SoVote

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

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 CMHC was relying on data that was 20 years out of date.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

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Jun/13/24 9:22:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the importance of growing the economy. When the Progressive Conservative Party was in office, Brian Mulroney increased the capital gains inclusion rate to 75%. That was in 1990. In 2024, the Conservative Party is saying that that is not a good idea. At the time, Mr. Mulroney justified that decision by saying that the goal was to stimulate the economy, so I would like my colleague to explain why it was a good idea to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 75% in 1990, but today he is opposed to increasing it from 50% to 66%.

111 words