SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 318

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
Mr. Speaker, today, the House is debating Bill C-356, the Conservative leader's housing proposal. In the Conservative leader's bill, there is no mention of students, seniors, workers or the most vulnerable in the country. Could the Deputy Prime Minister please tell Canadians what our plan focuses on, how we are working to create more affordable homes faster across Canada and how the Conservative leader's plan would slow down builders?
73 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:02:44 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, here is what the Conservatives are actually proposing to do on housing. They want to eliminate the renters' bill of rights and our plan to build more homes faster. They want to cut the infrastructure funding that municipalities need to get more homes built. They want to put the tax back on purpose-built rental construction. They do not have a plan; we do.
66 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:03:26 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are in trouble. On Thursday, we learned from the OSFI risk report that Canadian homeowners who renew their mortgages in 2026 will be facing a payment shock. This means that as of February 2024, 76% of Canadians are in jeopardy of losing their homes. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, many Canadians are now facing the very real fact that they will be losing their homes. The Liberals are just not worth the cost. Will the Liberals commit today to stop their inflationary spending to drive down interest rates and make housing affordable so that Canadians can keep their homes?
113 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:04:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we have been making clear throughout question period, the only thing the Conservatives want to do is cut and cut, and actually put taxes back on home builders. When it comes to fiscal policy, let me quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaking last week in the other place. He said that Canada compares “rather favourably on a debt-to-GDP ratio with G7 countries. We are probably the least or second least indebted country.” The Conservatives are absolutely wrong about everything, including fiscal policy.
89 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:05:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the next election, we will let Canadians decide exactly who is wrong. If people listen to the Liberals talk about this, they would think they have never had it so good. That could not be any further from the truth. The fact is that we have tent cities from coast to coast. We have students who are living underneath bridges. We have workers who are living in their cars. If the Liberals will not listen to Canadians and they will not listen to the Conservatives, they should listen to their own regulators. They should stop the spending and drive down costs so that Canadians can keep their homes.
111 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:05:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, there will be a next election and at that moment in time, Canadians will be able to look at who has the record of stepping up and supporting vulnerable people. I can say that the record of the Conservative Party of Canada in our country in standing up and fighting for vulnerable people, fighting for people who do not have homes and fighting for people who are in poverty is abysmal, and that is just the plain facts. Every time the Conservatives had a chance to stand up and fight for those who were in need, they instead turned to ancient, trickle-down economics that do not work, and they will try it all over again. People have seen the game, they know what is up, and I do not think they are going to buy it.
139 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:06:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are hungry and homeless. In the Minister of Housing's own backyard, 10 people are going homeless every single week. One in four Canadians feels they do not even have enough money to live. Canadians are spending 64% of their income on housing, which under the Prime Minister has doubled. While tent cities become normal and the Liberals gaslight Canadians and tell them they have never had it so good, the Conservatives are fighting. When will the Liberals wake up up and vote in favour of our “build homes not bureaucracy” bill?
105 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:07:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague would like to talk about my community. I want to take an opportunity to thank the service providers at shelters like Viola's Place. I want to thank our partners at Coady's Place, who are benefiting from a multi-million dollar investment to build more affordable housing. I want to thank the Antigonish Affordable Housing Society for partnering with us to build more units for vulnerable families in that community. However, let us take a minute to talk about the member's community. She shows up for ribbon cuttings for projects that we have funded when she voted against them in the House of Commons. It is important that our words match our actions if we are going to solve the housing crisis. I hope the Conservatives will do the same.
137 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Mr. Speaker, our government tabled a plan to free up 250,000 new housing units by 2031 on federal, provincial, territorial and municipal public lands. The Conservative leader has debated his housing plan, Bill C‑356, which will sell federal buildings to the highest bidder with no guarantee of affordable housing. Can the public works minister explain to Canadians how our federal land conservation plan will create affordable housing across the country?
74 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:08:37 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle is right to talk about affordable housing. Do members know how many affordable housing units the Conservative leader created across the country when he was the minister responsible for housing? That would be six affordable housing units. The good news for us is that we are building 8,000 units in Quebec because municipalities are taking the lead. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader's bill would scrap those 8,000 housing units to be built by municipalities. The other good news is that we will set up a $500-million fund in the coming months to make more housing and public buildings available to serve the communities.
119 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:09:17 p.m.
  • Watch
I am going to ask the member for Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier to speak only when recognized by the Chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
27 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:09:34 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, while Winnipeg Centre has among the highest rates of youth poverty in Canada, Resource Assistance for Youth, Inc.'s level up job placement and education program has been placed at risk by the Liberals' funding delays. After seven months of waiting, this has forced RaY to discontinue vital programming for youth and lay off staff. It is shameful. Will the minister restore the funding, save the level up program and protect the livelihoods of marginalized youth during an affordability crisis?
82 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:10:13 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, youth employment and skills strategy has been hugely popular this year across the country. So many programs are looking for this funding to support our youth, to get them back into the workforce. Absolutely, I support these organizations getting the funding they need to continue.
47 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:10:43 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, while the number of people living unsheltered is up across the country by almost 90% since 2018, in my community it is even worse. The number of people living rough has almost tripled. A recent PBO report shows the government is investing less than one-seventh of what is needed to even cut the rate of chronic homelessness in half. The government seems to have billions to subsidize the largest companies in the country. When will the government do better by those living unsheltered and commit the funds they need to close this gap?
96 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:11:21 p.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy on behalf of the most vulnerable who call his part of the country home. With respect, we are going to make the investments necessary to support some of the country's most vulnerable, including by partnering with communities that serve homeless Canadians, but also by making the investments necessary, worth billions of dollars, to build out the affordable housing stock so people have a durable solution. There are no immediate solutions to solve the challenges that so many Canadians are facing, but consistent investment over time, as we have been doing and will continue to ramp up, is going to make a meaningful difference in lives of some of the most vulnerable Canadians.
122 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:11:59 p.m.
  • Watch
It being 3:12 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Beloeil—Chambly relating to the business of supply. Call in the members.
40 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:26:50 p.m.
  • Watch
I declare the motion rejected.
5 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:27:28 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-58 
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-58.
24 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:39:30 p.m.
  • Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/27/24 3:39:58 p.m.
  • Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Tuesday, May 21, by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie concerning the Speaker's alleged lack of impartiality. In his intervention, the member stated that the Liberal Party's promotional material used to advertise the Speaker's participation in an upcoming constituency event contained inflammatory partisan language targeting the leader of the official opposition. According to the member, this constitutes an unacceptable display of partisanship that calls into question the Speaker's impartiality. As such, this matter required immediate priority consideration. The member for La Prairie also intervened to support this position. The member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie further contended that the standard procedure to raise concerns over the Speaker's conduct, namely through a substantive motion proposed during Routine Proceedings following the appropriate notice, is deficient insofar as its consideration can be easily adjourned or interrupted. Once interrupted, such a motion is then transferred to the Order Paper under Government Orders, leaving it in the hands of the government to reschedule a resumption of the item. The member posited that the government could forestall a decision of the House on such a motion indefinitely, potentially frustrating the will of the majority of the House on such a critical question. The member for New Westminster—Burnaby also intervened on this matter. He challenged the premise of the question of privilege, which in his view was based on an incorrect interpretation of the events and of the rules governing motions on the conduct of the Speaker. The member also reiterated his concerns regarding the recent attacks on chair occupants. While this last issue is perturbing, I will not address it. My ruling will focus solely on the matter raised by the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie. While I did not expect to have to rule on another question of privilege regarding the Speaker, it does give me the opportunity to expand on my ruling of December 5. At the time, while I did find that there was a prima facie question of privilege on another matter questioning the Speaker's impartiality, I also stated at page 19501 of the Debates the following: In the future, if members wish to take issue with the conduct of the Speaker, rather than raising points of order or questions of privilege, I would instead direct them to place a substantive motion on notice. I did so to emphasize that there is a procedure in place to address concerns about the conduct of the Speaker. That process is outlined in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 323: “The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion.” This process is also in line with the precedents we have from June 1, 1956, which can be found at page 4540 of the Debates, and from March 13, 2000, at page 4397 of the Debates. While it is true that the House has a process for withdrawing or reaffirming its confidence in the Speaker through a substantive motion, the current rules for considering these motions do not seem responsive enough to deal with this type of issue. As members might imagine, few precedents exist in this area, besides those already cited and the December ruling. In another decision, rendered on March 9, 1993, on a question of privilege relating to the participation of a deputy Speaker in outside partisan activities, Speaker Fraser also stated that a well-established official procedure exists to reprove the conduct of chair occupants. While Speaker Fraser did not find a prima facie question of privilege, he did state that the level of impartiality expected of the Speaker should be higher than that of other chair occupants. While he could have insisted that members place a motion on notice, Speaker Fraser instead took the matter under advisement as a question of privilege. In so doing, he took the context into account. I also believe it is vital to account for the specifics of each situation. Indeed, it may be necessary to separate grievances regarding the way chair occupants manage House proceedings from those relating to their conduct outside the House. Members no doubt regularly disagree with the decisions rendered in the House, and I could not allow every decision to rise to a question of privilege or point of order. However, outside activities that result in complaints are far less common and should therefore be dealt with in an extraordinary manner. In December, I ruled that the House itself should as soon as possible pronounce itself on the Speaker's conduct outside the House and the doubts it could raise about his impartiality, and I am of the same opinion today. In ruling on this matter, I would like to clarify that I am not passing judgment on the alleged facts but rather on the priority these allegations should be given. While a motion could indeed be moved during routine proceedings, such motions are subject to interruptions in proceedings that could delay a decision on them indefinitely. As for opposition motions, they depend on the allotment of a supply day. Quite clearly, it is in the interest of the whole House to resolve this particular matter quickly and with all due seriousness. As a result, I find that a prima facie question of privilege exists in this case. However, I must point out that a substantive motion placed on notice remains the procedure required to address the conduct of chair occupants during proceedings. I will continue to apply this distinction until the House provides new instructions for dealing with accusations that the Chair is partial based on conduct that occurs outside the House. I now invite the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie to move his motion.
980 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border