime Minister, rent has doubled in Vaughan, the price of a house has almost doubled in Vaughan, the price of a mortgage interest rate payment has doubled in Vaughan, and it used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage in Vaughan and now it takes most people in the GTA 25 years to save for a down payment. I am not sure why the member opposite is patting himself on the back, but I will not support his fancy photo ops.
Conservatives will get houses built. We will get the private sector to put shovels in the ground.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first, I want to give my condolences on the loss of the member's loved one.
I already kind of know what the Conservative government would look like. Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, in his nine years in government, we saw 800 affordable homes lost under his watch. He supported the Liberals in a $55-billion tax cut to CEOs. We know the number of Canadians living in poverty increased, health care funding was cut by $43.5 billion, nine veteran support offices were closed and, worst of all, under his watch, the retirement age for seniors moved to age 67. I already know the story, because I have seen the same old Liberal-Tory story since the beginning.
I know that the Conservatives talk a good game about affordable housing when their real plan is to line the pockets of investors. I want to ask the member a very specific question. Is her government committed to building rent-geared-to-income co-op and public housing?
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her condolences.
At every opportunity, and I think the member's constituents ought to know this, she supports the Liberal government, and it is at every single stage of the game and in every single confidence vote, to raise taxes, to put forward a photo op plan for building more houses. There is innumerable waste on that side.
This is what a Conservative government would look like. It would be a government that takes care of people and does not line the pockets of its own friends.
I like that the member opposite asks what the future government will look like. I think she should get used to saying that. We will certainly put forward a plan when that time comes.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 5:58:36 p.m.
- Watch
We are out of time but before moving on to the next member, I believe the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot has a point of order to speak to.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Chair.
7 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 5:58:54 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for that apology.
Continuing debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in the year of Our Lord 2024.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I hope members sort out among themselves just what the apology is for, given that memories seem to be somewhat short here.
I am rather hoping that I can bring a bit more light than heat to this debate. I propose to divide my remarks into three parts. The first part is to actually refer to the fall economic statement. I know that is a novel idea. The second part is to canvass why Canadians are pessimistic about the economy. Then, in an aside, I will compare that to why Americans are pessimistic about their economy.
With that, there is no doubt a disconnect between the economic metrics and how Canadians are feeling about their general state of welfare. If we open the fall economic statement, the first chart shows that Canada is number one in the G7 for real GDP growth. If I said that at the front door of some member of my constituency, they would probably close the door on me. Maybe they would be polite, and maybe they would not. Nevertheless, those are the facts. Our peer nations are not experiencing economic growth at the rate that Canada is experiencing economic growth, and I would contrast that to the concerns Canadians have about their economic welfare and ask them if they would prefer to be at the bottom of the G7 growth spectrum.
The second chart has to do with foreign investment. It appears that foreign investors have a great deal of confidence in Canada's prospects, as we are third in the world, and probably second, since the United States necessarily attracts by far the most investment.
The third chart is with respect to the budgetary balance projections for G7 nations. As Sir John A. Macdonald used to say, “Don't compare me to the Almighty. Compare me to the alternative.” The alternatives are Germany, Japan, the U.K., Italy, France and the U.S. We are number one in terms of budgetary projections. For all the harping, whining and complaining we hear in this chamber about the management of the fiscal framework, Canada is number one, and dramatically ahead of our neighbour to the south.
The fourth chart is on consumer price inflation, which has fallen over the course of the last 12 months by about four points, a significant drop in inflation.
Only economists could possibly be interested in some of these other charts. They are very difficult to convey to folks. I sometimes wonder why they put these charts into these economic statements, but they do.
In real GDP growth in G7 economies from Q1 of 2022 to Q2 of 2023, Canada is again number one in economic growth.
On employment and the change in employment, again, Canada is number one, way ahead of all the other nations. In fact, Japan and the U.K. have experienced negative employment growth since 2020.
I appreciate that trying to convince people, based on charts, about Canada's management of the fiscal framework, the monetary policy and the economy generally is somewhat of a challenge, and I have probably already lost the chamber. Having said that, it is a necessary setting in order to address the concerns Canadians have about their own economic well-being. I would just make the point over again about whether Canadians would prefer this government and this Parliament to address their concerns from a different position in the charts I have just mentioned. Would they like to be last in economic growth? Would they like to have challenges with employment? This is the environment in which we operate, and I think it is a necessary corrective to some of the conversation I have heard today.
If we ask what the concerns of Canadians are, economic uncertainty is their number one concern, along with income inequality, housing affordability, job market challenges, high household debts, climate change and environmental concerns, and global economic trends.
I put the economic uncertainties in the context of global events. We have had a Ukrainian war, the Middle Eastern war and instability in Asia-Pacific. These concerns are of great significance to Canada, particularly as Canada is a trading nation; a great deal of our GDP depends on trade. We have yet to see how the rerouting of ships in the Suez Canal area is going to affect Canadian prospects; it is necessarily going to be an added cost to the cost of goods and services in this country. We have yet to see that play through, but it is a dispute that Canadians are internalizing and recognizing, and I expect that the result will be an increase in commodity prices.
Income inequality is a serious concern, and I have to say that, over the course of this government, there have been a number of really innovative initiatives on addressing income inequality. The first, and one of the most significant in my riding, is the Canada child benefit. Because I have a relatively impoverished riding with quite a number of children, that means something in the order of $100 million a year into my riding alone. If it is not the number one riding in Canada, then I think it is one of the higher-ranked ridings for the receipt of the Canada child benefit. It is similar with the Canada workers benefit and the child care initiative. These are all concerns that have been internalized by Canadians and create anxiety, but the address by the government is well placed in terms of addressing issues of income inequality.
Finally, before you open the trap door and make me disappear, Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be interesting to compare what Americans' concerns are as opposed to ours. A number of the concerns are clearly shared: income inequality, stagnant wages, job insecurity and cost of living. One is student loan debt. We recollect that President Biden tried to do something about it, but Congress has defeated him on that. Furthermore, Americans are deeply disturbed by their health care costs, even with Obamacare. There is also political polarization and policy uncertainty. We cannot turn on a television without commentary on the almost intractable policy and partisan contrast. Those last three things are not challenges that this country faces thus far, thank goodness, but they do cause a level of anxiety. Moreover, we somewhat reflect the concerns of Americans here with respect to our own economic uncertainty.
The reconciliation between the metrics of this economy and how people are feeling about their own personal economy is the challenge of this government and this Parliament, and it will continue to vex us all. The government has taken a number of initiatives, such as the housing initiatives, that can ameliorate the immediate effects.
Therefore, I encourage colleagues to support this bill, recognizing fully that they are hearing the same thing that we are hearing at the door: Canadians are concerned about their own personal situation.
1181 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 6:09:19 p.m.
- Watch
I want to assure the hon. member that I have no trap door anywhere in this chamber, even though there are times that I do wish I had one.
With questions and comments, we have the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
42 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between affordable housing and social housing. One is barely 10% below market value. The other offers services and ongoing support, which is something older people in particular need. Speaking of older people, some people aged 65 to 74 are in good shape, others not so much. Creating two classes of seniors is a problem, especially for women, who were not able to put as much away for retirement because they were looking after children and being family caregivers.
Here is what I want to ask my colleague. Recent budgets and the latest economic update did not put an end to this discrimination against seniors. When will the government take care of that?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on the category of seniors, of which I am a proud member, I too share the concern of the hon. member. I take note of the irony that, when there was a boost for post-75 seniors, there was not a boost for those 65 to 75. The point being that, from a policy standpoint, the older one gets, the less able one is to adjust to economic uncertainty. I am sure that the hon. member would agree with me that our senior seniors are the people we should address first. I think the government has done an admirable job in that area.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting presentation. I am sure that the Canadians out there who are $200 away from insolvency every month were absolutely riveted by that information, telling them how great their lives are, when we know that violent crime in and around Toronto is up around 15%.
We know that Toronto has one of the worst housing bubbles in the entire world. We know that rent has gone up, doubled. We know that mortgages have doubled and that it is almost unaffordable for anybody to live in Toronto, certainly for newcomers to Canada wanting to move there.
I would like the member to rectify for all of us here, and for all of the Canadians watching, the incredibly boring and non-enlightening way the rosy picture of Canada was presented, when Canadians know that, every month, two million of them are visiting a food bank. As I said at the start, they are $200 away from insolvency.
Could the member tell us how this equates to this great job that his government is doing?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, generally my colleagues do not describe my speeches as boring in public. They may privately say that my speeches are boring. I feel badly for the hon. gentleman, who missed the central point of the speech.
The central point of the speech is that the metrics of the country are very good. Would he prefer, in Nova Scotia, to have 10% unemployment, or would he prefer to have 4% unemployment? Would he prefer to be dealing with the challenges of his constituents with 4% unemployment or 10% unemployment?
I regret that the hon. member finds my remarks boring, but maybe, if he had paid a little bit more attention, he would have been able to articulate the central dilemma I was speaking to.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, he mentioned how proud this government is. The Liberals are proud of the child care program they put forward, which, of course, New Democrats worked very hard to push this government on, and we are happy to see it. There is value there for his constituents, and certainly mine, in ensuring that especially women can come into the workplace and participate in greater levels.
That is very necessary for the growth of our economy. However, one thing the Liberals have not done is to ensure that those who work within child care are paid adequately. Potentially, could the hon. member explain the future plans of the Liberal government to do so, so that we could ensure that those who are taking care of children while we are at work, and we know that we need that excellent care, those in that sector, are being provided with livable wages?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 6:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
We are out of time.
The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood with a quick answer.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are out of time but you are not going to pull the trap door. Thanks.
The hon. member raises an interesting issue, and this is where the $10-a-day day care comes in. This is largely a program that is funded by the Government of Canada for, in our case, the Government of Ontario. The provision of the quality of the day care worker and the wages he or she receives and the quality of the workplace are largely dependent upon the Province of Ontario.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening and speak for a few minutes about the fall economic statement and Bill C-59. Of course fall has turned to winter, and yet the topics we have been debating in this piece of legislation are as relevant as ever, particularly the topic of housing. That is where I will focus my remarks this evening.
The need for affordable housing is an issue in every single community in northwest B.C. I know many members in this House are familiar with what is going on in northwest B.C., particularly the level of investment in industrial development. That has brought opportunity for many people. There are many people making good incomes in various industrial industries, but not everyone.
I remember, months ago, talking to a fellow on his doorstep in the city of Terrace. He was a carpenter. He was working on the construction of the new hospital in the city, a much-needed and much-awaited project. He told me about his struggles affording rental housing. He was renting what I believe was a modest two-bedroom townhouse. He had two kids with a third on the way. He said that he and his partner needed more space but they just could not afford it.
There are many people in that situation and people who are earning even less. When we think about people working in the service industry, there are many people who are struggling to make ends meet and struggling with the cost of housing. What we have heard in this debate is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are relying almost solely on the market to provide housing solutions. As for the ideas that they have presented, whether it is the idea of browbeating what they are calling municipal gatekeepers or building density near transit hubs, northwest B.C. does not have transit hubs. It barely has public transit. These are not ideas that translate to rural British Columbia.
We need different ideas. We need a government that is committed, in particular, to building the infrastructure that our communities need. In cities like Prince Rupert, that means a major investment in water infrastructure. In the city of Terrace, in the town of Smithers, in the small community of Port Clements, people are struggling, and communities are struggling with the cost of infrastructure, like waste water and drinking water. That is what is needed in order to facilitate the expansion of housing development. These communities would welcome private sector development, public sector development, but they cannot do it without the infrastructure.
I will leave it there, and look forward to continuing my remarks at a future date.
454 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 6:18:15 p.m.
- Watch
It being 6:18 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 6:18:30 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
