SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 331 - Jun/13/24

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

Jun/13/24 8:35:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the estimates tonight, and I want to focus my attention on housing, which finds much support in the estimates. We have a variety of federal initiatives that are given further support or created anew where they did not exist before. The first, which I think it is fair to say is the signature program of the federal government with respect to housing policy, is the housing accelerator fund. The fund has been topped up by the amount of $400 million. The fund is ultimately about working with municipalities. We cannot address the housing crisis, and we have to call it that, call it what it is, if we do not do so through partnership, working with municipal councillors, with mayors in particular and with public servants at the local level to see critical changes that will address what ultimately underpins the housing crisis, and that is a crisis in supply. When there is a lack of supply, inevitably costs go up. That is true for anything, and it is true for housing. Let us be clear about something: We are all diminished by that. Whether it is young people or people across the demographic spectrum, when they cannot afford a home, we are all less. When they do not have a roof over their head, that is particularly tragic. That is something we are all especially diminished by. What the federal government has said is that if cities and towns are willing to move forward in an ambitious way and make the necessary changes to zoning, for example, which we know is absolutely critical when it comes to getting more homes built, and if cities in particular are more open to densification, then there are federal dollars that can flow to cities. For instance, there is putting in place zoning changes that will allow for more missing middle homes to be built. We are talking about duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, mid-rise apartments and row houses. That is what is meant by “missing middle homes.” When those zoning changes come, we see a green light given to developers and builders that they can build more homes that way. When densification is embraced, we get the same outcome. Already the government has concluded no less than 179 agreements in this regard, and we will continue. This supplementation of $400 million would allow the program to do exactly that, to continue. It is there for municipalities, in return for making those kinds of changes. It is not simply federal dollars that go to municipalities without any expectation. There is an expectation here. The expectation is that if those changes get put in place, federal dollars can go to a variety of things that will create more incentives, a greater push for housing to be built. We are talking about permit modernization. All too often, I hear in my capacity, not just as parliamentary secretary responsible for housing but from colleagues across the aisle, about cumbersome permitting processes in municipalities, large and small, that extend the length of a building project. What we are seeing is that with federal funding that comes through the housing accelerator fund, part of that funding can go to modernizing permits, including through the use of artificial intelligence. There is a whole debate, obviously, transpiring across democracies about the place of AI, and that is an important debate to have. There are many negatives, of course, that come with it, but there are also positives that can be embraced as well. A modernized permitting system is something that can have a very good impact. We are seeing in Kelowna, for example, through funds secured through the housing accelerator fund, permitting modernized with the help of AI. It is cutting down on application approvals, not just by months, but even better than that. What used to take years could potentially take just days and maybe even just a few hours. We are seeing Kelowna just start this. It is a pilot project, but let us see where it goes. There are other cities that have embraced that kind of vision as well. Housing accelerator funding can also go to community-related infrastructure. Local roads, bridges, sidewalks, lighting, bike lanes and even fire halls are eligible for financial support through this program. Again, this is if cities and towns step up and decide to be ambitious with what I talked about before, the necessary zoning changes and densification in municipalities that should be embraced. Transit, for example, where it connects to housing, can be funded through this particular program and, of course, non-market housing, which colleagues in various parties, not in the Conservative Party unfortunately, have brought up. Just yesterday, I was in my community of London, where $2 million was allocated for a supportive housing project that will see 50 fellow community members, who unfortunately have experienced homelessness, taken off the street with the support of a not-for-profit and given access to wraparound supports on site. Those wraparound supports include mental health support, addiction support, employment training and a variety of other basic supports that will allow them to transition to something better. Opposed to the housing accelerator fund is the Conservative Party. Just a couple of weeks ago, one of the longest-serving members of the Conservative Party, who I believe is the dean of the Conservative caucus, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, made clear her view, and I think she spoke for her party when she did so, that the federal government has no role to play in housing policy. She said it is outside of federal jurisdiction to worry about housing. It explains, for example, why the Conservatives' so-called housing plan is so weak. There are no details in their plan on how to get more homes built. There are a few details, but nothing substantive. That is the reason why I do not believe they think that the federal government has any meaningful role to play. How else would we explain the fact, and it is a fact, that the Leader of the Opposition, at every opportunity, has found ways to insult mayors and has found ways to insult councillors, instead of wanting to work? Yes, difficult conversations have to sometimes take place around issues like zoning, around the culture of NIMBY. All of these things do play a role, but constructively we can overcome them. The Leader of the Opposition has found ways to create difficulties, to create a difficult relationship already with municipal leaders, with mayors in particular. That is not acceptable, certainly for someone who aspires to be prime minister. We know what is at stake, and that is why we are pushing back against it. Also in the estimates, there is $6 billion for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. That funding will go to what is called housing-enabling infrastructure, namely water, waste-water, stormwater and solid waste infrastructure. We cannot talk about housing without talking about the enabling infrastructure that makes housing possible, that makes communities possible. As part of this, as part of ensuring that communities have the infrastructure they need to ensure that housing happens, we have attached conditions to make sure that more housing gets built. I raised a point earlier about missing middle housing. The condition that we are leading with is that provinces have to sign on to agree on four-unit buildings as of right. In other words, fourplexes, for example, do not have to go through a cumbersome bureaucratic process at the municipal level to get approval. We have seen this before, where builders want to put up a fourplex, and where the members of the community want to put up a fourplex, but there are all sorts of local restrictions and bureaucracy in place that prevent that from happening. As part of the conditionality that we have attached to infrastructure funding, we are saying that as of right, these kinds of projects need to be given approval. Conservatives, again, are opposed. I am not saying anything that we do not already know. They are on the record, but it bears emphasis for a party that talks a lot. I will give Conservatives this credit. They talk a lot about housing. They talk a lot about problems that exist in our democracy. We have challenges. We have a housing crisis, as I said before. However, they never offer solutions. Like any good right-wing populist party, I suppose, they never have solutions to the problems they identify. What we are saying is that if one is serious about getting more homes built, then attaching this kind of conditionality is important. What did we see? Just a few weeks ago, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party stood on a yacht and declared that missing middle housing is not a priority, that we do not need to see more homes built. That is not an acceptable position, not for a deputy leader, not for a leader, not for any member of Parliament. Furthermore, in the estimates, we can see $1.5 billion for affordable housing. This is the affordable housing fund that will help to fund non-market housing in this country. We do need to see more non-market housing in Canada. There is no question about that. Currently, it is estimated that around 4% of the overall housing stock is made up of non-market housing. We need to go beyond that. As I said, 4% of the overall housing stock is made up of non-market housing. The OECD average is around 8%. We certainly need to meet at least that average, and I believe that a measure like this can help us get there. It is not enough to focus only on market solutions. Our government is doing that. We understand that there is a place for market solutions to incent the private sector, and the building sector specifically, to get more homes built. Months ago, we lifted the GST from the construction of purpose-built rentals, and it took a while to get it through the House because of unfortunate Conservative filibustering. Those are rental apartments that will be for the middle class or for lower-income Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. In an environment where we have high interest rates, where we have high construction costs and where we have high costs related to labour as well, we have to think outside the box. We have to do things we have not done before, and lifting GST is something that we have done to incent the private sector, recognizing that market-based housing—in this case, apartments—has a place. That private sector has seen a green light already. I think any member of Parliament in this House who has engaged with builders in their community will say that this is exactly a green light. Builders are quite excited by this prospect, but the Conservatives have a so-called “housing plan” that does not include this vision at all. They want to attach the GST. They want to keep it in place for the purposes of putting up rental apartments. It makes no sense. Deeply related to this, when we are talking about ensuring that people have a roof over their heads, we have to look at non-market options. I talked before about the vision for supportive housing that programs like the accelerator fund make possible. This affordable housing fund also makes that possible. It allows people to find something better, a new path, a path with dignity, and already we have seen 71,000 people taken off the street through the national housing strategy. We have seen 125,000 people who were very close to being homeless but are not homeless and have a roof over their head. Every year, as we saw in a recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 50,000 Canadians are supported through our affordable housing programs that exist right now. This supplements those programs, but the Conservatives, in their housing plan, never mentioned homelessness, not once. There is $1.5 billion for co-operative housing as well. This is another affordable option. Of course, it is a perfectly good example of affordable housing. What are co-ops? They are not-for-profits. At a co-op, residents own jointly and manage jointly their homes. Surplus dollars go toward the upkeep of the co-op. The form varies. They be large apartments or smaller townhouses. In either case, they provide a sense of community and a sense of democratic decision-making. So much is the Leader of the Opposition insulted when he sees visions like this come to fruition that he called it Soviet-style housing just a few months ago. That is something that the 250,000 Canadians who live in co-ops have not forgotten. He was criticized roundly, and not just in this House of Commons. Even this morning, I was sitting with the Housing Advocate in the House of Commons committee that is responsible for housing, and we do have a Housing Advocate in this country. It is an important role. It is something that this government created to ensure that we had monitoring of the overall housing situation, and that includes understanding where we are with respect to non-market housing. Madam Houle made it clear that the position of the Conservative leader is an unacceptable one when it comes to co-op housing. In the 1970s and 1980s, we saw thousands of co-op homes built. In the 1990s, different governments of various partisan persuasions—not just Conservative governments, but Liberal ones too—decided to invest elsewhere, or not at all, with respect to housing. As such, we saw far fewer co-ops, but just a few days ago, the federal government put forward an initiative that would invest $1.5 billion, as I mentioned already. That is the single largest investment in co-op housing that we have seen in the past 30 years. That is transformational when it comes to getting more homes built. Again, the co-op model offers a lot. It is not an example of Soviet-style housing at all. The Leader of the Opposition says he is a student of history; he really ought to go back and look at that history. Co-op housing is something that allows for people to live with dignity, and that is why Liberals have embraced that vision for housing, along with other visions,. There is $1.5 billion in the estimates for the Canada rental protection fund. We see that grants and loans will be provided to not-for-profits so that they can purchase apartments and keep rates of rent affordable. Rental rates in Canada have gone up. We know that. They have gone up dramatically in many cases. That is not an acceptable situation. We are incenting the private sector. I already talked about the GST waiver the government introduced, and we are incenting the private sector in other ways, such as with low-interest loans facilitated through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, to allow builders to have another option. When we look at what CMHC can provide in terms of a low-interest loan compared to what the big banks would provide, the CMHC option is much more affordable. It gives builders the opportunity to build and add more apartments to the market. When we have a situation like the one we have, a supply crisis, it makes sense to work with not-for-profits to give them the resources they need, either in the form of grants or loans, to go out and purchase apartments and keep that rental rate at an affordable level. Having only a market-based solution as a vision is not recognizing that there is a continuum that we need to understand with respect to housing. We need social housing on the one side, all the way to market-based options on the other. Rental options and options for prospective homeowners all have to come together in policies to address the continuum that is housing. That is the vision on housing that the government has put forward. Let me also talk about other measures that go hand in hand with that vision for housing. I said earlier that we are all diminished when people do not have a roof over their heads. We are all diminished when people cannot afford to buy a home or rent a home. These are all questions of well-being. That is what we ought to be pursuing: the politics of well-being and the policies that allow for people to live with dignity. Hand in hand with that kind of approach is a vision that allows people to get access to health care in ways that they have not had before. We talk about oral health care. Going to the dentist is as important as any type of health care. We cannot talk about healthy people without talking about housing. We cannot talk about people living in a healthy way unless they have access to dental support. That is why $8.4 billion is in these estimates to go toward people in a middle-income situation and in particular a lower-income situation. Just on the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to seniors in my community. I was approached by two seniors when I was out in London who thanked me for the federal initiative. I will have to thank the government and the Minister of Health in particular for their vision on this. The seniors will get dentures for the first time in a decade. In fact, in one case, it was over a decade. Imagine the dignity that flows from that. Imagine the pride that they can have now. In fact, I do not have to imagine it because they shared it with me. It was really quite moving to hear, and that is why the government believes in programs exactly like this. We can add to that a vision on child care, a vision on pharmacare and a national school food program. They are all examples of the kinds of programs this government is championing, is going to fund and is funding already. Finally, the Canada child benefit attaches to that. Hundreds of thousands of children and 2.3 million families have been lifted out of poverty as a result of that particular benefit. To my estimation, that is the most important advent in social policy that we have seen since the introduction of public health care in the 1960s. It has ensured, as I said before, a dignified life for everyday Canadians. That is something that all of us have the responsibility to work toward.

3149 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Jun/13/24 8:55:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his talk. Obviously, we are going to disagree on a lot of things, but one thing I want to bring up is the most recent Auditor General report on housing on reserves. The Auditor General noted many things with regard to CMHC. CMHC was relying on data that was 20 years out of date. CMHC had been warned, but it refused to get updated data, which left Alberta, Manitoba and several other provinces severely underfunded. The reserves with the poorest housing conditions were given the least amount of funding per capita, because CMHC was not following up to get proper data. The application process, even though CMHC had been warned since 2017 that it was too onerous on smaller, poorer reserves, was ignored, and this onerous application process was continued. Then CMHC did not track whether the work done on the housing actually met building codes. These items noted by the Auditor General had all been going on for a long time, yet somehow the government managed to find millions and millions in bonuses to reward the failure of this parliamentary secretary's department. Why?

195 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/13/24 8:56:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, 35,000 homes on reserve have either been renovated or built anew because of actions taken by this government. Is it good enough? No, it is not good enough. However, I have worked with the member before on the public accounts committee. I do respect him and I know he takes these issues seriously. In fact, I would hope that he takes them so seriously as to go back to his caucus and ask for their leader to put forward a serious vision on housing that includes a vision on indigenous issues and a reconciliation agenda, not just in terms of the housing challenges that we find on reserve but also in the urban situation as well. Our government is doing that. We have an urban, rural and northern housing strategy that we have worked on that is moving forward hand in hand with indigenous peoples, and in fact is led by indigenous peoples. I would also note, and it is not an irrelevant point, that the Leader of the Opposition said something years ago, and I wonder if he still feels this way. He probably does. He said that if indigenous peoples wanted to see a better outcome, then they should work harder. Those are the words of the Leader of the Opposition, someone who aspires to be prime minister. That is unacceptable.

226 words

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)

Jun/13/24 8:57:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for what was actually a very good speech—

15 words

The Speaker

Jun/13/24 8:58:02 p.m.
Watch

I will interrupt the hon. member, and I will stop the clock. I want to let hon. members know that because it was a 20-minute speech, there is a 10-minute question-and-answer period, so each party recognized in the House will probably be able to get two minutes of questions in total,. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar was up. He has about 19 seconds left before his time for questions expires. The hon. member.

79 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Jun/13/24 8:58:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I do commend the member on his oratorical skills. It seems as though many members on that side live in a world where everything is okay, but that is not the world in which my constituents are living. I feel that it is probably not the world his constituents are living in. My question to the member is this: Does he really believe that everything is okay economically, and that in fact the propositions being put forward by this government are working?

88 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/13/24 8:59:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that in my speech. We can do much better in this country, but I would ask the member this: What would his government cut? We do not know what the Conservatives would do. They have not been very specific at all, and they probably will not be, but they have not been shy about embracing an austerity agenda, so what would they cut? Would they cut the Canada child benefit that I just talked about? Would they cut dental care or child care? Would they cut any meaningful initiatives on dealing with the climate crisis? Would they cut programs to support home building in Canada? They would cut all of that. We need to do better in Canada, and there is no question about it, but the alternative that we are talking about is a pathway that would take us back not just to the Harper years but to something even worse.

158 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Jun/13/24 9:00:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a lot about housing. I cannot help but think about the people at the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR. It is an association in my home town of Granby. This week it organized a protest against the commodification and financialization of housing. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend. They are calling on the federal government to invest in solutions to the housing crisis, which is crucial for them. I also had the opportunity to talk about it with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It was an important event. Yes, my colleague talked about housing but, more specifically, how is his government proposing to tackle this critical issue? This touches on a fundamental human right, that of housing. Housing should not be treated as a commodity.

155 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/13/24 9:00:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a housing crisis. It is necessary for our government, as well as every member of the House, to come up with ideas to address this crisis. Our government is working with organizations, as well as provincial and municipal governments, and that work needs to continue. I would add that market options have a place in the discussion. However, I think the member is talking about non-market options for community members in her constituency, in my constituency and all our constituencies who need support. That supportive housing model, which I think is really a signature of that, comes as a result of initiatives put forward by the government in different ways. We can and should do more; however, we are acting in a meaningful way.

129 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/13/24 9:01:59 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am quite disappointed that, in a 20-minute speech on housing, the member never mentioned anything with respect to the needs of first nations, Métis or Inuit. The Auditor General reported at one point that the need for housing just for first nations is at $135 billion, yet the government only budgeted $4 billion over seven years. This will keep indigenous peoples completely marginalized in overcrowded and mouldy housing units. I would like to give the member an opportunity to talk more about how the Liberals plan to meet the housing infrastructure needs, because the gap is so huge. What will the government do not only to acknowledge that more needs to be done but also to go beyond lip service and actually make sure that indigenous peoples are getting the housing they need so they can thrive?

142 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/13/24 9:03:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me say that the member has contributed enormously to this discussion of housing and infrastructure, in particular with respect to her community, the challenges that we find in the north and the challenges that are experienced by indigenous peoples across the country. I pointed out just a few minutes ago, perhaps the member did not hear me, what the government has done and said that more needs to be done. We see a situation that is not acceptable in Canada. She pointed to the infrastructure gap. There are initiatives in place to help address that gap, but it cannot be met only by government. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is taking more of a focus when it comes to these kinds of issues, namely, addressing the gap and the required investment that would have to take place to incent the private sector to be part of the solution. I think that can move forward. I think it is moving forward because of a different vision articulated by the Infrastructure Bank. I know the Conservatives do not like the Infrastructure Bank, but if we look at what it has carried out recently with respect to a policy vision, it does offer a constructive approach to the matter raised by the member.

215 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/13/24 9:04:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the member talked a lot about housing, massive investments and connections with the municipalities. Is he aware that, in Quebec at least, the money for municipalities has to go through Quebec? It is a law that exists in Quebec. Is he aware that Ottawa imposing conditions, trying to set requirements and starting to get involved in municipal zoning, when it is so far from local communities, makes no sense? Does he agree to transfer the money to Quebec unconditionally?

84 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/13/24 9:05:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. Yes, I understand this approach very well. There is an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec on this issue of housing. If we are to deal with this crisis, this challenge, we also need to be ambitious. I know that communities across the country, not just in the member's province, want to embrace a vision of ambition saying that zoning changes have been extremely restrictive and are, in part and perhaps largely, responsible for the challenges that we find with respect to supply. They are limiting the options available for prospective homebuyers, young people in particular, and limiting rental options. All of this drives up costs. Doing things differently and being more ambitious is something that municipalities are turning towards. We see that because we have almost 200 agreements concluded with municipalities across the country in the housing accelerator fund, and that is going to continue. As I said, there is $400 million in the estimates to top up that original fund.

180 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Jun/13/24 9:06:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about CMHC financing. He knows well that there is a REIT right now, Starlight Investments, that is evicting tenants in Thorncliffe Park and that is refusing to come to committee, even though it has been asked twice. I want to let the member know that CMHC financing to billionaire REITs is resulting in low-income tenants being evicted. Starlight alone is boasting $425 million in low-interest CMHC debt, and it is actually using it as a selling feature to unload properties for profit. Is this what the Liberal government thinks CMHC should be used for?

101 words

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos

Jun/13/24 9:07:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is another member I have a great amount of respect for. We have worked closely on the House of Commons committee responsible for housing. On this matter, we will simply disagree. I support Starlight's coming before the committee. I voted in favour of that just a few days ago, as the member absolutely knows. However, I also know that when an Order Paper question went in with respect to Starlight's relationship with CMHC, nothing came back. In other words, CMHC has not had a relationship with Starlight, so I am not sure where the confusion is on that. We do need more rental housing. Low-interest loans facilitated through the CMHC are a way to get there. Market options are important, but as to our non-market options, the member and I certainly agree on that.

141 words

Mr. Dan Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC)

Jun/13/24 9:08:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, right off the top, that I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West, which is the home of the world-renowned West Edmonton Mall. We are here tonight to debate estimates and the out-of-control inflationary spending by the Liberals that is driving up the cost of literally everything for all Canadians. After nine years, there are a couple of things that we already know about these levels of obese government spending. First, the budget does not, in fact, balance itself. An hon. member: What? Mr. Dan Muys: It is surprising, yes. Second, Mr. Speaker, when one does not think about monetary policy, this has an impact on the fiscal and economic situation of the country and makes it even worse. In the recent NDP-Liberal budget, we saw another $61 billion in inflationary spending piled on to the backs of Canadians. That was on top of the $20 billion in inflationary spending piled on in the fall economic statement. That was on top of the billions piled on over the past nine years. The result is that Canadian taxpayers are now paying $58 billion in interest on the debt, which is more than the federal government sends to the provinces in health transfers. Everyone knows that one cannot run a household on a credit card forever. Neither can one run a government by maxing out the credit card year after year. There are real-world consequences to this insatiable appetite for spending. First of all, it actually costs all of us. It is called taxes. If we think back to April of this year, common-sense Conservatives called upon the Liberal-NDP government to spike the hike, to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, on its way to quadrupling. We also know, according to a Fraser Institute study, that nine out of 10 middle-class families are now paying more in income tax. These tax increases are certainly the very last thing that Canadians need at a time when they are already facing a cost of living crisis. Of course, the Liberals, aided by their costly coalition partners in the NDP, need money because they have spent so much. They need to increase these taxes to fuel their addiction to spending. Because they cannot prioritize spending and demand better results for the money that the federal government spends, and because they think money grows on trees, or that one just prints or borrows more, what happens is that Canadians suffer. Canadians now have to prioritize spending in their daily lives. That means doing without, cutting corners on groceries and going to the food banks because the federal government cannot rein in spending. We have seen the numbers of those going to food banks reach record-smashing levels. Another real-world consequence of all this spending is interest rates and mortgage rates. We know from the Scotiabank report that 2% of the rate increase is attributable to overspending by the government. Other banks have agreed. This hurts Canadians renewing their mortgage. It also hurts Canadians who rent, who have seen record heights in rental prices across the country. It hurts those paying car loans and credit cards. On a daily basis, I hear from people in the suburban communities in my riding who live in fear of those mortgage renewals. These are young families or, in some cases, seniors who have downsized. They have moved out of the GTA for a slightly more affordable house a little farther west. Those who have variable rate mortgages are telling me that they are facing, already, increases of $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 per month. Can one even imagine the hole that would blow in one's household budget? Those who are on fixed rate mortgages are beginning to feel that gut punch as well. It is about to get even worse as more of those renewals come up. That is all because these Liberals have a spending problem. Again, rising rents, credit card payments and mortgage payments are the last thing Canadians can afford in the time of a cost of living crisis. There are other compounding consequences of this reckless spending and the taxes that result. How is it that Canada has the worst performing economy in the industrialized world? That is a consequence of this wildly out-of-control spending and all of the things that creates. I will cite some recent statistics that paint this picture. According to the Fraser Institute in May, Canada is on track for the worst decline in the standard of living in 40 years. That is after nine years of the Prime Minister. Worse still, Canada has the worst growth in income per capita than at any time under any prime minister since the 1930s. In fact, while our friends to the south in the United States have seen their GDP per capita increase by 8% since 2019, Canada is pedalling backward. We have seen a decline of 2%. We are the basement of the G7; we are the worst. Business investment in our economy is down. Productivity is down. This is quantified at $20,000 less per person than in the United States. I could go on because there are numerous recent figures. Canada has the worst performing economy in the G7 and the OECD, all because spending and taxes are chasing away private sector investment from our economy. There is another point we as parliamentarians should consider, which is that all the money being spent is the tax money of Canadians. It is very disrespectful to Canadians, who work very hard and who are smart and good people, when governments like these Liberal governments spend money beyond their means. That is the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians they are spending. Canadians work hard for that money, and they do not want to see it being wasted on Liberal-connected consultants such as McKinsey, on Liberal-connected insiders and on scandal after scandal. On top of these tax increases, the mortgage increases, groceries, home heating and all of the other cost of living aspects they are faced with, this is just another reason why hard work does not pay in Canada after nine years of the Prime Minister. All this obese government spending is making it impossible for Canadians to believe they can actually get ahead. One of the things I hear most often that makes Canadians most upset is that this is a country where it is no longer possible to dream big. My omas and opas came from the Netherlands after World War II, and Opa Muys worked as part of the Dutch resistance to fight the Nazis. They had nothing in their pockets and came to Canada seeking hope, opportunity and freedom. At that time, as in the history of Canada up to nine years ago, it did not matter where one came from; it mattered where one was going. It did not matter if one came here with nothing. It mattered that one could work hard, save up, buy a home, start a family and succeed in Canada. However, after nine years of the Prime Minister, it is no longer possible to dream big. People are quite upset about that. It does not have to be this way in Canada. We have everything the world wants: LNG, critical minerals, nuclear expertise, manufacturing expertise and smart, good people. The government has squandered those advantages with reckless spending, reckless taxes and regulation that is driving private sector investment out of Canada to other countries. The good news is that hope is on the way. Only common-sense Conservatives, under the leadership of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, have a plan to bring home the country we know and love. We have all the advantages. We can succeed in Canada when the next common-sense Conservative government rolls up our sleeves and gets to work. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. That is why Conservatives will be voting against these estimates this evening. Canadians deserve much better. Now let us bring it home.

1374 words

Mr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Jun/13/24 9:18:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the foreign investment and private investment that has come into our country. As many in the House know, the city of Port Colborne has just announced a $1.6-billion investment from a Japanese company, Asahi Kasei, which will be putting in place a big project. That just simply would not have happened without a lot of people and an all-hands-on-deck approach from all levels of government, including the federal government. It included a lot of incentives that were contained within the budget. With the support that the federal government has contained within this budget, is the member prepared to support our budget and, therefore, support our community?

118 words

Mr. Dan Muys

Jun/13/24 9:19:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the OECD has reported that Canada will have the lowest private sector investment in our economy this decade and then, as a result, in subsequent decades. It is because of taxes. It is because of spending and regulation that is chasing away that investment, and while the member points to one example where there was heavy government subsidies, that does not preclude the macroeconomic picture that I spoke about. I had the opportunity to knock on doors in the hon. member's riding fairly recently, and he may want to try that sometime soon and hear from his constituents. Without a doubt, the cost of living, the carbon tax and their mortgage increases are what I heard about over and over again at the doors in Niagara Centre.

130 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/13/24 9:20:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I hear when I knock on the doors of the good people of Edmonton Strathcona, Edmonton Centre and across Alberta is that people are deeply worried that our health care system is becoming privatized by Conservative premiers such as Danielle Smith. We know that the Conservatives have already said that they would privatize. In fact, I believe the health critic has said that he wants to be the last health care minister because he does not think the federal government has a role to play in that. Public health care is the number one issue I am hearing about from my constituents. It is the number one thing that people are worried about, whether they are seniors, university students or whoever they are. I am wondering what he says about not supporting a budget that could conceivably help to make our health care system stronger.

152 words

Mr. Dan Muys

Jun/13/24 9:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit the member's riding, and there are many great places there. On the subject of health care, over the years of the Harper government, we saw increases to health care spending during that tenure, and health care is important. I know this very personally and directly. My father had heart surgery five or six weeks ago. There were some complications, and he spent a number of weeks in hospital recovering. My mom was a nurse in the hospital system in Hamilton for 50 years, so we absolutely support health care. What is important for health care is a strong economy that generates the revenue so that we can actually afford to invest in health care.

124 words