SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 314 - May/21/24

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/21/24 6:37:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I actually agree with my colleague on several points. We are not necessarily voting against measures that are good for Canadians. Rather, we are voting against jurisdictional meddling and interference. I would like to hear my colleague thoughts on the importance of upholding a contract, especially the most important contract of all for a country, namely, a Constitution.

60 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 6:37:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. The federal government must do a better job of protecting our Constitution. Our party, the Conservative Party, wants a policy of open federalism.

36 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/21/24 6:38:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with this minority government, the NDP has used its balance of power to make meaningful gains for people and their families. Among other things, there is the dental care plan. It is incredible progress for the less fortunate and for people in the middle class. This year, seniors can sign up to be reimbursed for 80% or 100% of their dental care. Millions of people will benefit. In the first week, 45,000 or 50,000 people have already taken advantage of the program. If my colleague's party comes to power after the next election, heaven forbid, will it drop the dental care program for seniors or will it maintain the program?

115 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 6:39:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie failed to mention the broken promise of the NDP-Liberal government, and that was to provide a national pharmacare program. It did not provide a national pharmacare program, even though it said it was going to do it in the last election platform for the NDP. With respect to dental care, I will note representatives from the B.C. Dental Association have said that they do not want to participate in this program. As we have said on this side, the program is so cumbersome and has so much red tape, it does not actually achieve its objectives, because the NDP-Liberal government is so poor at governing. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

123 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:39:48 p.m.
Watch

Order. If the hon. member has anything to contribute, he should wait to the proper time. We have time for a brief question from the hon. member for Abbotsford.

29 words

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

May/21/24 6:39:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every time our Liberal friends across the way get up, they tell us how good Canadians have it. In fact, just a moment ago the member from Kingston and the Islands got up, telling us Canadians have never had it so good, and to look at inflation, it is only 2.7%. Perhaps my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon could explain how harmful the reckless spending of the Liberal government has been, and how that spending has stoked the inflationary fires in Canada.

88 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/21/24 6:40:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, I was on a Mission friends and neighbours Facebook site in the community of Mission, with about 25,000 community members. There was a mother on there who asked if it was just her who could not get by with $350 a week for groceries any more. All we have to do to see the impacts of inflation is to look at the cost of food, specifically beef, and fresh fruit and vegetables. Unfortunately, due to the policies of the reckless government, fresh fruit and vegetables have become out of reach, even for the middle class.

101 words

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

May/21/24 6:41:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Simcoe North on May 8, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 2221 and the testimony of the Department of Finance on the subject matter of Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill. Question No. 2221 asks for information about overpayments for the Canada child benefit. The member acknowledged in his intervention that the government did respond to significant parts of his written question. However, the government was unable to respond to a sub-element of the member's question, and I will quote that part. The question states: ...collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments in (a)(i) and (a)(ii)? There is a simple and straightforward response to this. The Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, has an identifying code for why a child has become ineligible for the Canada child benefit. However, CRA does not have the reason codes for the overpayment. The reason for this is that the CRA does not have the information about a child's death, but the CRA cannot determine the reason for an overpayment or a recovery and how that relates to the child's death. The death of a child could form one piece of potentially multiple pieces that would result in an overpayment. The question posed by the member on May 7 at the finance committee was about cancelled eligibility for the Canada child benefit and was not requesting information about overpayments. These are two different questions. In conclusion, the specific information sought in Question No. 2221 relates to overpayments. The answer provided to the member reflects the data available in the CRA systems relating to overpayments in the manner requested by the member. Where there were limitations to the provision of data, a rationale for the limitation was provided in response to the member. As you can see, Madam Speaker, there was no intent to mislead the member or the House in the government's response to Question No. 2221. Moreover, information the member referred to in his intervention from testimony at the finance committee on May 7 differs from the information provided in response to Question No. 2221 since they are different questions. As I have previously stated in the House, the government can only answer the question posed in the Order Paper Question. It cannot assume that a member is making a different question. I can confirm that the government's response to Question No. 2221 was accurate, and we stand by it. A question was posed through the Order Paper process. The government responded to the precise question accurately and within timelines established in the Standing Orders. This matter does not in any way affect the member's rights or privileges in discharging his parliamentary duties.

494 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:44:37 p.m.
Watch

The additional information is duly noted and will be taken under consideration. The honourable member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

27 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/21/24 6:44:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on that question of privilege, I would note that this is not a one-off instance, and the member tried to suggest that somehow privileges were not being violated. However, if we look back on a series of Order Paper questions that have been asked, the government has been required to provide supplementary answers when there was inaccurate information that was provided to the House, which it had to correct, and it is very clear that this has become a trend. Therefore, when that member, who was speaking on behalf of the government, suggests that somehow members' privileges were not violated, I think it speaks to a very troubling trend we are seeing from this government, which is that it feels it is unnecessary to provide fulsome, accurate and appropriate information, as Canadians would certainly expect. As parliamentarians, we should be able to use the processes that are provided to this place and to all members to be able to have and to expect accurate information. My suggestion, which I hope would be taken under serious consideration, is that this continual trend where inaccurate or incomplete information is provided, and then we have to use mechanisms like a question of privilege in order to force the government to actually provide that information, is in fact a violation of a member's privilege, which is so important to the appropriate functioning of this place and, ultimately, to the ability for Canadians to get information from their government.

248 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:46:32 p.m.
Watch

I want to thank the hon. member for the additional information. I do not have the actual question that was posed before me, so I am not sure if the hon. member was deviating a bit, but no matter what, the information has been noted and will be taken into consideration. I do wish to advise the hon. member that a decision will be rendered soon. On another point of order, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

79 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

May/21/24 6:47:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just to clarify, as I hope was made clear in my remarks for when this is reviewed further later, this is not the first time that a question of privilege has been related—

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/21/24 6:47:16 p.m.
Watch

That information was provided, as I have already indicated, and now it is becoming more of a point of debate.

20 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

May/21/24 6:47:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to discuss the budget implementation act. I was listening to the previous Conservative member. Unfortunately, we seem to be, and it is not surprising to anyone here, falling into the same pattern, which is just a verb the noun slogan after slogan, but not really saying anything. It is shocking that the community of the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who spoke before me, experienced one of the worst environmental disasters in Canadian history a couple of years ago, with significant damage to his community. It is still struggling to deal with it years later, and the only answer he has is to make pollution free again. It is the only answer Conservatives have on that side. I have said before that the only plank in the Conservative environmental agenda is recycled slogans. However, this is a real crisis. To have that member see his own community go through what it went through and to still come here and repeat an empty slogan that he knows will not have any impact, it just speaks to the modern Conservative movement. There is no seriousness on climate change, no seriousness on getting homes built and no seriousness on building our economy. It is just verb the noun. That is all Conservatives have. They can say it over and over again, but they do not have a plan. I was at an announcement last week in Niagara. It was a great announcement from governments that have a plan and that invest in workers and in their communities. It was based on a partnership with Honda and the major Honda announcement that happened in Alliston. Asahi Kasei, a Japanese company that produces battery separators, announced it is going to invest $1.6 billion in developing a factory in Niagara, which will be transformational. It was great to see the Premier of Ontario there, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Innovation. These are governments that are looking to invest in Canadians, in the future and in the economy of the future. Conservatives, again, verb the noun, have no plan for any of this because of items like putting a price on pollution. It is about investing in critical minerals so that Canada is poised to be a leader in EV manufacturing and the jobs of the future. Conservatives will stick their heads in the sand and say that it is the same old thing, that they do not need to do anything and that they will make it free to pollute. They are not going to get the results. From the investments in Honda, we are going to see thousands of manufacturing jobs in Ontario. It was unfortunate that when the previous Conservative government was around we saw thousands of manufacturing jobs leave Ontario, one after the other. We could go through a tour of factories in the Niagara region that closed under that government's watch, and it did not care. It did not have a plan for the future. Here we have an opportunity to be a leader in the EV space, enough that a Conservative premier and government in the Province of Ontario know it is important and step up to invest in workers. The Conservative leader would tell us that he would not invest in these types of factories we have seen in Niagara, in the London area, in Windsor and in Alliston. We are creating an infrastructure, and international companies, some of the largest in the world, are eager to invest. That shows actual work on the ground to get things done, to plan for economic growth and for the economy of the future. There is a change happening. Again, we can stick our heads in the sand, and I know Conservatives like to do that frequently, but these changes are happening, and we need to be at the forefront of that. Also, I am happy to report that, last week, a controversial housing development in the city of St. Catharines, the municipality I represent, which may not seem large to certain members from the GTA as it is a 500-unit development, was approved. It is good news, seeing more and more housing approved and the mayor and city council taking the charge on housing. I had the opportunity to speak with one of the owners of the property after the development was approved. She told me that the federal government's investments are going to ensure that approximately half of the units being built would be rental units. We have seen across the country, especially in southern Ontario, the very low vacancy rates that exist and the acknowledgement that we need more rentals. It was a big step to remove the GST from purpose-built rentals. The changing of the capital cost allowance, from approximately 4% of mortgage costs to 10%, is making the math work, and that is what we have heard from developers. We have heard that, with interest rates, labour costs and other items, it is becoming a challenge to get those shovels in the ground. We can all agree, I hope, on all sides of the House that we need to see more rental housing built, and this is just one item. We are seeing announcements like that across the country. We are seeing partnerships with municipalities that have bold plans to build more housing. Again, not to boast, but the City of St. Catharines was a recipient of the housing accelerator fund because it does have a bold plan for housing. I am happy to see that the current budget would top up the housing accelerator fund, so we would see more municipalities join the list, eliminate red tape when it comes to permitting, and increase the density of lots. Four units as a right is something that we want to see and something that would get more housing built. The house that I currently live in is on the plot of what was an old farmhouse on a very large lot. Development had happened all around it decades before, and the house was taken down and four units of housing were built, a couple of semi-detached homes. Now, there are four families living on this property rather than one. Changes through the housing accelerator fund will make that easier. We will make it so that we can speed up the process and get construction started quicker. There is no magic bullet for solving the housing crisis, but I think we can solve the housing crisis. Canadians have solved it before, and we can do it again. We estimate it will take about 3.87 million homes being built, but it is something that we can do. It is something that can be done, whether we use new ways of building houses or old ways. If we look back to what we did after the Second World War, there was a housing catalogue. Someone could just pick a house, and it could get built and speed up those processes. We can do that. We can ensure that there is a housing catalogue. The developers can just pick the house, or a family can pick the house they want, get it built and not go through the process of getting that permit approved, which speeds up the construction of that house. That is an old idea, but it can work in a modern setting, especially with larger density projects. We can use new materials. We can use factory-built housing. We can encourage that. Also exciting, and it may not be the most fun announcement in terms of housing-related infrastructure, is that something the budget is keenly about, and something that we need to be part of, is ensuring that water and waste water are there to make sure that the housing gets built. The Conservatives, as I was starting to talk about, talk about the slogan. They are against all of these actual proposals to get housing built. It is unfortunate to see that their actions do not match their slogans.

1355 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

May/21/24 6:57:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about Témiscamingue, a region not far from yours, Madam Speaker. Témiscamingue got some bad news today. The Foire gourmande de l'Abitibi-Témiscamingue et du Nord-Est ontarien, a gourmet food fair in my region and northeastern Ontario, is facing an uncertain fate. Témiscamingue has gotten a lot of bad news lately. For example, three forestry-related processing facilities have closed their doors, agriculture and public safety are under threat, and funding for a new pool in Témiscamingue, a project led by Complexe des Eaux profondes, has not materialized. The federal government has not stepped up for any of this. As the MP for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Témiscamingue in particular, I expect the federal government, which collects half of our sales and income taxes, to be there to meet people's needs, but the federal government is not there at all. Can my colleague tell me what purpose the federal government serves these days?

178 words

Miscamingue

Mr. Chris Bittle

May/21/24 6:58:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I always look forward to the Bloc seeking more federal investment and more federal participation in municipal infrastructure projects. We work very closely with the Government of Quebec. On the housing file, the Minister of Housing entered into a partnership with Quebec, and Quebec stepped up and matched the funding, unlike any other province. I look forward to getting the budget passed and seeing this infrastructure money in place. I know Quebec will do the same thing it has done before, which is to step up, be there to invest and be partners to help the people of Témiscamingue. Hopefully this could address many of the issues the member talked about.

115 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

May/21/24 6:59:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is great to have this plan to build houses, but we have a 25% shortage of labour workers. How is he going to concentrate on hiring more people or attracting more people to come to Canada to help build the homes that are so desperately needed?

49 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

May/21/24 6:59:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made sure to get in the slogan, and that was great. We have to be looking at alternative ways to build housing. As I said in my speech, we need to be looking at factory-built housing. We need to be looking at innovative ways. The member is right that it is a serious situation now. It is getting worse as skilled trades workers are getting older. We can do it through immigration, education at the provincial level, working with our provincial counterparts, and new and innovative ways. The construction industry oftentimes falls behind other industries in being more innovative. However, I know it can. This budget is going to invest in that, and we are going to be ready to build the homes of tomorrow.

130 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/21/24 7:00:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about his environmental concerns, which I share, and the fact that the Conservatives refuse to have a price on pollution; that is not a plan to help us or help our communities. However, at the same time, his government is spending $34 billion to buy a pipeline that will triple the production of the dirtiest oil in the world. Is that not contradictory? He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

78 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

May/21/24 7:00:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not believe it is a contradiction. It is ensuring that the amount of oil we are producing gets to tidewater so we can have supply. The world needs oil right now. We do have to transition away, which is why we are investing in the jobs of tomorrow and in EV technology. Canada can be a leader in battery production and be the energy leader of the future.

72 words