SoVote

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

May/21/24 9:19:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we now know the facts: this was posted without the Speaker's knowledge or authorization, it was promptly deleted and an apology has been issued, so I think in a very clear sense, that should bring closure to the question of privilege. I did want to comment on a number of the points that were made this morning by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie. First, and I find this somewhat disturbing, the member from Grande Prairie—Mackenzie seemed to be questioning a decision made by the Assistant Deputy Speaker when the Speaker ruled on the issue of the moving of a substantive motion around the issue of the Speaker. That ruling is absolutely correct. It should not be called into question. In fact, it would be inappropriate for a member to call that into question. It follows along with the procedural manual, the bible of this House of Commons. It is very clear that this ruling was appropriate. If Conservatives felt strongly about this, they could move a substantive motion during any opposition day. It is quite clear, given that we have had the same opposition day motion moved, with a bit of tweaking, for two years, that the Conservatives have basically been using their opposition days to move the same thing over and over again. The reality is that the rules of our House actually stipulate that an opposition day motion could be used in that regard, so I found the questioning, by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, of a decision that is very clearly in keeping with the procedures of this House, quite disturbing. Second, the issue that was raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie questioned the decision to ask the member from Carleton to leave this House when he caused disorder with very unparliamentary, disrespectful language that the Speaker asked him to withdraw and apologize for, and he refused. The characterization by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie in his question of privilege is completely inaccurate. We all saw that scene. We were present in the House of Commons. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the one party that was not in favour of it was the party that was impacted by the member for Carleton refusing to apologize and withdraw, and all other members in this House believed that the Speaker had made the right decision. I find that disturbing as well. Third and finally, in the comments made by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, he did not recognize the fact that the events that happened in December of last year were treated through a PROC motion that was brought forward to this House, voted on and passed concurrence, so that issue had already been dealt with. To raise that as a new question of privilege is clearly not appropriate. Mr. Speaker, my final comments are these: I have raised this with you previously, and this comes from a ruling that was established by this House on September 24, 2014, by the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is currently the Conservative House leader. He said, “Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker—an allegation of bias, for example—could be taken by the House as breeches of privilege and punished accordingly.” I have raised this numerous times. We have seen disrespectful, unparliamentary comments on social media from numerous members of the Conservative caucus that are violations of this very clear ruling from 10 years ago. I have brought them forward for your judgment, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, for the Conservatives to so cavalierly throw the rule book out, throw precedence out and throw the very clear decisions of this House and rulings by the Chair out the window and continually question the Speaker, raising allegations of bias, is something that could be treated as a breach of privilege and could be punished accordingly. I find the question of privilege this morning to be in a very similar vein: it was factually inaccurate, poorly drafted and contained elements that were, quite frankly, false and misleading. It does constitute again, rather than a bona fide question of privilege, an attempt to skirt the rules of this House that have been clearly established. I come back to that issue of numerous cases of Conservative MPs violating that principle from 10 years ago and the ruling by the former Speaker, now the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you look into that and come back to the House in short order. These violations cannot continue. They are inappropriate, unparliamentary and disrespectful of this place.

785 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/21/24 9:25:25 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for his input. As it puts me in the awkward position once again to make a decision, I will try to come back to the House as soon as possible.

35 words

Decision

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

May/21/24 9:25:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after nine years and eight consecutive deficit budgets, the Prime Minister has doubled the debt, adding more to our national debt than all other prime ministers combined. Housing costs have doubled under his watch and, now, two million Canadians are forced to visit their local food banks in a single month. That is twice the population of Nova Scotia. With the budget, we can see another $50 billion of inflationary spending. The budget and the Prime Minister are simply not worth the cost. I will be voting no confidence. Common-sense Conservatives have a plan to axe the tax, build the home, fix the budget and, yes, stop the crime. Since he became the Prime Minister, the wealthiest .01% of Canadians have been living lavishly, receiving major subsidies from their corporations that are bigger than ever in the history of our country and huge loan guarantees that prevent them from losing money on bad investments. Who foots the bill for the out-of-control Prime Minister? The hard-working taxpayers. Contractors like those from GC Strategies are among the .01% thanks to the generous gifts from the NDP-Liberal government. Who else is in that .01%? The Prime Minister himself. As a matter of fact, he is considered one of the world's wealthiest politicians. Yet, over the past nine years, Canada's personal income growth has fallen behind that of other G7 nations. Today, average Canadian families and seniors are forced to choose between paying their mortgage and putting food on their table. Let me make one thing clear. Conservatives are not against spending. We are against wasteful spending, which the NDP-Liberal government excels at. Conservatives will support programs that deliver proven positive outcomes. Take the government's dental care program, for instance. Who will it really help? Is it helping seniors? No. Did the government consult with the Canadian Dental Association before announcing it? No. The result is a program rushed out the door in a desperate attempt to buy votes with no real thought or consultation behind it. I have heard from many dentists and one thing is clear. These dentists care about their patients and have worked tirelessly to build their business, but the Canadian dental care program in its current state will not allow them the same high level of patient care they provide. The proof is in the extremely low sign-up rate by dentists. Canadians have been promised free dental care, but are now upset due to the massive limitations and restrictions imposed by this ill-conceived NDP-Liberal program. Eligible treatments are insufficient for the prevention and maintenance of good oral health. Dentists should be able to make recommendations based on the individual needs of their patients and not the constraints dictated by this government and covered up by their insurance company. The public is being misled about the scope of coverage and the fees. Most patients will be surprised by out-of-pocket expenses such as copay balances and limitations of service. The burden will fall on dental teams to explain these deficiencies. After analyzing the CDCP benefit grid, most treatments will be reimbursed to the dental team at around 80%. The Liberals claim this is to avoid overburdening the taxpayers. Is that not rich? They awarded Sun Life $747 million to administer this program. Clearly, the Liberal government does not understand the cost of providing quality health care. To be a provider, dentists were told to sign an open-ended, unilateral contract. Who would sign a contract where the details are unclear and unfair? The Minister of Health has said dentists should just try it if they like it. That does not even make sense. It is an insurance plan, not a pair of gloves. Dentists cannot just try out a plan to see whether it fits. This is neither sensible nor ethical. What happens if they decide not to continue? How can they morally or ethically stop treating a patient based on insurance coverage? Let us also talk about patient privacy. Accepting the claims processing and payment agreement gives Sun Life rights and access to the entire patient chart. Client consent is obtained as part of member enrolment in the CDCP, meaning that personal health information and dental charts will be readily available to Sun Life and the government. The plan has little to no thought on how it would work. To sell it as free dental care is nothing more than false advertising and wasteful spending, not unlike the billion-dollar arrive scam app. I googled the meaning of the word “budget”, and this is what came up: “A budget is a plan you write down to decide how you will spend your money”. That part of the definition the government seems to understand, but it is the next sentence where it fails: “A budget helps you make sure you will have enough money every month. Without a budget, you might run out of money before your next paycheck.” The NDP-Liberal coalition has spent so much money that more Canadian tax dollars are used to service the debt than are spent on health care. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the Prime Minister's debt. That is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, confirmed that the Prime Minister's $61 billion in new spending is not helpful in bringing inflation down and lowering interest rates. After nine years, the Prime Minister's budget is just more of the same of what got us into this mess. He did not stop the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates. He did not stop endangering our social programs and jobs by adding more and more debt. His government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. His record deficits have driven interest rates sky-high. Food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with an additional million expected in 2024. He will not stop until common-sense Conservatives start governing with common sense for this country. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost for any generation. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the Prime Minister is spending more than ever before. This year's budget includes over $61 billion in new inflationary spending. This would cost the average Canadian family an extra $3,687. Former Liberal Governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge said that the current budget is the “worst since 1982.” Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that his spending is pressing on the inflationary gas pedal, driving up interest rates. Struggling families cannot afford higher taxes and more inflationary spending that drives up the cost of everything, keeping interest rates high. That is why common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget. First, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form. Second, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homebuilding each year as a condition of receiving federal infrastructure money. Third, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation. The government must find a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refuses to listen. Common-sense Conservatives will not support this budget, and the people of my constituency are just waiting for us to form government and beat the current Liberal government.

1283 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

May/21/24 9:35:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to pick up on a question that my friend from Kingston and the Islands has actually asked in the chamber a few times this evening, without receiving a response. It concerns the idea that the budget is creating more inflation in Canada. We know that now for four months in a row, inflation has gone down. It is at a four-month low, at 2.7%. Can the member explain to me how apparently the budget is creating more inflation, when we actually see inflation going down in Canada?

94 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

May/21/24 9:36:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to share a story that was told to me by an 88-year-old senior who came to visit me in my constituency office. He said to me that he cannot afford to eat, and he asked what good going to the dentist is if he has nothing to eat. He told me that 10 years ago he could afford to eat; it was no problem at all. It is only after nine years of the incompetent NDP-Liberal government that seniors like this one cannot afford to eat. The senior also told me that he was ashamed of himself. I asked why. He said that up until 2021, he always voted Liberal. He told me that he will now be voting—

128 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 9:37:03 p.m.
Watch

Normally answers have to be the same length as the questions so other members can ask questions. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

23 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

May/21/24 9:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the one thing that struck me was that the member mentioned that seniors are not benefiting from the dental care program. We know already that two million seniors across this country have registered for the program. We know that tens of thousands of seniors are registering every week. We know that in the first two weeks of the program, 60,000 seniors got dental care. That means that hundreds of seniors in the member's riding have benefited from the dental care program. I am wondering what she says to those seniors in her riding, when she says that nobody has benefited and when the proof is so very clear that tens of thousands, if not millions, of Canadian seniors are benefiting from the NDP dental care program.

130 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

May/21/24 9:38:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a correction. First of all, it is 1.7 million people who have registered. Second, it is 5,000 dentists who have signed up. Third, there are 25,500 dentists, 30,000 dental hygienists and 26,000 to 29,000 dental assistants in Canada. Let me quote something else. If one takes it line by line and looks at the dental care plan, children under the age of 12 are allowed seven minutes once a year for cleaning of their teeth. Seniors with existing periodontal disease do not qualify. How is this helping seniors?

101 words

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

May/21/24 9:39:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat troubled—actually I am extremely troubled—by this determination to completely disregard all the social programs that exist in Quebec and the provinces, suggesting that Canada is going to swoop in and save the poor provinces by implementing a dental care plan, when Quebec has one that is governed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec and not by private insurance. I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question. Instead of interfering, would her party be willing to substantially increase health transfers, if it forms the next government? This federal government is starving Quebec and the provinces when it comes to health care. Then it invents and proposes all sorts of programs from coast to coast to coast that do not meet the needs—

141 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 9:40:27 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the hon. member for King—Vaughan an opportunity to respond. The hon. member for King—Vaughan has 20 seconds.

25 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

May/21/24 9:40:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that provinces do take care of health care, but I am going to say something. We are going to reduce taxes, which is going to be able to lower the budget so that we can increase the transfer money to all provinces, unlike the wacko policies of the current Liberal government.

58 words

Health
Care

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

May/21/24 9:40:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour tonight, as always, to rise in the House to speak to the challenges facing our country. Top among those is housing. There is no reason to sugar-coat it. We have to be clear-eyed on the problem at hand, which is that we have a housing crisis in front of us. To address the housing crisis, we have to build more homes. We must build more homes to make sure that current and future generations are taken care of. To do that, we have to make the math work in the first instance. That is why the government would waive GST on apartments in general, but also on co-ops and residences for students. Public universities and public colleges would now benefit through a GST waiver. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Mr. Peter Fragiskatos: Madam Speaker, my Conservative friends, whom I hear jeering on the other side, ought to look at the housing plan and compare it to their own leader's housing plan, which does not include any tax incentive of this kind at all. Last week, in my community of London, I met with the private sector, and with builders specifically, to—

202 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 9:42:07 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Fredericton is rising on a point of order.

12 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

May/21/24 9:42:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just cannot help but notice that the member for Saskatoon—University keeps interrupting our speaker, and I would like to hear what our speaker has to share with us this evening.

35 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/21/24 9:42:18 p.m.
Watch

I agree. We would like to have the same courtesy accorded to both sides of the House: to be able to make their speeches without interruption. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

30 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/21/24 9:42:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do accept that in the course of debate, heckling happens. It is part of the tradition, but I would like to finish my speech. However, I would invite my colleague who was doing it to raise a question during questions and comments. I look forward to debating him on this issue and others. I mentioned the GST waiver that will lead to more building. Just last week, I talked to builders in my London community who are quite excited about this measure because, in the context of high interest rates and a more expensive situation when it comes to securing labour and building supplies, it is incumbent on governments at all levels to do whatever they can to put incentives on the table, just like this government has, and the GST waiver stands out as part of that. Low-interest loans for apartments in general, but also student and senior residences, are another example of incentives put on the table by this government to ensure the math does work for builders. Through the CMHC, we would ensure that those who want to take out those low-interest loans through the apartment construction loan program, or the ACLP, can do that. The interest rate will fluctuate. It is attached to the bond, but certainly a more attractive interest rate is available than, say, interest rates that would be secured through the big banks. We expect hundreds of thousands of homes, in fact, 131,000 homes, to be specific, to be built as a result of the ACLP program. There is also a measure that has not been talked about nearly enough, but, based on conversations with builders over the past few weeks, it has been confirmed that changes to the accelerated capital cost allowance program would give builders the ability to write off up to 10% of annual mortgage costs from their taxes, and that is going to lead to much more building. We saw something akin to that in the 1970s. Earlier tonight, I heard a colleague across the way ask why we are not seeing more homes built. He talked about the 1970s as a period of enormous building in terms of housing starts in Canada. One of the key reasons is that the accelerated capital cost allowance program at that time was akin to what the government has now done. We have moved ahead in this regard, taking our cue not only from the building sector but also from listening to what economists have said. In my community, we have Mike Moffatt at the Ivey Business School, who, among others, has advised the government to go in this direction, and the government has done exactly that. Finally, on making the math work, we have looked at public lands, and ensuring that leasing is possible through public lands is something that we have taken very seriously. There has always been a debate in terms of land use in Canada for lands that are owned by the federal, provincial and municipal governments. At one time, the thinking was that perhaps they could be sold for housing purposes, but I think it is much more appropriate, and I agree with the government on this, that a leasing option be provided. If the government retains the opportunity to lease instead of sell, we can ensure a more affordable approach to housing. Underused land or land that is not used at all could be put up for leasing purposes. There could be an affordable housing project on site. There could also be child care opportunities for families. There could also be health care services provided on site. I know the government, in concert with municipal and provincial governments, wants to begin that dialogue to understand how we can better use public lands going forward in this country. An inventory of public lands will be necessary in the first place, but, as I have said, I very much look forward to seeing where this could go. It is very promising, and we are seeing the needle move on this issue. I know many advocates across the country have called for this and are quite pleased with what the government has proposed in budget 2024 in this regard. Second, in terms of building more homes, we have to work with communities to ensure that more homes get built, because it is municipalities, in particular, that are in charge of zoning. We need many more types of homes. We need duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, mid-rise apartments and row houses. This is the missing middle housing that advocates have called for. We see communities throughout the land moving in this direction. They have signed on to the housing accelerator fund in return for federal dollars. In return for making a pledge to ensure that zoning is changed to allow for that missing middle housing, they have access to funds that can be used for public transit, for infrastructure, for all sorts of needs, including affordable housing. My community of London, back in September, was the first community in the country to receive dollars through this program, with $74 million that will see thousands more homes built in the next few years, and 750,000 homes nationally is what we expect to be built as a result of communities signing on to this program. Much related to this is tying infrastructure dollars to home building. This is something that makes perfect sense. There are federal dollars available, as they always have been, for infrastructure purposes, dollars that would flow to municipalities, but especially to provinces, for water infrastructure, waste-water infrastructure and solid waste infrastructure, for all sorts of infrastructure. Tying that to an expectation that we see more homes built mirrors what we have done with the accelerator fund program and is something that will lead to more construction. Finally, we have to change the way we build. That is crucial to getting more homes built. On that point, I point to the example of modular housing and the potential of modular housing in this country. We have factories throughout the land where homes are being built that are not exposed to the elements. For example, I was in Alberta recently, in Lethbridge. I visited Triple M Housing, the largest modular producer in the country. What I saw was three homes built a day of varying size appropriate for income types that exist, the varying income types we see in this country. Large homes or modest homes, whatever the desire is, the company is able to produce those. In my own area, just north of London, in Hensall, I visited General Coach. I went to Northlander Industries in Exeter. I look forward to engaging with Royal Homes. These companies have seen in this budget loan opportunities put on the table to the tune of $500 million to see an expanded approach. A greater ability to serve the needs of the country in this regard is what modular companies will have. If they are not engaged in modular housing, if they are doing any type of prefabricated building, that is something that certainly builders can look at. They can look at this budget and see opportunities to expand their operations. I would surmise that we see the potential of modular homes not only to fill the gap that exists with respect to market housing, but also to ensure that we have more non-market housing built for people, fellow citizens, who unfortunately have found themselves in a very unfortunate way living on the street. We have a huge responsibility in this regard. We have to get people housed, with the wraparound supports necessary for people to make a much more positive transition to ensure they have a brighter future: mental health support services on site, supports to ensure their physical health care, job training, all of that. That is what we would call a just vision to ensure that homelessness is finally dealt with in this country. Modular home building fits into that, because we can have homes built, as I said before, very quickly. One company is doing three homes a day and others are producing close to that rate. It is something that makes a great deal of difference, and budget 2024 realizes that, among other things.

1384 words

Mr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC)

May/21/24 9:51:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his focus on housing. He talked about removing the GST from apartments and building, but if Liberals are so focused on reducing the costs for builders, developers and Canadians, why are they charging the GST on top of the carbon tax? Why in this budget did they not remove the GST from the carbon tax entirely? That would lower costs for every aspect of the supply chain and encourage builders, developers and trades to lower their prices because the consumer is not being taxed on a tax and double-dipped with the GST being charged on top of a carbon tax.

108 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/21/24 9:51:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, because of my parliamentary secretary role, I have engaged with those in the building sector, and I have put this question to them on the carbon tax. They say that it is not very significant at all. Much more important is removing, as I said, the GST from the construction of rental apartments. Much more important is ensuring that builders have access to low-interest loans. Much more important is seeing on-the-ground changes through municipalities in terms of zoning. That is going to lead to much more building. The colleague opposite is a colleague I respect. He has been in the House for many years. He did not run off, for example, as the other colleague did. He stayed here to debate. We have an opportunity here to get more homes built, and if we want to do that, we have to see zoning changes. All of those things add up to more building in this country.

161 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/21/24 9:53:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned non-market housing, which I would note is for more than those who are suffering from homelessness. One of the reasons so many people are struggling to find affordable housing is that previous Liberal governments, starting in the 1990s, really abdicated the federal role when it came to building non-market housing. Today, only 3.5% of Canada's housing stock is non-market, compared to about 12% for our peer countries in the OECD. Research out of the University of British Columbia says that at least 25% of the 5.8 million homes that CMHC says needs to be built by 2030 should be non-market. However, I have seen no indication of a target for the construction of non-market housing. Does the government have a non-market housing target? If so, what is that target?

144 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/21/24 9:54:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the current stock of affordable housing in Canada is around 4%. That is not enough. We have to increase that. My colleague wants to be partisan tonight. I do not think there is a need to be partisan. Yes, previous Liberal governments did let the country down when it came to not putting enough on the table and not investing enough to ensure an adequate, affordable housing stock. That is true of previous Liberal governments. It is true especially of previous Conservative governments. I do not want to dwell on that. I hope that my colleague opposite will support this budget, a budget that does put serious investment on the table, as previous budgets introduced by this particular government have, to ensure that more affordable homes get built. There will be more affordable homes that have wraparound support services on-site, which I talked about before, provided by excellent not-for-profit and charity organizations that have the expertise to ensure people can make a transition to something better. I have heard my colleague speak in the House many times. I know he believes in these things. He should support the budget.

194 words