SoVote

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

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

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC)

May/21/24 9:55:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, here we have the government that created this housing shortage by having an imbalance from taking in new Canadians without making sure the capacity to take care of them was there. It is now blowing billions of dollars when we are already $1.4 trillion in debt, adding another $60 billion, and there is no end in sight. Instead of getting into the housing jurisdiction, which is not a federal jurisdiction, how is the government going to solve the problem? Will it be by concentrating on the imbalance and fixing the problem in the first place, which is that we have too many people and not enough housing?

110 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

May/21/24 9:56:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we do not have enough housing. We have to build more, as I said in my speech. There is so much in that question, I am not sure where to begin. I know my time is limited, so I will focus on the one point that stood out. The member said that, in her view, the federal government has no business engaging in housing. From that, I assume it is the position of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is no surprise, and now we understand why the Leader of the Opposition has yet to allow his private member's bill on housing, his so-called housing plan, to come forward. It was supposed to come forward months ago, and he has delayed it. That is why.

129 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)

May/21/24 9:56:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the leader of the Conservative Party has made one thing clear, it is that, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost. It is not worth the cost for the out-of-control spending. Federal government spending is up 43% since 2019. It is not worth the cost for increasing the deficit. Canada's total debt has ballooned to $1.4 trillion, up from $600 million in 2015 when Stephen Harper was prime minister. It is not worth the cost for interest payments. Canada's interest payments are higher than what we spend on health transfers. Plus, the incompetent finance minister forgot to lock in Canada's debts at lower interest rates, costing us billions more. It is not worth the cost for our hard-earned savings, as it is imposing the largest capital gains increase in decades. Because this budget, the government and the Prime Minister are not worth the cost, I will be proudly voting against this budget. Before this budget came down in mid-April, common-sense Conservatives sent a letter to the Prime Minister with three demands to fix the budget: one, axe the tax on farmers and food by immediately passing Bill C-234 in its original form; two, build the homes, not bureaucracy, by requiring cities to permit 15% more homes each year as a condition for receiving federal infrastructure money; and, three, cap the spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down interest rates and inflation, so the government must save a dollar for every new dollar of spending. The Prime Minister refused to listen and the result is a budget that the NDP-Liberal government delivered just a few short weeks ago that is just more of the same that broke our country in the first place. Common-sense Conservatives will not support this runaway train wreck of a budget, nor will we support the NDP-Liberal government, which has broken our country, because the truth is that the budgeting of the government is like pressing the accelerator on a runaway train. Its budgets have boosted spending by 43% since 2019, which is like pouring gas on the inflationary fire, which drives up interest rates. This increased spending further endangers our social programs and jobs by adding more debt and more interest payments. Frankly, this spending spree will not stop until common-sense Conservatives are able to start governing, stop that runaway train and turn it around. The Liberals and their costly NDP partners are not worth the cost for any generation. The government has doubled rent, mortgage payments and down payments. Food is getting so expensive that food banks received a record two million visits in a single month last year, with a million additional visits expected this year. While life has gotten worse for Canadians, the NDP-Liberals are spending more than ever before. This year's budget will include nearly $40 billion in new inflationary spending. Former Liberal governor of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that this budget is the worst budget since 1982. This year, Canada will spend $54.1 billion to service the NDP-Liberal debt. This is more money than the government is sending to the provinces for health care. Both the Bank of Canada and former Liberal finance minister John Manley told the Prime Minister that he was pressing on the inflationary gas pedal with all this additional spending, but the Liberals did not listen. As a result, the Bank of Canada has implemented the most aggressive interest rate hikes in its history. As millions of Canadians are renewing their mortgages and know this right now, the NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost. Let us talk about the carbon tax. We will hear many myths coming from the NDP-Liberal government concerning the carbon tax. I want to dispel some of them for the people back in Saskatoon West who are watching. The first myth is that the carbon tax does not add to inflation. Canadians know that is not true. They know it is making everything more expensive and miserable for everyone. The International Monetary Fund defines the carbon tax. It states: Carbon taxes, levied on...oil products...in proportion to their carbon content, can be collected from fuel suppliers. They in turn will pass on the tax in the form of higher prices for electricity, gasoline, heating oil, and so on, as well as for the products and services that depend on them. This is black and white. Carbon taxes are meant to make everything more expensive. Energy, products, food and everything else that we buy are all more expensive. Boy oh boy, has the NDP-Liberal carbon tax been very successful in making everything much more expensive. Anyone who goes to the grocery store knows the price of food has increased astronomically since the carbon tax came into effect. One cannot buy carrots, potatoes, eggs, milk, cheese, chicken, beef, pork or even Kraft Dinner without burning through one's paycheque. The Prime Minister has blamed this laughably on the war in Ukraine. How much of our cheese, milk, carrots and Kraft Dinner come from Russia or Ukraine? Let me say that it is zero, yet, as any common-sense Saskatchewan person can tell us, Canada produces and manufactures our own food. What does affect the domestic price of food is when the Canadian farmer must suddenly start paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in carbon taxes to fuel his farm equipment, keep the greenhouses hot, and move the manufacturing line and processing facilities. These costs get passed on to the retailer. The retailer, of course, has their own carbon taxes to pay on the electricity to keep the lights on and keep the fridges and freezers cold while absorbing whatever extra carbon tax costs were incurred by the transport trucks delivering the food to that retailer. All those taxes get added up and passed on to the consumer. That is how the carbon tax is making everything more expensive. That is inflation, plain and simple. There is a second myth to dispel about the carbon tax. The Prime Minister goes around touting his so-called carbon rebate cheques as his new Marxist wealth redistribution project. He tells Canadians to not worry about paying carbon taxes because he will just give it back to them with a quarterly cheque. Is that true? Like everything the Prime Minister says and does, it may seem true in his world, but in the real world, he is absolutely wrong. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent officer of Parliament who is not beholden to any political party, looked at the Prime Minister's claims and produced a very detailed report. Using the Prime Minister's own figures and math, he went across Canada and examined how much everyone pays in carbon tax and how much they get back in these so-called rebates. In my home province of Saskatchewan, this year the Liberals will collect an average of $2,618 from every family, but the Liberals will only rebate on average $2,093. That means that each Saskatchewan family will lose $525. Only in the Prime Minister's head does losing over $500 mean that someone is coming out ahead. Within five years, as the carbon tax quadruples, that net loss would be well over $1,700 per year for each family. It is clear that only in the alternative reality the Prime Minister lives in does a loss of $1,700 every year turn out to be a win. As such, myth one is that the carbon tax does not make everything more expensive, but we know that it does exactly that. Myth two is that families get the carbon tax back, when the truth is they do not, leaving each family $500 in the hole. The third myth is that the NDP is somehow not to blame for the Prime Minister's brazen disregard for the Canadian public every time he raises the carbon tax. The fact is that the coalition government agreement the NDP and Liberals struck is akin to one of the greatest heists ever committed against the Canadian taxpayer. Did the Prime Minister put the gun to the taxpayers and pull the trigger? He absolutely did, but it was the NDP that loaded the gun, kept the getaway vehicle idling when the dirty work was being done and then put its foot on the accelerator to make sure the Liberals got a clean getaway. Myth number four is that the home heating oil exemption was not meant to help Liberal MPs in the Maritimes. The truth is that they created this exemption so people heating their homes in Atlantic Canada did not have to pay carbon tax. I can clearly see that in the announcement filled with all the Liberal Maritime MPs. When Saskatchewan thought this type of exemption should also apply to people heating their homes in our frigid province, what did the Prime Minister do instead? If I turn to page 408 in annex 3 of the budget, it would give the Liberals the legal authority to prosecute the Saskatchewan government for not collecting the carbon tax on natural gas. As such, exempting home heating in Atlantic Canada is A-okay for the Liberals. Exempting home heating in Saskatchewan would be a criminal act, so obviously this shows the lengths to which the Prime Minister is willing to go to favour one region of Canada over another. Ultimately, as a member of Parliament, I must make a decision on how I will be voting on the budget. How do I represent the interests of the people of Saskatoon West? Do I vote in favour of higher taxes, out-of-control spending, massive inflationary debt payments and no end in sight? Many folks in my riding email me, almost on a daily basis, imploring me to stop doing these very things. They are very concerned that our activist Prime Minister is breaking Canada. They see the crime, chaos and destruction are on our streets. They feel the pinch of higher grocery prices and higher taxes. As such, do I vote against another wasteful budget, a budget that is meant to harm Canadians, a budget that raises their taxes and increases inflation? I am a Conservative, and I believe in common sense. I am voting no to the budget. I am voting non-confidence in the NDP-Liberal government, and I am voting in favour of us having a carbon tax election as soon as possible. Let us bring it home.

1773 words

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

May/21/24 10:06:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting that the member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He should go and have look, because CNN did an interview with the Kraft CEO specifically, who said, “We’ve already increased the prices that we were expecting this year, but I'm predicting that next year, inflation will continue, and as a consequence [we] will have other rounds of price increases”. The article goes on to say, “Beyond the double-barrel challenges of shortages of raw materials and inflation, issues like...the war in Ukraine...are adding to the uncertainty”, so the member does not need to take my word for it. The member asked what Kraft Dinner has to do with Ukraine. He can listen to the CEO from Kraft, who made those comments that I read out, who explicitly said shortages coming out of Ukraine are contributing to inflation.

156 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

May/21/24 10:07:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is just another example of the Liberals failing to take responsibility for the inflation that has happened in this country. We have had serious record inflation, the highest rates we have had in 40 years. This has hurt the pocketbooks of all Canadians. It has reduced their buying power. It has made everything more expensive, including Kraft Dinner and everything else. The carbon tax has a lot to do with that. Inflationary spending has caused the rate of inflation to go up and has caused those expenses to get higher. Canadians are feeling the pinch.

98 words

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

May/21/24 10:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We work very well together at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I really enjoy working with him. He is very thorough. The Conservatives say they are going to form the next government. We, as well as the Conservatives, are going to vote against this budget; there is no doubt about that. Now, what would the Conservatives do if they were sitting where the Liberals are? That is never quite as clear. Since my colleague sits on the immigration committee with me, I will ask him a question. There is one item that is missing from the budget, and I would like to know whether the Conservatives would proceed differently from the Liberals when it comes to the billion dollars that the Quebec government is requesting for taking in asylum seekers. The Liberals refuse to pay that money to the Quebec government. Quebec's National Assembly is calling on the federal government to reimburse the $1‑billion cost of taking in asylum seekers. If my colleague's party were in power, would Quebec be reimbursed that $1 billion?

193 words