SoVote

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

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/21/24 8:45:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I find disappointing about the budget is the lack of support for seniors in our communities. I have spent many days speaking to seniors. Recently, during one of our constituency weeks, I met with seniors in 15 different residences to talk about the concerns that they have. My issue is that I do not know how seniors in Alberta could trust the Conservatives, knowing the record that they have, knowing that Stephen Harper was the person who put in place cuts to support for OAS, such as making sure a senior is 67 instead of 65 before they apply for OAS, as well as knowing that the leader of the Conservative Party has very clearly, historically, been against the Canada pension plan. I wonder if this member could comment on the support that a Conservative government would give to seniors because, historically, Conservatives have been extraordinarily bad for seniors in this country.

159 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/21/24 8:46:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that question was a little misleading. I know that Mr. Harper increased the GIS for seniors by 25% during his term in power. I just want to say that the person who just spoke continues to support the coalition with the Liberal government that has caused all the inflationary spending in the first place. That leaves us, as I said, in one of the worst precarious financial positions the country has ever been in, which is not good for seniors. I spoke to many seniors on the last break week that we had, back in my constituency. They are very concerned about the increased price of gas, home heating fuel, the carbon tax and inflationary issues as well. They are also concerned about the billions and billions of dollars that have caused us to have a $1.25-trillion debt now. They know that the amount that they're paying for food at the grocery stores is certainly inflationary.

161 words

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

May/21/24 8:47:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about carbon tax. Can he explain to the House the difference between this carbon tax that we have in place now versus the one that he ran on in 2021?

37 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/21/24 8:48:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know, today, that the government has caused the inflationary situation that they are in. They know that the government is forcing 53% of Canadians to be within $200 of insolvency at the end of every paycheque. There is a big difference between balancing the books, like Mr. Harper did in 2015. Mr. Harper did not take money out of employment insurance, like the Liberals did before his time. If the member wants to get into tit-for-tat stuff, the Liberals are not dealing with the reality of today, and this is when Canadians have to pay the bills that the Liberals have cost them.

108 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/21/24 8:48:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. He talked about huge expenditures, massive spending, and rightly so. He also talked about inflation and how it is getting harder and harder for some people to get by, while others are lining their pockets. I may have missed it at one point or another, but I did not hear him talk about the gifts this budget gives to oil companies. I guess it is because he ran out of time. He had a lot to say. I wanted to give him the opportunity to speak out against that, as he just did regarding other parts of this budget.

107 words

Mr. Larry Maguire

May/21/24 8:49:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, earlier today my colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets indicated that the oil industry in Canada today is paying about $22 billion in taxes in the Canadian economy. I know that the oil industry shares opportunities for our natural resources. I was on the natural resources committee for a while. I appreciate my colleague from the Bloc for his question. We are limiting the amount of export opportunities that we have, which brings revenue into the government in this country to pay for the social programs that we have already had in health care and education. The government is neglecting those.

104 words

Mr. Parm Bains (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.)

May/21/24 8:50:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand in the House and to contribute to the debate today on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act for budget 2024, which is focused on ensuring fairness for every generation. It is another building block to help future generations and is based on supporting the promise that all Canadians should have a fair chance to build a good, middle-class life and to do as well as their parents, if not better. Today, too many young Canadians feel as though the deck is stacked against them, and the reward of secure, prosperous, comfortable middle-class life remains out of reach. Budget 2024 presents our plan to fix that. We will build a Canada that works better for everyone, no matter where or when they were born, and we are going to do that by building more affordable homes. We will make life cost less, and we will grow the economy in a way that is shared by all because our country works best when our economy is growing and when more opportunities exist for every generation. Today, I would like to talk about the housing pillar of budget 2024 and the elements of Bill C-69 that support the effort to make homes more affordable to more Canadians. For generations, one of the fundamental, foundational promises of Canada's middle-class dream was that if one worked hard and saved money, one could afford a home. However, for today's young adults, this promise is under threat. Rising rents are making it hard to find an affordable place to call home, and rising home prices are keeping homes out of reach for many first-time buyers, especially in my home province of British Columbia, and in Richmond, B.C. On April 12, the government released our ambitious housing plan, “solving the housing crisis: Canada's housing plan”, which is supported by new investments from the budget. Budget 2024 and Canada's housing plan lay out the government's bold strategy to unlock 3.87 million new homes by 2031, which includes a minimum of two million net new homes beyond what was already expected to be built. The plan will enable more apartments and affordable housing to be built across the country, while protecting the stock of affordable housing and protecting renters from unfair practices. When it comes to Bill C-69, the federal government is taking action to help Canadians buy and stay in their homes while also curbing investor activity that drives up the cost and decreases the availability of housing. Homes are for Canadians to live in, not speculative assets for investors, so we would crack down on non-compliant short-term rentals. The operation of non-compliant short-term rentals is helping to keep too many homes off the market. The 2023 fall economic statement proposed tax changes to incentivize the return of non-compliant short-term rentals to the long-term market and to support the work of provinces and territories that have restricted short-term rentals. Bill C-69 proposes those amendments to the Income Tax Act, which would deny income tax deductions for short-term rentals operated in provinces and municipalities that have prohibited such activities or where short-term rentals operators are not compliant with the applicable provincial or municipal orders. This measure would induce owners of short-term rentals to return their properties to the long-term market and would unlock more housing supply for Canadians to live in. The extension of the foreign buyer ban on Canadian housing now is to address increasing affordability concerns in cities across the country due to foreign money coming into Canada to buy up residential real estate. The government introduced a two-year ban on the purchase of residential property by foreign investors, which went into effect on January 1, 2023, to help further curb speculative foreign investments that reduce the supply of homes for Canadians to live in. The government announced that it intends to extend the ban on foreign buying of Canadian homes by an additional two years. As confirmed in budget 2024, Bill C-69 proposes to amend legislation to extend the restrictions on foreign investment in Canadian housing, established under the Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act, to January 1, 2027. Foreign commercial enterprises and people who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents would continue to be prohibited from purchasing residential property in Canada. Regarding the issue of underused housing tax refinements, as part of the 2023 fall economic statement, the government proposed several changes to the underused housing tax, or the UHT. Canadians and other stakeholders were invited to share their views on these proposals, and the amendments included in Bill C-69 take into account the feedback received. These changes would do the following: eliminate the UHT filing requirement for entities that are substantially or entirely Canadian; reduce the minimum non-filing penalties from $5,000 to $1,000 for individuals, and from $10,000 to $2,000 for corporations; introduce a new employee-accommodation exemption that would be available in areas of Canada that are rural or otherwise not densely populated; and, finally, make several technical changes to ensure that UHT applies in accordance with the policy intent. These proposed amendments aim to facilitate compliance while ensuring that the tax continues to apply as intended, and that is to discourage having non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential property sitting vacant and off the market. When it comes to enhancing the home buyers' plan to help Canadians buy their first home while at the same time we increase supply, the federal government is also enhancing the tax-free savings plans that help young prospective buyers save for a down payment. Support to help first-time buyers save must keep pace with market prices. That is why the government launched the tax-free first home savings account in 2023. To great success, more than 750,000 Canadians have already opened an account to save for their first down payment. That is also why, through budget 2024, we propose to enhance the home buyers' plan. To effect that enhancement, Bill C-69 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to increase the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit from $35,000 to $60,000, enabling first-time homebuyers to use the tax benefits of an RRSP to save up to $25,000 more for their down payment or, if they are in a partnership, $50,000 and almost $120,000 toward their first down payment. The newly increased limit would be effective since the budget was tabled on April 16. Bill C-69 also proposes to temporarily extend the grace period, during which homeowners are not required to repay their home buyers' plan withdrawals to their RRSP by an additional three years. Of the two million net new homes I mentioned earlier, we estimate that the recent policy actions taken in Canada's housing plan in budget 2024 and in fall 2023 would support a minimum of 1.2 million net new homes. Budget 2024 investments for increasing the supply of affordable homes are necessary and timely, and they are part of the investments we are making for the prosperity of every generation. We will build more homes. We will make life cost less. We will invest in our small businesses. We will grow our economy in a way that works for everyone, and I encourage all hon. members to support this bill.

1259 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

May/21/24 8:59:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague acknowledge that the Communist dictatorship in Beijing interfered to get him and the Prime Minister elected in 2021, as has been shown by various studies and reports, including Justice Hogue's inquiry?

38 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:00:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Justice Hogue's report was very clear that there was no certainty with respect to the election interference. I encourage the member opposite to read the report thoroughly before they make misleading accusations and try to do a character assassination on any member in the House.

48 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/21/24 9:00:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals tell us that they are very green and very environmentally minded. We have looked at the budget and analyzed it carefully because we are thorough. If something is good for Quebec, then we will vote for it. If it is bad for Quebec, then we will vote against it, of course. There is no partisanship in that. It is based purely on facts. The Liberals tell us that there are no more subsidies for the oil industry. However, in the budget, we see $30.3 billion in subsidies for oil companies in the form of tax credits. I hear my Liberal colleagues talk about future generations. Not only is the government using taxpayer dollars to fund the most polluting industry in the world, but it is taking that money away from those same young people, that same young generation and that next generation, who will have to deal with climate change. What explanation could there be for such a measure to appear in this budget? The government is giving $30.3 billion to an industry that is likely the wealthiest and most profitable industry in the world, and it is getting that money from taxpayers. How can it justify such a measure?

208 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:02:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, on this side of the House, we have worked very hard and aggressively to combat climate change, and we will continue to do so for future generations. Not only that, but also I was talking more precisely about housing and how we are going to be combatting the issues around affordability on housing. I can only speak for my riding specifically. We have already broken ground on the rapid housing initiative on Steveston Highway and Railway Avenue in Richmond, British Columbia, where we will be building 25 units for those who need it the most: women and women with children. It is something we are really happy to introduce. We have broken ground on that, and I am looking forward to it being done in record time.

133 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/21/24 9:03:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate hearing my colleague and neighbour from the lower mainland of B.C.. I do have a question for him that is serious. We have seen how badly Conservatives managed money when they were in power, with the giveaways to banks, the massive giveaways to CEOs for the oil and gas sector and the infamous Harper tax haven treaties that have sucked the lifeblood out of this country. It is $30 billion each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who should know, having evaluated the impacts of this dismal list of Harper treaties that have really sucked this country dry and that have led to, of course, all the cuts to services as well. My colleague, though, should be able to comment on why the Liberals have done much the same thing. They have not ended the tax haven treaties. They continue to give money, splurge, to oil and gas CEOs, and they provided even more money to the banks in liquidity supports than the Harper government did. Why do liberals take the worst practices of the Harper regime, rather than the best practices of financial management? Of course, as we are aware, those come from the party that is best at managing money and paying down debt, and that is the NDP.

220 words

Mr. Parm Bains

May/21/24 9:04:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to answer questions from the member opposite from British Columbia. When it comes to our banking system and taxation, the member opposite very well knows that we have made adequate and competitive choices when it comes to tax fairness. I encourage working closely with him on these issues.

54 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

May/21/24 9:05:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would rise in the House one day to say that the Prime Minister and I finally agree on a constitutional issue. A careful reading of this budget makes it clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party are no longer federalists. Like the Bloc Québécois, they now oppose the idea of dividing responsibilities between the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces and those of the House of Commons. Let us take a closer look at the definition of federalism. According to the late Benoît Pelletier, the hallmark of a federation is that federal institutions have sovereignty in their areas of jurisdiction, while the provinces have sovereignty in their own areas of jurisdiction. We in the Bloc Québécois do not subscribe to Canadian federalism, but since our party was created, we have always fought to protect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction until Quebec becomes independent. How could anyone conclude that the Liberals still believe in Canadian federalism after seeing the dozens of encroachments on Quebec's jurisdictions featured in this budget? That means that most members in this House do not believe in Canadian federalism. That is great news. However, rest assured that is where the similarities end. The Liberal Party is running a country that is unable to provide passports within a reasonable period of time, unable to make sure its public servants get paid and even unable to properly equip an invaded ally without neutralizing its own army's capabilities. This same party is now claiming that it wants to show the provinces and Quebec how to manage their health care systems, for instance. The Liberals have interfered so much that they have run out of areas to infringe upon. If the Prime Minister loses a a few more points in the polls, will he suggest changing the code of conduct for child care centres or will he interfere in how Hydro-Québec operates? Oh, wait. He has already done that. Believe it or not, when the Bloc Québécois comes up with its pre-budget requests, we do our homework and we request things that actually fall under federal jurisdiction. Here is what we asked for. We asked for the federal government to give Quebec the unconditional right to opt out with full compensation from any new federal program in areas under the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Obviously, that is not in the budget. We also asked for the federal government to increase old age security starting at age 65, which is what my esteemed colleague from Shefford's Bill C-319 seeks to do. Obviously, that is not in the budget either. We also asked the government to put an immediate end to all fossil fuel subsidies, including tax measures, and to support clean, renewable energy instead. Everyone knows that tax credits are a pretty deceptive way of subsidizing an industry that is already very rich and that is making billions in profits on the backs of taxpayers. It is actually very difficult to figure out exactly how much those tax credits are worth. Obviously, this budget does not end fossil fuel subsidies. We had another request as well. We asked the government to pay Quebec what it owes for asylum seekers. That is certainly not in the budget. Quebec is still asking for the $900 million it spent welcoming asylum seekers after the feds opened the borders. Quebec welcomed them and worked hard to integrate them, but we are still waiting to be reimbursed. Lastly, Quebec asked the government to transfer the housing budget. The federal government is unfortunately taking over in the housing crisis. Instead of transferring the money to Quebec and the provinces, the federal government is now imposing conditions, not only on Quebec and the provinces, but also on municipalities. For example, it wants to impose conditions related to density around college and university campuses. That is direct interference in municipalities' jurisdiction over city planning. That is next-level jurisdictional encroachment. Let me recap what is in this budget, because none of the Bloc Québécois's requests are there. On April 16, the Government of Canada tabled its budget. First, it mentions a negative budgetary balance of $40 billion for 2023-24, $39.8 billion for 2024-25 and $38.9 billion for 2025-26, which is not that far off. The trend continues before reaching a projected deficit of $20 billion in 2028-29. The government is therefore choosing to rack up debt for itself, for Canadians and for Quebeckers in the years to come, of course, with no plan to balance the budget, which is alarming. The government is therefore deciding to tax the public more, as with the increased capital gains tax. However, it is taking on as much debt as ever. I laid out the figures. Our debt remains the same. The government is going to get a little more money, but it is going to keep taking on more debt.

855 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/21/24 9:09:59 p.m.
Watch

I would like to point out that the hon. member for Terrebonne has the floor, and I hope that those who are taking part in conversations will keep their voices very low.

32 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/21/24 9:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it seems we are witnessing an NDP-Liberal coalition meeting here in the House. Basically, the government just keeps spending. Is it spending more? Not really, it is mostly just wasting more. Over the past few months, we have seen examples of the government spending too much and spending poorly. One obvious example is the money allocated for first nations housing. The government announces significant investments year after year, but it is unable to ensure that this money has any real impact. In fact, a recent Auditor General's report demonstrated that zero improvements have been made in on-reserve housing since the government took office. Billions of dollars have been sunk into it and there have not been enough results. Another fine example is, of course, the ArriveCAN app, which I have spoken to several times in the House. It was supposed to cost $80,000, but it ended up costing the government, and therefore taxpayers, at least $60 million. What we learned from ArriveCAN is that there is a much larger and more widespread problem within the current government. Under the Liberals, the public service has grown enormously, more and more contracts have been awarded to consultants, and a growing proportion of those same contracts are being awarded on a non-competitive basis. Let us not forget that many of these contracts could have been carried out in-house, by our public servants. It is quite clear that Canadians and Quebeckers are not getting the best value for their money. There has been talk about encroachment into Quebec's jurisdictions. There has been talk about the deficit. There has been talk about the mismanagement of services that fall under federal jurisdiction, but nothing has been said about why. Why is the government proposing such a disastrous budget? I will give a hint. The majority of the money promised is planned for 2026-27 and the years thereafter, well past the date of the next federal election. Just as an example, 97% of the $1.1 billion allocated to accelerating the construction of apartments is budgeted for after the election, as is 91% of the $1.5 billion allocated for the new housing infrastructure fund. The same goes for the 88% of the money promised for pharmacare, 88% of the funding to support research and 87.5% of the funding to strengthen Canada's advantage in artificial intelligence. This budget is at best an election promise and at worst a strategy to stay in power by convincing the NDP to support the government. In its desperation, the government wants to interfere everywhere, yet people in government are unable to do the work themselves. I already gave a few examples. They are taking away responsibilities from the provinces and managing them ineffectively and at a much higher cost. As an economist, I would describe any budget that tries to create a slew of new services, while disregarding the government's primary responsibilities, as irresponsible. If the Liberal Party is so desperate that it is looking for ideas for the next election, I would like to offer it a campaign slogan: “Spend and borrow for a mismanaged tomorrow”. This government thinks that, by disregarding Quebeckers' right to manage their own responsibilities and those of their nation, it can buy itself a brief reprieve, but only by taking on debt. According to an old French proverb that Quebeckers have not forgotten, no debt is ever repaid faster than a debt of contempt. As it happens, Quebeckers have long memories.

594 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/21/24 9:13:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Her remarks are always relevant, but I have two questions for her. First, I want to talk about dental care. Hundreds of thousands of seniors in Quebec are now enrolled in the dental care plan, which means that it has already been very successful. Thousands of Quebeckers have already had access to this care. This new program is clearly working. Next, I want to talk about pharmacare. Quebec's system unfortunately leaves 15% of Quebeckers out in the cold. That is why all the major unions have said that the Bloc Québécois must support the pharmacare bill that the NDP set in motion, because it is very important. Two voices from Quebec have been very clear in their support for the dental care plan and the new pharmacare program. We do not understand why the Bloc Québécois continues to oppose them. Can the member explain why the Bloc Québécois is not listening to all these voices from Quebec?

179 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/21/24 9:15:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I would like to answer those two questions, which are ultimately one and the same. Quite simply, these are encroachments on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. As I said at the outset, since its inception, the Bloc Québécois has opposed encroachments on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. The federal government is in no position to tell Quebec how to manage its health care, when Quebec has already done it and done it well. The system is not perfect, but it continues to improve. It has served Quebeckers well for years. If Quebec wants to increase dental coverage, Quebec will do it. It does not need the federal government to tell it what to do.

129 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

May/21/24 9:16:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment about balancing the budget. I know that there are all sorts of examples in history, including Quebec's history, where perhaps too many eggs were broken to make an omelette. We know that fiscal austerity or zero deficit efforts have been made, often much more violently in other countries of the world, especially developing countries, to the detriment of those who are struggling the most and at the expense of public services. Those were the days of triumphant neo-liberalism. However, I think that asking for a plan is about making sure that we do not get to that point. If the plan is no good, we will say so. Sooner or later, we need to balance the budget in one way or another, so it is better to do it the right way. Is asking for a plan not just a way to ensure that we do not end up using drastic or highly ideological remedies that would penalize those who are struggling the most?

175 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

May/21/24 9:17:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. That is why several jurisdictions already have laws on the books requiring a plan to return to a balanced budget, precisely to prevent situations where debt accumulates to the point of hurting the people who need it most. As my colleague rightly pointed out, a return to a balanced budget is essential. It is essential to guarantee a future for Quebeckers as long as we remain part of Canada.

76 words