SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 333 - Jun/17/24

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Jun/17/24 8:23:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is my neighbour, and it is always good to see him here in the House. My question is around the disability supports. We know that the NDP has been fighting desperately for a long time, along with a lot of advocates for the disability community, talking about the high level of poverty and the reality that so many are slipping through cracks that we should be filling. It was very disappointing to see the Liberal government not put forward something more substantive, but instead, something that will keep people in poverty rather than lifting them from it. I am just wondering if he has heard the same thing, like I have from my constituents, that this is a significant concern, and they expect to see more.

131 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Jun/17/24 8:24:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous step forward in this budget, creating the Canada disability benefit. To have $2,400 each year, tax-free, going to individuals living with a disability makes a huge difference in people's lives. Again, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable Canadians. This is moving ahead with something that was committed to in the 2021 platform for my party. Can we do more? Absolutely. There is more we can do to make life more affordable for all Canadians, but particularly some of the most vulnerable. This is just one such measure in this budget. We are also moving ahead with providing a dental care plan for low-income Canadians, as well as a lot of the investments in housing and pharmacare. Collectively, these are a lot of the measures that we are taking to make life more affordable, in addition to the Canada disability benefit, which I think is already going to make a tremendous difference in people's lives.

168 words

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

Jun/17/24 8:25:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue in the spirit of my colleague's question on the Canada disability benefit. The Bloc Québécois criticized one thing in this bill, and that is the fact that the rules, the eligibility requirements and the benefit level were all to be determined by regulation. The government used the budget to announce a benefit amount that we feel is insufficient, and it did this without having tabled the regulations as planned. What can my colleague tell us about that?

89 words

Mr. Patrick Weiler

Jun/17/24 8:26:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said to my other colleague, this is a very important program to support Canadians who are in very challenging situations. We also need to work with the provinces to implement this program. We need to make sure that this program will take effect and that the provinces will not use the money that is to be used for this program for other purposes. There are a number of things we need to do to ensure this program works well.

83 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Jun/17/24 8:26:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today and talk on Bill C-69, the budget implementation act, or as I prefer to call it, “the economic vandalism act”. This is a budget that continues to build upon the inflationary deficits that Canadians are struggling to deal with. The government's spending continues to be out of control. First it was borrowing money, then it was printing money, and now it is going to continue to dip into the pockets of Canadians and raise taxes so it has money to spend on all its crazy ideas and programs. We know the Liberals have gotten no results the entire time they have been in government. For the past nine years, we have witnessed rent double. We have witnessed the cost of a mortgage double and the cost of a down payment double. Our children and grandchildren will not have the opportunity that we did to own a home and to move ahead in life because of the out-of-control spending of the Liberal-NDP government. We have a deficit this year that is going to be over $40 billion. It has been described as the worst budget since 1982. Who said that? The former, Liberal-appointed Bank of Canada Governor, David Dodge. We have witnessed that Canada has the worst living standards in 40 years according to the Fraser Institute. We have also seen, under the Liberal-NDP government, that we have had the worst growth in GDP, or income per person, since the 1930s. Nine in 10 middle-class families are paying more in income tax today than they were nine years ago. We have a situation that is increasing and is hurting everyone. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, it is hitting everybody. Our farmers are struggling with increased carbon taxes that have gone up 23% and they now have to deal with the capital gains tax, and that is really starting to take a bite. We can look at how farms have been structured, family farms, over the last number of years. I come from a farm family. My daughter and son-in-law are grain farmers. I have two brothers who are farmers. They put hard work and effort into growing their properties. They want to make sure that there is something to pass on to the next generation, which is the same thing that my father did for his children, and that is at risk. To make things more manageable, people have formed their family farms into limited corporations. Our doctors, our dentists and our chiropractors, especially in rural areas, have set themselves up into limited liability partnerships and corporations. Those limited corporations pay out capital gains. Of course, now these capital gains are all going to get taxed by the Liberal-NDP coalition by up to 67%. This is not a tax on the wealthy. This is a tax on the hard-working people who feed us, take care of us and take care of our health. All of them are going to be attacked and become either less profitable or be forced to relocate to jurisdictions like the United States where it is easier to make a living without having to work as hard. I have had doctors and dentists tell me that they are going to work fewer hours because of the income tax implications with the capital gains tax grab by the Liberals and the Minister of Finance. This is also hitting cottage owners and those who have secondary residences, whether they bought a property for rental income or they bought a home that they hope to pass on to their children. Now, when they go to sell those properties, they are going to get nailed with this capital gains tax that they did not expect. There is a word for this. When somebody takes something away from another that they never deserved, it is called highway robbery. That is the economic vandalism that we are talking about here by the Liberal-NDP coalition. As the shadow minister for national defence, I do want to switch gears and talk about how this budget does not support, in any way, shape or form, the even less ambitious defence policy update. The defence policy update had some ideas, but all the spending, especially in this budget, has been kicked down the road until after the next federal election. We are talking three, four or five years down the road before we see any increase in spending for national defence to support our troops. At the national defence committee today, we actually had one of our witnesses say that the defence policy update is a national “embarrassment” that fails to recognize the threat environment we are in and that, technically, Canada is already “at war”. We are witnessing what is happening in Ukraine. We have had increased escalation in the conflict in the South China Sea between the PRC and the Philippines, plus what we are seeing in Taiwan. This defence policy update fails to recognize those threats. All the money that has supposedly been promised is kicked down the road. As a case in point, we have a retention and recruitment crisis happening in the Canadian Armed Forces. One thing that we identified is the lack of housing. The Minister of National Defence even said that we are short 6,700 residential housing units for our troops. We have troops who are living homeless and actually couch surfing. They are living in campers or in their cars. Worse yet, they are stuck in these tent cities that have sprung up across the country over the last nine years under the Liberal government. Even though the government recognizes that we need more homes for our current serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the budget has zero dollars for new housing for our troops. It has zero dollars next year. There is only $8 million in the budget in three years' time, which does not build 6,700 housing units. Eight million dollars will not build, in today's dollars, 24 homes. Again, that is a national embarrassment. We have people who are serving this country but cannot house themselves properly, and the government and the defence minister fail to recognize that we have to support our troops. Therefore, we have a retention and recruitment crisis, and the defence policy update gives no idea of how we are going to increase our troop strength. We are 17,000 troops short today, and it could get worse if this is not rectified soon. We have a housing shortage and, of course, we have no money to put into new houses. As we heard today again at committee, we have an army that the government has no plan to get new kit for so that it can become the expeditionary force we have come to rely on as Canadians. A case in point on how the government does not take our forces seriously and puts them in awkward positions is the news we heard just this weekend that the Canadian Armed Forces, through the Royal Canadian Navy, positioned one of our Arctic offshore patrol vessels in Havana, Cuba, for a celebration of the Communist dictatorship there. It is docked alongside Russian navy destroyers. Why would we want to use the Royal Canadian Navy to liaise with a hostile dictatorship in Cuba and an aggressive country that is invading Ukraine today? We know that Cubans are serving in the Russian armed forces today and fighting in Ukraine. Cuba has actually sent troops to Belarus to train alongside Russian and Belarusian soldiers so that they can invade Ukraine again from the north. This is a national embarrassment and, again, speaks to the fact that the government does not have a plan when it comes to supporting our troops. Instead, it uses them for photo ops with Communist dictatorships rather than supporting our allies in fighting back against the evil that is occurring around the world. We have frigates that cannot be deployed on as frequent a basis. We no longer have destroyers. We no longer have any of our own supply ships. They are slowly coming, and we have the Asterix out there, of course, which we ordered when we were in government. However, we do not have the same reach in the navy that we used to. When we look at Ukraine, our government, again, continues to dither and delay in delivering. It announced 18 months ago that NASAMS was going to be sent to Ukraine, and it is still not there. The Liberals finally announced that we were sending 2,000 CRV7 rockets, but guess what, Mr. Speaker? We asked back in February to send the 83,000 we had, not 2,000. We will continue to put pressure on the government to do the right thing for Ukraine, for the Canadian Armed Forces and for rural Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

1507 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 8:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I had a very hard time listening to the member referencing support for Ukraine in his speech. He stood up multiple times in the House and voted against more support for Operation Unifier, support for Ukrainian refugees coming to Canada and an updated free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which President Zelenskyy himself asked us to pass. I cannot understand. The BIA has additional support for Ukraine, in terms of using seized Russian assets. We just heard an announcement that the Prime Minister made at the G7 to support Ukraine with additional funds. How can the member honestly criticize our government when he cannot stand up for Ukraine?

111 words

Mr. James Bezan

Jun/17/24 8:38:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member over there knows well that no one has fought more and harder for Ukraine than I have. I was one of the first of 13 to be banned from Russia because I have taken a strong stand in support of Ukraine for a long time. I will take no lessons from the member. When we did not support the free trade agreement, it was because we already had a free trade agreement in place. It was better than the current free trade agreement, in which the Liberals actually stuck a carbon tax. We know that the Liberals also supported sending over turbines to pump Russian gas into Europe to help fund Putin's war machine. We will never take lessons from the Liberals on how to not stand up for Ukraine. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

140 words

The Speaker

Jun/17/24 8:38:51 p.m.
Watch

I think there could be a lot more decorum, and people should not be taking the floor unless they are recognized by the Speaker. The hon. member had asked a question. The other hon. member was responding. The hon. member for Nunavut has the floor.

45 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/17/24 8:39:11 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I know the member talked about the importance of the military in other places, and I appreciate that. He might appreciate my question about how much more investment needs to be made for Canadians so that they can participate in Arctic sovereignty and Arctic security. Does the member agree that, for example, investing in Canadian Rangers would be much better for keeping Canada secure?

65 words

Mr. James Bezan

Jun/17/24 8:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member knows my mother was born in Chesterfield Inlet and raised in Pangnirtung, so I have a lot of connections to the Arctic. I really do firmly believe that the Canadian Armed Forces have a major role to play in expansion of the Canadian Rangers to make sure that they are better financed, as well as able to do a greater job in carrying out exercises to establish our control and sovereignty over the entire Arctic. We also know that we could be making more investments in dual-purpose infrastructure for both the Canadian Armed Forces and local populations. That is everything from runways to ports and from telecommunications to broadband. We need to do more of that to make sure that those collaborations will work for all Canadians, especially those in the high Arctic.

138 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Jun/17/24 8:40:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his work on the defence file. On defence, could he comment on the fact that the Liberals are saying they are going to increase the amount of expenditure over the next five years, but they are actually cutting back this year? It is as though they are putting everything down the road and saying they are really increasing, but they are actually decreasing. I know the forces are suffering because of this.

81 words

Mr. James Bezan

Jun/17/24 8:41:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. The Liberals are cutting $2.7 billion from the budget over the next three years. That is having an impact, and we are starting to see it in the issues around readiness and training. We are now deploying our troops to the NATO enhanced forward position in Latvia that we are running, and they are not taking their pretraining before they go and deploy. That predeployment training is critical to being able to make sure that we are the leaders in the theatre of NATO allies that are also stationed at the same base in Latvia. When we go over there and have them play catch-up, again, it is a national embarrassment. Therefore, we need to make sure that we are making the investments that are required. A case in point is that one of the first things the Liberals cut was uniforms for women in the Canadian Armed Forces; they did not think these uniforms were necessary. It is a shame.

169 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC)

Jun/17/24 8:42:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of the great people of Red Deer—Mountain View. I plan on speaking to some of the issues that are important to the families and the businesses in my riding, particularly housing; agriculture; food supply; global issues, such as energy and food security; and, of course, debt financing. Food and shelter have long been considered some of the bare necessities for human beings to survive, yet these two critical needs to sustain the health and well-being of Canadians have been and continue to be put at risk by the NDP-Liberal government's reckless handling of governmental affairs. While it upsets me greatly that we are unable to have amicable, maybe even friendly discussions about these issues and how the government fails to address them in the budget implementation act, we just do not have this luxury. It is necessary to be blunt. We, as parliamentarians, ought not to have that luxury when this past spring saw the percentage of first-time users of food banks rise sharply to 61%, compared with 43% last fall, according to the Salvation Army's Canadian poverty and socio-economic analysis. We should not have the luxury to sit around and act as if the current government's handling of these challenges has been sufficient when, according to the Grain Growers of Canada, Canada's national voice for grain farmers, the average grain farm will pay 30% more after the capital gains tax changes. As well, we should not have any luxury to tolerate the continued endangerment and mortgaging of Canadian lives as our nation continues to face a drought of family doctors and our government continues to erect barriers for health care providers. The budget implementation act fails to address these three concerns and, frankly, many more. It is bizarre that we as a government can, on the one hand, muse about the struggles everyday Canadians face in being able to afford to eat and, on the other, pass legislation that would effectively make it harder for Canadian farmers to grow food for us domestically. Here is a scenario that might resonate with a typical grocery shopper. We all know how the price of fruit works. As fruit goes out of season, the price increases because of how difficult it is to source supply. It is a question of supply, not necessarily a question of demand, as I am sure cherries and peaches are popular fruits for most. Other foods that are also universally popular and never a question of demand are meats and grains, which are essential to a healthy diet for people around the world. While inflation has, without a doubt, played a significant role in the cost of food and groceries, we must look to pull on the lever of domestic supply in our fight against this cost of living crisis. However, this lever has continued to be neglected and ignored by our current government. We have a carbon tax that, without a doubt, penalizes our farmers for working hard to feed Canadians. According to the Grain Farmers of Ontario, it is estimated that up to $2.7 billion of carbon tax will be paid by Ontario grains and oilseeds farmers by 2030. Most grain farms are family owned. I have already mentioned how the average grain farm will be forced to pay nearly 30% more in taxes as a result of the proposed capital gains tax changes. These, of course, were removed from the current budget implementation act for what could only be described as political purposes. I myself am a fourth-generation farmer, and I can wholeheartedly say that this proposed change would target the retirement plans of farmers, make it more difficult for farms to change hands between generations and threaten the security and long-term viability of family farms across this country. We will need more farmers here in Canada if we are to have any hope of combatting the cost of food for everyday Canadians. RBC found that, by 2033, 40% of Canadian farm operators will retire; however, 66% of producers do not have a succession plan in place. Certainly, what is happening now is not making it any easier. Our farmers, and those who grow our food, are in need of certainty about their futures, not more penalties on their hard work or more uncertainty about their retirement. When we challenge our farmers, who are an essential component of what makes up the backbone of this country, with more taxes and uncertainty, it does not bode well for the future of domestic food production and agriculture in this country. Once again, this budget fails to respond to these growing challenges and leaves much to be desired. This budget fails Canadians by missing the mark entirely in addressing food security here in Canada. I say this because I know that many will cite worldwide disruptions of supply chains and global trade. They will point to the invasion of Ukraine and the conflicts of the Middle East, but for years I have been involved as part of Canada's delegation to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, and I am very aware of the current situation there, along with the consequences on global food supply. The OSCE deals not only with food security, but also energy security and, of course, the discussion about security within the continent of Europe. Even after saying these things and affirming statements of how food insecurity is a global issue, I want to remind us all here today that to act as if things in Canada are all right and that agriculture in Canada is not impacted by global affairs is reckless and short-sighted behaviour. In fact, it is unfortunate that I have to point this out, but this behaviour has become par for the course after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. When our allies face an energy crisis and are in need of alternate sources of oil and natural gas, they can count on us for words of affirmation and emotional appeals of support, but when they come to ask for our own oil and natural gas, both of which we have an abundance of, the answer has been that there is “no business case”. When farmers and food growers here in Canada are allowed to do more of what they do best, which is to provide us with the means to feed both ourselves and the world, we not only help ourselves, but also help our allies in need. We cannot responsibly prioritize helping others when we cannot help ourselves. Canadians want to help their neighbours. Canadians want to be known as the breadbasket for our allies, but only if they are in a position where they must not choose between that and feeding their families or keeping a roof over their heads. Canada stands ready to work hard and to be rewarded. Canadians do not need more government tools. They need fewer government barriers. A food production renaissance in this country would fundamentally shift our approach to tackling the cost of living crisis we face after 12 years of reckless, unabated government spending. Whether one is a banker on Bay Street, a construction worker maintaining critical infrastructure, a police officer protecting our streets or a nurse coming off a 12-hour night shift, we are all Canadians, and we all need to eat. Empowering our farmers by removing unfair and unjust penalties and continuing to support community initiatives, such as 4-H Canada, would nurture our next generation of food growers and prioritize common sense over ideology. That is what we need to get this country back on track so that young students are able to focus on studying for their next quiz instead of having to worry about what to eat. I cannot in good conscience support this budget implementation act knowing that there is so much this budget fails to address. The $61 billion in new spending is not the answer we need to bring down inflation and lower interest rates. Canada will have to spend $54.1 billion to service our national debt, which is more than we are currently sending to provinces for health care. Instead of printing more money to help Canadians scrape by, we need to start producing more of what that money buys. Under a future Conservative government, we would axe the tax on farmers, build more homes for families to eat their suppers in, fix the budget to allocate modern supports for those who grow our food and stop the crime against hard-working Canadians, who want nothing more than to raise responsible citizens and make Canada the greatest place to live on earth.

1466 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/17/24 8:52:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have a great respect for the fine work that our farmers do day in and day out, 365 days a year. Let there be no doubt about that, whether they are addressing the needs created in drought situations or promoting trade. Earlier this year, I was with the Minister of Agriculture when we opened up one of the greatest economic opportunities for the future of agri-foods by opening up an office in Manila, a trade office for 40 Asian countries. I wonder if the member would recognize that we not only have budget measures to support farmers but also other initiatives. Does the member support the Indo-Pacific Agriculture and Agri-Food Office opening in Manila?

120 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/17/24 8:53:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been on the international trade committee for a number of years, and I have had opportunities to go around the world to see just how well thought of Canada is in the trading world. The fact that the government continues to deal with some of those things and keep that going can be appreciated because it is important that we continue to do the great work that was done by the Conservatives when we were last in power. It is so critical. In agriculture, it really becomes one of the most important parts because, yes, we grow a lot of grain, but if we are going to be successful, we have to make sure that it gets to world markets.

124 words

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

Jun/17/24 8:54:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting Red Deer once because my son was working there. My colleague mentioned that grain and wheat crops are important in his region, but the same can be said of the oil industry too. I imagine that my colleague agrees that we need to stand up and fight climate change. With that in mind, what measures does he think should be included in a budget to ensure a just transition?

77 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/17/24 8:54:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member that oil is important, but it is not just important in my province. It is important for Canada and for the world since we are able to produce this oil and gas most efficiently and with the least emissions around the world. The drops of oil and molecules of natural gas should be moved, and we should be finding markets for them because we will continue to need them. It does not matter if we are going to be putting in windmills, solar panels or geothermal. All of those types of operations for renewables require a massive amount of hydrocarbons to build them. We need the rare earth minerals to put them together. We have this concept that says we will ignore how all of these other sources of energy come to be, and we will just talk about the fact that there seems to be a pretty good whipping boy in Canada to go after oil and gas. The last drop of oil and gas in this earth should come out of Canada.

182 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/17/24 8:56:24 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I know the member thinks there are not enough investments for farmers. Whatever he thinks there is for farmers, there is far less for hunters in the north. We know that the rates of poverty are much higher in the Arctic. I wonder if the member agrees that, whatever investments are made for farmers, there must be comparable investments for hunters so they can provide for their families, communities and Canadians as well.

74 words

Mr. Earl Dreeshen

Jun/17/24 8:57:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is critical because harvesting, whether it comes off of land where we grow or the animals on the earth as part of tradition or just that we need to eat, is important. When the government talks about agriculture, it should deal with that part as well. I know that people compartmentalize and say that hunting is different than the other part, but to me, it is critical, especially for the north.

74 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC)

Jun/17/24 8:57:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a treat to rise in the House. I will just share a few thoughts about this budget, particularly as it relates to the housing portfolio. I would note that the housing section of the budget this year was significant. Unlike other years, housing was at the very beginning of the budget. I find it interesting because the government has talked a lot about housing for some time. We certainly all recall the 2017 launch of the Liberals' national housing strategy. We saw lots of pictures and videos of the Prime Minister with some of his MP colleagues and workers in front of a big housing project. At the time, the Prime Minister announced $40 billion, and gradually the Liberals came up with new numbers that brought it up to $70 billion, not all of which was really new money. However, it was lots of fanfare and lots of talk. In fact, the Prime Minister, at the time, described the national housing strategy as being a life-changing, “transformational” national housing strategy. That was announced with lots of fanfare, and then the Liberals slowly rolled it out. We found out a few years later, from a report from the Auditor General on the specific piece of it that was about homelessness, that the department was not even tracking the spending. The government did not really know whether it was having any impact. As the Auditor General and maybe anybody else with any sense would know, if one is not tracking what they are doing, then they do not know if the money they are spending is actually having any impact or they are just throwing money out the window. The department was not really tracking it, which I guess probably does not come as a huge surprise with the government. The Liberals really are a lot better at the photo ops than they are at the follow-through, so they did not really know if that was working or not. However, Canadians know the truth of all that because, despite the fanfare and the announcements made in 2017, tent cities are not just in the large cities in this country. They are everywhere. They are in smaller towns all across the country. Homelessness is worse now than it has been since we started tracking homelessness. Then, as well, we also know the results of the national housing strategy and the transformational program. Since the government took office nine years ago, house prices and rents have doubled in this country. Thanks to the excessive borrowing, there were going to be little, wee deficits. We remember that it was a $10-billion deficit. Deficits were going to be very, very small. Former prime minister Harper warned us that maybe that that was not true and, sure enough, he was correct. The deficits have been massive. Of course, out-of-control spending and out-of-control borrowing lead to higher interest rates and higher inflation, and that is what we have seen with the government. We fast forward it to today, when we have the borrowing and the excessive spending and, on top of that, the extra taxes. We have talked a lot about the various different tax schemes these guys have come up with to fund their spending. Ottawa does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. Therefore, they came up with the carbon tax, which the Liberals have been insisting all this time is really good, that it is going to reduce carbon emissions and that it is good for people. The Liberals keep saying that eight out of 10 people get more more money back. Do they know what? The lid is finally off. We have finally seen the hidden reports of the Minister of Environment that, in fact, the carbon tax is going to cost the economy $25 billion to $30 billion. We know that it is a tax on a tax on a tax on a tax. I bring it back to housing. Carbon tax applies to every stage of building a home. Whether it is the materials that are produced to build the home or the truck that is used to deliver the materials to the site, the carbon tax adds on to that and, of course, there is tax on top of the carbon tax. Governments make more money on housing than anybody else does. In this country, the average cost of government on every single home is about 33%. That is more than the builders make on houses. However, it is not just the federal level or the provincial level. It is the local level. Of course, the Liberals finally caught on to the fact that housing was actually in a crisis. I asked the previous minister if he would call this situation a “crisis.” He was afraid to use that word and would not use that word. In the summer of 2023, he was booted out, and a new minister was put in who is very good at using the word “crisis”, who is quick on his feet, who is a great debater, who is really good with the YIMBY language and who is generally a nice guy, too. I really like him. However, at the same time, he has come up with even more programs. The one I find particularly bizarre is the housing accelerator fund. All the Liberals like to talk about it. They are really proud of the housing accelerator fund because it is designed to speed up the building permit process in cities. The idea is that they would go around, city to city, and they would have these agreements with the cities to speed up their processes to make it easier to build. I have asked to see those agreements. There are about 100 or so cities, and I cannot see them. For whatever reason, they are a secret. However, I have been able to dig into some of the municipal planning reports that have gone to their councils. I will use Toronto as an example, just because Toronto is where the crisis is almost as acute as anywhere in the country. Vancouver is the worst, and I would say Toronto is next. The City of Toronto, in its housing accelerator application, agreed to a couple of different things to try to speed up the process. It was all in the reports. We do not know, of course, if any of these things have actually been done, except for one. We know that one thing that the minister really pushed was the concept of permitting fourplexes, four units, without having to get any special permission on any residential zone. Whatever kind of homes people live in, in the city of Toronto, they could turn it into four units, without going for a special permit, a rezoning or any kind of public hearing. People could do that. The minister pushed that in almost all of these agreements. It is almost as though he thought it was some kind of a silver bullet to solve the problem. As it turns out, the City of Toronto has already permitted this for about a year. In that time, there have been 74 applications to transform buildings into fourplexes. We know it is really not a silver bullet, but it was one of the big pushes. At the same time as we have a housing supply crisis, we also have a housing affordability crisis. Again, it is because of not only the cost of materials but also the cost of local governments. Local governments charge so many fees. There are building permit fees, connection fees, permit fees and development charges. A lot of people do not understand these development charges. A cheque has to be cut just for the privilege of having that piece of property that someone might be able to one day build a house on. That is not to mention the long, painful delays to get approvals. It takes, on average, in Canada, 249 days to get a building permit. In the United States, it takes, on average, 80 days. It is insane. Time is money. We could ask any builder, and they would tell us that time is money. That makes it more expensive. We have this situation where the City of Toronto, one of the most expensive cities in the country to build in, got $471 million from the Liberal government. It is so proud of this money, yet in the same time it got that money, it increased its development charges by 20%. It is not $97,000 for the privilege of building on a new lot, it is $117,000 now. I just do not understand, in a housing affordability crisis, why the government is borrowing money. Keep in mind that this is $4 billion of borrowed money, when the deficit is $40 billion, that it is going to give to cities that then turn around and make it more expensive to build. I am sure the Speaker cannot believe it. The Speaker is smiling because he cannot believe it. It is insane. This is what former Liberal finance minister John Manley referred to as driving with one's foot on the gas and the brake at the same time. The Liberal government is giving money to cities, which makes it more expensive. The Liberals are proud of this and think it is going to be some kind of a magical solution to what is literally a crisis in this country. It is a shame. There are too many Canadians suffering with a photo-op government that does not deliver the results, and Canadians are paying the price.

1624 words