Debates of Nov. 5th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Tax Measures to Support Canadians

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, my question for the Liberals and the parliamentary secretary is this. Why is it always the Liberals who make promises and never deliver?

Does the member realize that the promise for universal pharmacare has been in the Liberal red book for decades now, and still we do not have it? The excuse has always been that the government cannot afford for it. We have outlined some measures on how we can pay for it. If the member looked at some of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's reports, the universal pharmacare program would save Canadians money, and so, too, would a national housing strategy.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate and share the genuine passion of the member for social justice and for helping vulnerable people. However, on this side of the House, we would particularly emphasize the need to produce it before we can redistribute it. If we want to help people in vulnerable situations, we have to pay significant attention to economic development, to growing opportunity to create wealth, so we can then help vulnerable people.

We are in a situation right now where many businesses are not able to operate the way they normally would. We have significant government spending, well beyond the taxes we take in, and the NDP has no plan to address that enormous deficit.

Would the member agree, in principle, that if we want to help vulnerable people, we need to focus on allowing people to get back to work, creating the conditions for the creation of jobs and opportunity and opening up innovation and new industries, which is a critical piece if we are to achieve the objectives about which the member has talked?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, what the pandemic has shown us is that we have a huge inequality in our economic system. We have a situation where people are in fact left behind. We all talk about it, say that we are going to build back better, that we need to come out of the pandemic better, why not start with a wealth tax? One per cent on wealth over $20 million is not out of this universe. How about saying to the people who profited from the pandemic that they could pay a bit more to support Canadians through this rough patch?

For both the Liberals and Conservatives, there never is a good time to do what is right, there is never a good time to support the people who are the most vulnerable.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as it is my first opportunity to enter the debate on the opposition day motion, I want to put on the record that I absolutely support a wealth tax of 1% on wealth over $20 million. In fact, it was in my party's platform in 2019.

One of the most interesting comments in the Parliamentary Budget Office's report was how this tax would work. It put what it called a “band of uncertainty” around it, which some people took to mean the people in the Green Party of the NDP could not add because the PBO had said there was a band of uncertainty. However, it meant that the Parliamentary Budget Office thought, as we approached taxing the wealthiest in the country, that they would figure out ways not to pay the tax. That is the band of uncertainty. The money is there, tax is applied and we should have the amount of money the PBO has estimated.

I wonder if the NDP has turned its mind, or whether the hon. member for Vancouver East has, to how we account for the tax—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

A very short answer from the member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, we can begin by closing the tax loopholes, closing the tax havens and ending the subsidies for big oil.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate on the motion by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on tax measures to support vulnerable Canadians.

We have been going through the most horrific health crisis in our country over the last eight or nine months. There has been the terrible, sad loss of over 10,000 Canadians, and we are still enduring the health consequences in the second wave in our most populous areas. We also know it has been a great burden to a lot of people whose vulnerability in our society has been greatly exposed by the loss of income, employment and opportunities during this pandemic because of the response to the necessary lockdowns.

More than a million more Canadians are unemployed today than were at the beginning of the pandemic. We are concerned about the consequences of the inequality that has been exposed by that. We knew about it. The New Democrats have been talking about it for many years, but now it is time for the rest of the country to realize that something must be done about the fundamental inequality in our country. The consequences for people are too great for us not to act now.

This is an opportunity to recognize that some of this inequality can be addressed by looking at where the significant money is and where it is not being shared equally. We do not want to see big corporations profiteer from a pandemic. We have seen responses to that in the past.

As the member for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out in his most excellent speech, an excess profit tax was imposed during the Second World War. It was believed by all parties that companies making an excess amount of money, profiteering during the war, should have that excess profit taxed. The regular profit was not taxed. That is what we are calling for in this situation. Big corporations that have received excess profits during the pandemic should pay an excess tax on that.

The second thing we talked about in our platform, which was costed, was a wealth tax on the super wealthy, not an income tax. A lot of people have mussed over that. I know the Prime Minister has in response to questions. This would be a tax on people's wealth in excess of $20 million, not on the first $20 million but a tax of 1% on anything in excess of that.

These huge fortunes keep growing more than 1% every year and are not properly taxed. Those individuals do not pay their fair contribution to the rest of society. We want to use that tax to deal with some of the serious inequalities we have regarding income, health care and housing. Those are the three main issues that would be dealt with in the proposal we have to expand income security programs to ensure all individuals residing in Canada have a guaranteed liveable basic income.

We want to see health care expanded to include a national dental care program and a universal pharmacare program, which has been promised by the Liberals for more than 27 years. They still have not delivered on that. We want to see a meaningful implementation of the right to housing, with a significant plan known as “recovery for all", as well as a special indigenous, urban and rural and northern strategy delivered by indigenous people.

These items make up the essence of the motion. We are looking for support from the other parties in the House for that.

I am going to speak specifically to one aspect of our plan, which is the dental care plan. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, the member for Spadina—Fort York, talked about the NDP not having it in our platform or having costed it. He is wrong on both counts. It was in our platform last year and it was costed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was a very doable and important measure that would make a significant change in the lives of millions of Canadians.

In fact, we also had it costed again this year in February and gave members of Parliament an opportunity to actually implement it by a change in the so-called middle-class tax cut, by taking the benefit of about $300 from the top of that of people earning over $90,000 and directing that money to provide a national dental care program, which would provide free dental care for families with an income of less than $70,000 per year.

That program is very important. Anyone who reflects on the situation of people in this country who do not have access to dental care knows that it is a major area of inequality in health care, in lifestyle and in getting a job. It comes with a stigma and affects their overall health. It is a shocking gap in the health care system.

We have a situation where if one has a bone broken, a fall or an illness, they go to the hospital or doctor and that is covered by medicare. However, if someone has an oral health problem, a toothache, a cavity or a lost tooth, it is not covered in most cases by our health care system.

We have people living all their lives, in many cases, from birth to death without adequate health care or with a patchwork of government programs here and there to help along the way. It is a significant inequality for rural and indigenous communities throughout the country in terms of lack of access to health care. It causes significant problems.

We are talking about a program that would cost $1.4 billion per year. It has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It would benefit over six million Canadians. The cost is actually up from last year's analysis because of the increase in the number of people who do not have access to health and dental care programs because they are no longer working in places that have a program for employees.

It affects the most vulnerable Canadians. It affects part-time workers who do not have access to programs. It affects young people who age out of existing programs when they turn 21 or, for students, when they turn 25. It is a situation that cries out for action by government. This calls out for redress.

I spoke about the opportunity we gave to all hon. members on February 25 of this year on an opposition day motion to make a change in the tax regime that would give every single person in Canada without a dental care plan an opportunity to have a basic plan available to them. Every single Conservative in the House and every single Liberal in the House voted against that plan. Of course, they all benefit from the same plan I do, which is a plan for dental care as part of the regime of benefits for members of Parliament.

This plan would guarantee that all Canadians would have access to a dental care plan. It is something that is doable and that can be done for the kind of money that the Parliamentary Budget Officer talks about. It ought to be put in place in the interest of all Canadians and in the interests of equality.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the nice thing about having an iPad on my desk is I can read the NDP platform from the last election. I just went through the three chapters that cover health care and dental care is not mentioned once. We know the program was not costed, and dental care was never mentioned. It is not that we should not provide it or look for ways to provide it, but members should not make up facts on the floor of the House of Commons, even if doing it remotely.

I want to talk about the right to housing. An NDP candidate stood on my sister's porch in Victoria and claimed Liberals had not legislated it and furthermore, that we have never made an investment in Victoria. My sister said, “Yes, they have. My brother is the parliamentary secretary and every time he comes to Victoria, he stays at my house.”

We have made those investments. We did legislate the right to housing. We are in the process of constructing the advisory council. Does the NDP want us to move faster or is it that they do not understand what we have done?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is repeating something that is incorrect. It is mentioned in our platform as published and was costed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Those numbers were released by the NDP on September 18 during the election campaign, so he cannot have his own facts. He can repeat something that is incorrect as long as he wants, but it does not change the fact that it was costed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and was part of our campaign. The people who came up to me in the streets during the campaign talked about our platform and the importance of dental care to them—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my friend from the NDP a few questions regarding his speech.

My first is with respect to something he talked about often in his speech, which is taxing those who are wealthy and ensuring they continue to pay even more during this pandemic, as well as taxing corporations.

I have a couple of comments first. Sooner or later, this is not great policy because, at some point, it pushes people over the edge, whether it is an individual or a corporation. Individuals will not stick around to be bled to death. I am no defender of those who are rich, at times they are their own worst enemy, however, we as Canadians want them to keep their money here. We want them to put their money in the banks to allow them to lend money out so someone can get a student loan, buy a house or a car, or continue the progression up the economic ladder, to give those opportunities, but we also want the businesses to be here as well.

My question is this. If we continue to raise taxes, the products or services will stop because those businesses have hit a certain level and decided it is not worth producing or selling here. When we run the manufacturers out, the oil and gas companies out, and the energy producers out, and the gravitational pull of the economy goes elsewhere, who pays for all the programs that have been promised?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, as one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, there was a time when the Conservative Party was very concerned about profiteering in times of crisis during and after the Second World War. The Conservatives were some of the biggest supporters of an extra tax on those who profited excessively from the war. We are not talking about ordinary profits or that kind of thing. In the case of the wealthy, we are not talking about everybody who has money, we are talking about people who have probably benefited from all kinds of tax loopholes along the way, but someone who has in excess of $20 million in wealth should be taxed 1% on anything in excess of that. That would be over some 13,000 people. There would be significant revenue from that to help us solve some of these inequality problems that are extremely important to Canadians.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Spadina—Fort York.

The NDP motion to tax 1% on wealth over $20 million is so fundamentally wrong, I do not even know how to describe it. There is a basic misunderstanding of the concept of wealth with the NDP.

The New Democrats think $20 million in wealth is something that is cash hidden in the closet that they can tax every single year. They forget that this wealth is actually deployed in creating economic activity. It is deployed to create employment that, in turn, pays tax. It is deployed in enterprises that pay sales tax and corporate tax. The wealth the New Democrats are trying to tax is actually deployed in creating economic activity that continues to provide income so that all Canadians can be supported in terms of their needs.

I am new to politics. I entered politics only in 2014. I stood for election in 2015, and am a member of this august House. I came with three objectives.

The first objective was that we need affordable housing for all. That is not a left-leaning progressive objective. It is not a right-leaning conservative objective. It is an objective shared by almost all Canadians. We, as a society, should provide affordable housing for all. I am proud to say that we have invested quite large amounts into ensuring that we meet this objective.

My second objective was to ensure we have adequate retirement income for 11 million working Canadians who do not have workplace pension plans. There are 11 million working Canadians with no workplace pension plan and, when they retire, it is possible that most of them will retire into poverty. We need to take action and I am proud that we have actually taken action on that front. We have reformed the Canada pension plan. We still need to take much more action so that the seniors who retire have adequate income to have a decent living in their retirement.

The third objective was to ensure that the Canadian society and economy would continue to be robust and prosperous even in the new knowledge-based economy, so that prosperity could continue to be available to our children and grandchildren. To achieve this objective, we need successful entrepreneurs to invest in the knowledge-based economy. Any government can only facilitate. We can pass legislation and we can promote policies to promote the knowledge-based economy, but at the end of the day the knowledge-based economy can only come from entrepreneurs who take risks and invest in new capital enterprises in the knowledge-based economy. The new economy we are talking of means the areas of artificial intelligence, robotics, automation, genomics and the new 5G technologies. In all of these areas, the government cannot create employment on its own, so we need successful entrepreneurs to do that and we need them to invest their wealth, which the NDP proposes to tax. We need that investment.

I am a person who would never be affected by this motion, never in my life. Forget $20 million, Madam Speaker. I do not think I will go into six or seven digits in wealth. However, I happen to know the people whom the NDP is targeting with this wealth tax.

Let me give an example of a couple who, a long time back, graduated from Carleton University in Ottawa and set up their own businesses. The first business failed. The second business failed, as did the third business. At the time they were investing, with no money in their pockets, whatever little amount they could get. When they were investing and developing the businesses, they lived by eating tomato sandwiches. They worked hard, month after month, year after year. For 15, 20 and then 25 years they worked, creating a company. Finally, they were able to sell it to a big multi-national company for about $50 million, which the NDP wants to tax.

What did the couple do with the $50 million they gained? They took a risk and reinvested in new technologies, creating high-paying jobs. They knew very well the money they were investing in these new capital enterprises might be lost entirely. They took that risk. They deployed the wealth back into a technology business creating high-paying jobs, which provided income tax for us to provide support to all Canadians. They created an enterprise that paid corporate tax. They created an enterprise that paid sales tax. They rented premises that paid sales tax on the rent they paid. They reinvested. If they had lost money on that investment, nobody would have compensated them.

The very idea that we have to tax this wealth is creating a disincentive for entrepreneurs to reinvest. It is very wrong.

Let me give another example of a great Canadian: a South African national who is also a Canadian citizen and now a U.S. citizen. Elon Musk has singlehandedly done more to fight climate change than all of us sitting here. He is a great entrepreneur who invested his wealth into electric vehicles through battery technology with the goal of having a sustainable world and fighting climate change, and actually delivering it in the process of making wealth.

This person, 10 years ago, was weeks away from bankruptcy. He did not have money to pay rent. The company he founded was almost on the doorstep of closure. However, he persevered. He continued to work hard. Today he has created wealth, not only for himself but for his tens of thousands of employees across the world. That is the kind of wealth the NDP is proposing to tax.

It is easy for us to sit here and say, let the wealthy pay tax and let us spend it on things we feel are noble. Under the noble objectives, I think we are losing our focus.

Our focus should be on things that can create economic activity, economic development and employment, and can increase the income with which people pay personal income tax. We can focus on economic development that pays more sales tax, and we can focus on economic development that pays more corporate tax, instead of focusing on taxing the wealthy.

I know time is limited. I would like to answer any questions.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, 87 Canadian families have the same amount of wealth as 12 million Canadians. On average, they have $3 billion in wealth. In fact, nine of the top 20 wealth carriers in that classification are CEOs. There are 4.8 million Canadians living in absolute poverty, and 25 per cent of them are children.

Why do the Liberals continue to protect CEO stock option loopholes and tax havens for the wealthy? This is an opportunity to give everybody a guaranteed livable income so they can put food on the table, provide child care for their children and have a roof over their heads.

Why are the Liberals opposed to doing the right thing, and taxing those who could afford to pay for it and who benefited the most during this pandemic? I hope the member can explain.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, what the hon. member did not mention is the portion of tax revenue collected from the wealthy individuals he talked about. That is one of the things he has to answer.

He talked about helping Canadians. We have taken measures to go after the tax havens that the member mentioned. We have created special cells within the CRA and we have invested more. We know that when we go after tax havens, the returns we get are much more than we get from normal audits.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, if Open Parliament serves me correctly, I would like to congratulate the member on his first speech in this Parliament. I really liked the real-world examples he gave of entrepreneurs creating wealth and good jobs in Canada. I hope in the future he stands and shares those types of stories more often instead of us hearing all the time from the member for Winnipeg North.

What can we do in Canada to create more competitiveness in the technology sector, since that was an example he gave, to create jobs and see people flourish with small businesses?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, you may have noticed that I do not speak much. In fact, as the member pointed out, this is the first time. Usually I leave the speaking to the people who have more knowledge, better expertise and better communication skills than me. I am happy to sit back, listen and try to understand.

On the question of investing in the new economy, new technologies and competitiveness, one of the key things I hear from entrepreneurs in Ottawa, where there are 1,700 knowledge-based companies, and as a former board member of Invest Ottawa, is that the talent is missing. We need to increase the immigration of skilled entrepreneurs from across the world so that we can get the best brains in the world to come to work in our new economy.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, what the member is getting at is we can all agree that it is a good thing to try to support individuals by having those with the most resources distribute their wealth, but as I read the motion, it is full of ambiguity. I want to point some things out and see if maybe he can find out about them.

What is the definition of a big corporation? Does that include businesses in my riding of Kings—Hants such as Apple Valley Foods, which employs about 500 people? Would that be defined as a big corporation or are we thinking bigger? The Parliamentary Budget Officer has mentioned that this proposed motion would garner $5.6 billion a year. All the measures on the table are much more than that.

Can he comment on whether he thinks this is a reasonable motion? It is certainly good in principle, but in practice, how would it play out?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member pointed out, the motion is quite ambiguous. It talks about national housing, pharmacare and supporting indigenous people. These are good and noble objectives, with which we all agree, but what the NDP is proposing is not acceptable.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand and speak in the House, especially when the motion in front of us involves housing, in particular the proposal to try to get us to do the work we need to do, which is actually work the Liberal government is already engaged in doing.

I referenced my father in an earlier comment. I will reference my mother now, who once told me that if people want to make a point, they vote NDP; if people want to make a difference, they vote Liberal; and if people want to make a mistake, they vote Conservative. I raise that issue because, while the theory behind what the NDP is proposing is good as it reflects our throne speech, our campaign commitments and the record of this Liberal government, it is the practicality of it that I do not understand.

I asked members a question earlier. During a campaign debate with my opponent, I said that they had referenced one tax seven different ways, and it was all spent on pharmacare, but it also promised to deal with different housing programs. Dental care was added into the program, and other things, but the same dollar kept getting spent over and over again, even though it was only one dollar. The Conservatives like to say there is only one taxpayer, but I think the NDP needs to be reminded that its tax increase is only one tax increase. It has layered several different programs on top of this, claiming that there are savings that will flow from these investments. Those savings, I would remind the NDP, are downstream. There are upfront costs to all of the NDP's proposals, which the Parliamentary Budget Office identified. There are also unintended risks to what the New Democrats are proposing, and if there is no plan to put their theory into place, then they are just words.

The NDP is great on slogans. All of these slogans are good. All of these ideas have value, but what is not there is the practical plan to achieve them, and without a practical plan to achieve them, they are just empty words. I will give the House a couple of examples. Finally the NDP has talked about the issue of urban, rural and northern housing. Finally the New Democrats are beginning to address one of the most critical housing issues in the country, and they say we have done nothing to address it.

That is just wrong. We identified it in the national housing strategy as the chapter that we are currently working on, and we are about to deliver on that. The throne speech makes that commitment, and the work is already under way, but in the interim we created an indigenous stream and increased funding in the indigenous stream in reaching home. We made all of the programs eligible to northern, rural and urban communities for indigenous-led housing providers. Additionally, we put carve-outs into the northern housing strategy, specifically for northern housing accomplishments, because we knew that previous programs had a gap there. On top of all of that, we also made sure that our investments into things like the rapid housing initiative are focused on, and eligible to, indigenous housing providers.

In the interim we have actually invested in those programs while we pull together and work with urban indigenous, rural indigenous and northern indigenous leadership to make sure we set up a by- and for-indigenous housing program. That work is under way. Those investments are coming. When I ask the member for Vancouver East to give me a dollar amount, a housing target or strategy, or to say who she is working with, and we have asked these questions repeatedly, the NDP just says, “Do it now and do more.”

I appreciate doing more. It is a great political slogan. I have no problem with trying to do more, working to accomplish more and actually delivering more, which this government has done. However, just jumping up and down and saying, “Do more!” is not governing. It is a chant in a protest, and as my mother said, if one wants to protest, one has a party. If one wants to get things done, one has a government.

On the issue of recovery for all, I invite the members of the NDP to look at that campaign and see which member of Parliament appears in the campaign. They should check the video for it. They can tell me whether they see my face there, or their leader's face there. They should check the video, because that campaign is being put forth by the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness: an organization we work with day in and day out to get better strategies in place to support homeless individuals. This is not just during COVID. We have been doing this since we first got elected.

The rapid housing initiative, the reprofiling of reaching home and the advancement of the legislation to achieve the right to housing were all done with the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. If members read all six points of the recovery for all program, they will see our government has already started to respond to those six calls to action with investments such as the billion-dollar rapid housing initiative, and the almost half-billion dollars invested into reaching home to protect people during COVID and to build a stronger network of organizations to fight homelessness across the country.

When members talk about the urban, rural and northern housing strategy, they can talk to the member for Winnipeg Centre. We have been working very closely together, not only to get a study done in Parliament, but also simultaneously with urban indigenous housing providers, and their allies in rural and northern communities, to formulate what the receiving side of that program would look like and how we would work with housing providers across the country to achieve what we need to. All of this is being worked on.

When it comes to the right to housing, I recall a story I heard from my sister in Victoria. The NDP candidate came to her house, knocked on the door and said the government had done nothing about the right to housing. They laid into the national housing strategy as if it did not exist and said there had not been a penny invested in Victoria. This simply is not true.

Mayor Helps and I have met dozens of times, formally and informally, to talk about Victoria's progress in getting to functional zero. Without COVID, we are pretty sure we would have gotten there this year. Why? It is because we steered a $3 million block-funding initiative right into the greater Victoria area, with the provincial government and the regional housing authority. When they ran into a wall, we topped it up by $10 million.

I have opened programs and buildings in Victoria, yet the candidate went to my sister's house, stood on her porch and said the government had not even been there. My sister's response was, “Every time he comes to Victoria he stays with me. I know he comes to Victoria to make those announcements.”

Can we do more? Absolutely. We are working hard on that. Are we delivering more dollars in real time in a real way? Of course we are.

I invite the NDP to stop screaming “more” and start talking about “how”, because that is the way results will end up landing in people's lives. It is not by protesting in front of Parliament Hill. It is by working on Parliament Hill. It is not by talking about more money for housing. It is by building, subsidizing and repairing more housing.

I remind the House leader of the NDP that last term he said repairing housing is not part of a national housing strategy. What a ridiculous claim to make. The next week I was in Burnaby giving money to a co-op to fix housing so that people did not have to move out. Good housing systems will repair housing, subsidize housing and build housing. That is how we build a national housing strategy. We do not just chant “do more”; we actually get more done.

I have no problem supporting the concept of the motion before us. In our throne speech, we talked about exploring ways to make the tax system more fair by looking at the way wealthy Canadians may be able to pay more of their fair share, because the system has changed over time and is no longer as fair as it could be. On page 19 and 20, we said we would end chronic homelessness, that there would be a northern and indigenous housing strategy and that we were going to invest in social and co-op housing. Those programs are currently being constructed and will be in front of the House in short order.

As for the right to housing, we are halfway through the appointments process. We have moved the legislation through the House and we are moments away from signing off on the advisory council. The housing advocate will be constructed with the housing advisory panel, which will include people with lived experience. All of these things are part of what the UN rapporteur for housing, who helped us draft the legislation, told us we needed for achieving on those files.

I am not going to stand here and be told by the NDP to get back to work when I am doing the work. I will tell the NDP to stop chanting “more” and start showing us how, because the lack of practical application of their ideas is why they are in fourth place. It is why they fail to take government. The chants, protests and slogans remind me of somebody: the Premier of Ontario. They can govern with slogans if they want, but they do not deliver results. We have to be practical, we have to be real, we have to achieve concrete budgetary items and then we have to work with partners to deliver.

As for housing, things are getting better and better. Is there more work to do? Yes. Do I push our government to do better? Absolutely. Do my constituents demand it of me? They do, every day I am in the riding.

I cannot get past this proclivity to chant slogans and chant “more”. I see this motion as a chance for the NDP to say there are five things the government has said it is going to deliver and then demand the government does this now. Then, when it does, they can try to take credit.

The number of times NDP members referenced Tommy Douglas is quite interesting, and I will tell members something about Tommy Douglas that I really respect. He built the health care system before he came to Ottawa and then scaled it across the country. He did not land in Ottawa with an idea and just screamed, “Do it, do it, do it.” He got it done first and then shared it with the rest of the Canada.

That is the practicality I look for in the NDP, but I never see it in that party anymore. It disappoints me, and it is why I ran for the Liberals. It is why I beat the NDP in my riding. It is why we will continue to do the good work we are doing. We are getting it done, not just talking about it.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to a few things the member said.

He mentioned a conversation I had with his sister on her doorstep. What I said in the conversation is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the Liberals' national housing strategy said that it left people in core housing need worse off. This is what we have seen from the Liberal government again and again. Yes, there are great promises in its throne speech, but when it comes to follow-through and delivery, people in my riding are still struggling.

There is a housing crisis. People are struggling to make ends meet and pay their bills. This is an opportunity for us to invest in a guaranteed liveable income, which would make a huge difference for millions of people across the country.

Does the member not think the families, workers and small business owners who are struggling should not have to pay for these investments, and that they should be paid by the people who have profited off this pandemic? It should be the ultrawealthy, who can—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, I do not disagree with the theory. It is the practice and application that I am concerned about.

The member referenced the Parliamentary Budget Office. The Parliamentary Budget Office only looked at a very, very narrow component of the national housing strategy. It did not include provincial transfers, which we doubled. It did not include the Canada housing benefit, a $4-billion program. It also did not include the money we advanced in financing to non-profit parties to build housing, saying it did not understand this.

If we discount almost $15 billion in spending, the Parliamentary Budget Office says we are not spending enough money. However, when we add the $15 billion in spending, which is real spending on real housing for real people, we suddenly start to see results. If someone asks the wrong question or studies the wrong part of the national housing strategy, they come up with an incomplete answer.

The truth of the matter is that the national housing strategy is delivering new housing every single day, repairing housing, subsidizing housing and supporting homelessness activists right across the country.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary was somewhat critical in his view of chanting slogans, but I think we just listened to 10 minutes of slogans and more hollow ideas from the Liberals.

He raised the topic of the rapid housing initiative. Saskatoon is, in our view, a major city, but apparently it does not rank in the major city category in the rapid housing initiative. I was with community leaders on the day it was announced and they were quite excited, but I had to tell them that unfortunately Saskatoon did not rate in that announcement. We were left in the second stream, trying to fight for the rest of the money like everybody else.

Does the parliamentary secretary think Saskatoon is a major market for this? Why did we not get any money from the rapid housing initiative?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, Charlie Clark, the mayor of Saskatoon, has been a great ally in building this program. I have talked to Robert Byers of Namerind Housing Corporation too, one of the organizations that will hopefully access this money through one of the other streams.

There are two streams to this initiative. There is block funding for the 15 cities with the fiscal capacity, structural capacity, and population and data to support block funding. They can move very quickly in different ways simultaneously without having to do things project by project. Then there is the other half of the stream, which is open to all communities across this country. It targets the smaller projects in smaller communities, which can access it more than once for more than one project.

As I said, Namerind in particular has a really good project on the docket, and if the member has a project he is interested in pursuing, I would be more than happy to sit down and work through it. I would be happy to talk to Mayor Charlie Clark as well.

Solving homelessness everywhere requires us to invest everywhere. We will do it differently in differently sized cities because of their fiscal capacity, but no city, no community and no project will go unreviewed by this government. There is a 30-day turnaround. I am happy to work with the member opposite to realize this. It is not a slogan. It is a real policy with real money for real people to end the housing crisis.