Debates of April 26th, 2021

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we already have that in Quebec. We are trailblazers. What the rest of Canada wants to do is their problem.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have seen pandemic profiteers using government funding to pay executive bonuses and shareholder dividends. We have also seen additional wealth accumulation of the billionaire class during the pandemic, amounting to $87 billion. The Green Party believes that we need a wealth tax and stronger rules to ensure that people are not enriching themselves with COVID relief funding.

Would the hon. member agree with me?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, we completely agree.

The member for Joliette fought tooth and nail to get money back from tax havens and for people who use them to pay their taxes. It is a matter of horizontal and vertical equity. Everyone pays taxes. Why should those people not pay theirs?

Once again, the Canadian government is signing agreements with tax havens, allowing people to avoid paying their fair share. Those are the consequences of the lax attitude adopted by the Liberals and Conservatives, the latter being even worse.

It is hard to imagine that anyone could be worse than the Liberals when it comes to tax havens, but the Conservatives are. Neither party really wants vertical and horizontal equity or for the rich to pay their taxes so that the money can be used to help the public. That is obvious.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for La Prairie is a role model for me when it comes to both public speaking and economic policy.

I am wondering if he has read the book Un gouvernement de trop, or “one government too many”, by Stéphane Gobeil. If so, could he explain the conclusion the book came to?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, yes, I have read that book.

My colleague is right. Having two levels of government side by side often results in unnecessary expenditures. It is called service duplication. As we saw with the example of a single tax return, eliminating the second tax return would save $425 million. Imagine how much we could save if we eliminated an entire government.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House as the Bloc Québécois critic for families, children and social development, but also as a woman, mother, worker and, naturally, Quebecker, to discuss what I believe to be the government's key measure in this budget, the federal child care program. However, we should not be blinded by this program, nor should it cloud our critical thinking.

In 2021, it makes no sense, whether we consider it from a feminist, economic, educational or other viewpoint, that a mother or a father has to make the impossible decision between starting a family or staying in the workforce. It is our responsibility and our duty, as citizens first and foremost, to ensure that children and their parents have what they need to thrive and freedom from want. Child care services should be available to all for the benefit of all.

Quebec realized this decades ago. It has already been 25 years since we decided to expand our social safety net by introducing a quality and, above all, universal child care system, known as the network of early childhood centres, or CPEs, in Quebec.

I will give a brief history. In 1997, Quebec developed an innovative family policy that led to the creation of a family allowance, a parental insurance plan, and educational and day care services for young children. The day care network was championed by women leaders, feminists, visionary leaders and, most importantly, I cannot not mention our former premier Pauline Marois, who was then the minister for families and children. I humbly commend her today and sincerely thank her on behalf of all Quebeckers and all those she inspired and continues to inspire.

To get back to the subject at hand, Quebec's family policy, centred around CPEs, had three objectives: ensure fairness through universal support for families and increased assistance for low-income families, help parents balance their parental and professional responsibilities, and foster child development and equality of opportunity.

It is possible to reconcile those two objectives: to promote parents' economic activity and to ensure equal opportunity by providing all children in Quebec with a quality early learning environment, since those years are crucial in a child's development. This is not an impossible feat, and Quebec has made that abundantly clear. It was with these ideals in mind and by putting children at the heart of our choices, as the title of our child-focused policy at the time indicates, that Quebec implemented its child care system in the late 1990s.

I am a mother of three, and I have to say that my children greatly benefited from that system, as did I, my family and all of society. This child care system quickly proved its worth. Let us remember that, once it was implemented, Quebec mothers quickly caught up with and then surpassed Canada's average participation rate. The overwhelming effectiveness of this child care system and its immeasurable value to Quebec society made it a model, not only for Canada but also for other countries. I therefore have to admit that the budget presented by the Minister of Finance is quite right in praising the merits of our Quebec child care system and indicating that the Quebec model will serve as the foundation and model for the federal program.

That said, while I am certainly empathetic and happy for parents in other provinces, which will be able to follow Quebec's lead toward a more egalitarian society thanks to this investment, I have to admit that I have two major concerns about the federal government's announcement.

As I have said, Quebec chose long ago to invest in its children. The experience Quebec has gained over the past 25 years quickly made it the foremost expert in this area. We are proud and rather protective of that.

What worries me is the federal government's systematic tendency to use its spending power to encroach on areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Family policies and all related programs fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Not that I would ever need to, but if I did, I might take comfort in the government's constant attempts to take over our powers and interfere in matters that are none of its business if I thought it had any idea of what to do in its own sandbox and did not have way too much sand in the first place.

I would like the government to give Quebeckers their tax dollars. They know how to spend it and govern themselves. We are not short on ideas. We even dream of having our own country.

What also worries me, aside from this question of “everyone in their own sandbox”, which will have to be addressed at some point, is that this desire to colonize our jurisdictions might end up being more than just an idea. These so-called national strategies, whether dealing with long-term care or mental health, to speak only of this budget, are intended to Canadianize what is unique to Quebec and, worse still—although I do not really believe there can be anything worse—they are intended to substitute inexperience, even ignorance, for experience and knowledge. Quebec knows, in every sense of the word, what is good for Quebec.

Ottawa, of course, plans to reach an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec, an agreement that the Prime Minister of Canada has quaintly described as pretty much unconditional. As Alfred de Musset wrote 200 years ago, and this is still today an apt metaphor, a door must be either open or shut. The Prime Minister likes to say one thing and its opposite, and, logically speaking, that is just nonsense.

If the Prime Minister has no idea of how to handle his own jurisdiction or is not thinking clearly when he tries to interfere in others' jurisdictions, if only with respect to this asymmetrical agreement, I cannot even imagine what he has in mind for child care other than to hold the provincial governments hostage. He is placing the burden on them and polishing up his image in a budget that, make no mistake, is the announcement of an electoral platform, if not an imminent election.

In closing, I would like to reiterate that I am happy for the improved quality of life for Canadian children and their parents that a child care system would hopefully offer and I am sure that Quebec will be generous enough to share its expertise.

However, at the risk of repeating myself, it is imperative that Quebec gets the compensation it deserves—and I would even say more, the compensation it is due—free from conditions. Freedom is unconditional. We are not talking about “pretty much free from conditions”, but “free from all conditions”. That is what we are asking.

The Bloc Québécois unreservedly supports the National Assembly of Quebec, which unanimously called on the federal government to give Quebec its fair share with no conditions. Any other scenario is unacceptable. It would be an affront, and not the first one, to Quebeckers' autonomy and their right to make their own decisions. We decided that our institutions are secular, that our common language is French and that Bills 21 and 101 represent who we are.

It is up to the National Assembly of Quebec, that is, Quebeckers and no one else, not even and above all not the Prime Minister of Canada, to decide what will happen with our child care centres. Quebeckers can—

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

It is time for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know there is a lot that my colleague from the Bloc and I do not agree on, but I believe we can likely both agree that one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best solutions are not the most efficient and not the most ideal for Canadians.

Given that the Liberals have moved forward with a very big bureaucratic solution to child care, I wonder if my friend from the Bloc has any more comments on the potential effectiveness of that program versus one that is more direct to support individuals and families and provides them with more flexibility to make their own decisions.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kenora for his question.

Of course I agree with him on the red tape. However, just as I do not want the federal government to interfere in provincial jurisdictions, as a Bloc Québécois member, I will not interfere in the choices that the provinces make.

As I mentioned in my speech, I imagine that the burden has been placed on provincial premiers. I hope they will make their own decisions, as this is one of their areas of jurisdiction. I hope that the government will quite simply respect them. As I already said, Quebec has the knowledge and the expertise. We hope that the government will stay in its own sandbox.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, my constituents, and I think the same principles would apply for the member opposite's constituents, want a sense of co-operation among different levels of government and one way to maximize the potential of programs is when governments work together.

Does the member not recognize the true value of the national government working with provincial and territorial entities for the betterment of the people we both represent?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from La Prairie said, there is one government too many. That is the basic premise and the first thing I want to say.

Second, I want to say that I agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North. There are a lot of things that bother me as well. I hear the word “co-operation”, but Quebeckers' money gets sent to Ottawa. I want the government to send that money back to Quebec so that Quebeckers can choose how to spend it.

We have the expertise and experience in Quebec, and our network is already operational. In this particular situation, I think the ideal way for the federal government to co-operate with Quebec would be to simply transfer, unconditionally, the money set aside for the federal child care strategy to Quebec.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government mentioned that its child care program was based on Quebec's model, but it seems that the member sees a huge difference between the two, one of them being the Ottawa-knows-best approach and how bureaucratic and costly that can be.

I would ask the member to shed light on the significant difference between the two and how this can be enhanced to better serve Canadians.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would have a hard time identifying any differences, because even the Prime Minister cannot commit to transferring the money unconditionally. He will not commit to doing that because he does not know what is in his own federal child care strategy.

This federal strategy is nothing more than pre-election political posturing. He must give the money to the provinces and let them decide what they need.

I would like to tell my colleague from Edmonton Manning that no matter how much they try to explain what is in this strategy, Quebec already has a strategy and does not need this federal one. We simply want the transfers we are owed.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, International Development; the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, National Defence; the hon. member for Kenora, Public Safety.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to wish those watching at home a good afternoon.

I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, which is in British Columbia. Even though we live on almost opposite ends of the country, we have something very important in common and that is that we are both extremely proud of the farming and dairy production in our ridings. I am pleased to share my time with him.

I look forward to finding out whether he is committed, as I am, to opposing the government's budget a few hours from now. That is the purpose of my speech. Over the next few minutes, I would like to explain the three main reasons why I do not intend to vote in favour of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.

The first reason is that, as we all know, the Chaudière-Appalaches region is currently in heightened lockdown because it is in a zone that has been identified as particularly susceptible to a resurgence of cases. That is why we want as many effective measures as possible.

One very effective measure is vaccination. I am pleased to inform the House that many people over the age of 45 in Chaudière-Appalaches are getting vaccinated. Vaccination centres are operating at full capacity. We are a bit behind because of delays in vaccine distribution, for which I blame the government's poor pandemic management and its failure to sign contracts with western vaccine manufacturers in favour of cozying up to the Chinese. We ended up not getting the eagerly awaited vaccines.

The good thing is that, for now, we are trying to use vaccines to rein in the pandemic, but if we had received vaccines earlier, maybe more of us would be able to gather around our barbecues on warmer days like today.

This failure to manage the pandemic can also be seen in how government business and the financial response to the pandemic have been managed. We Conservatives have always been in favour of effective measures to combat the adverse effects of the pandemic and to support businesses. Unfortunately, there are businesses in my riding that have been left out of this latest budget. It is on their behalf that I will be voting against the budget and will continue to work to ensure that there are specific measures for the businesses that have been hit hardest by the pandemic. That, then, is my first reason for opposing the budget.

The second reason is that the budget does not address the needs of businesses. There is a business in my riding that I greatly respect that operates in the tourism and transportation sector with a fleet of buses. I received an email this afternoon from the owner. He told me that extending the Canada emergency wage subsidy, which still has an expiration date, as proposed in the budget, is a real joke for businesses like his. Many businesses will not begin to recover for at least 12 months. For example, he relies on educational school trips and international tourists to charter his buses.

Some businesses are having a field day during this pandemic. Just look at our grocery stores. That sector certainly has not been hit hard by the pandemic. On the contrary, their sales are up. However, there are businesses in the tourism, culture and transportation sector that have been grappling with an almost total decline in their revenues for months now. Even if vaccination does the job and things open up, people are not going start chartering buses and taking package tours, including to our beautiful national capital. Tourists are not going to come to the Quebec City region or start travelling here from overseas.

There will still be a buffer period, and these people are counting on the bit of breathing room provided by the government to support them while the public health measures and guidelines remain in place. However, the government is taking a one-size-fits-all approach. The government is putting mechanisms in place and gradually removing the assistance measures, but it did not target the sectors that had specific needs, like the tourism business with a fleet of buses, of which we are very proud. I just want to note that its buses were manufactured in my riding at Prevost.

These are all businesses that have been hit hard by the pandemic, but no specific measures were created for them. The ill-conceived one-size-fits-all measures that the Liberals decided to implement backfired. Today, the labour shortage is even more acute. I am thinking in particular of restaurant owners who are looking for workers. In some instances, the measures implemented by the Liberals actually made the crisis worse instead of better. That is why I cannot support this budget.

Not only are there no specific measures, but the government wants to spend recklessly because of the promises it made. We must remember that the Liberals had been in power for almost five years when the pandemic hit. They had made all kinds of promises and had not kept them. Today, we are in the midst of a pandemic, our economy is being battered, and the government is undertaking ambitious reform programs that will have a significant impact on the debt.

The third reason is the debt. People often say that all the Conservatives talk about is money and debt. Economists are saying that the debt is not that high and that we can go into debt. The only reason that is possible is that previous governments were responsible and managed taxpayers' money as though it were their own.

Marcel Boyer, a professor emeritus of economics at the Université de Montréal and fellow at the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, said today that, based on the figures in the budget, the federal debt is in the range of 30% to 50% of GDP.

Earlier, some of my Bloc Québécois colleagues spoke about the level of debt in Quebec. Based on the methods used by major international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, a Quebecker's debt would be 116% of GDP. There is provincial debt, federal debt and municipal debt. Mr. Boyer says that these three levels account for the 116%, with the federal share being 50% of it. However, before the pandemic and before the Liberals' obsession with racking up deficits, that figure was below 25%.

The Liberal government has mismanaged public funds, so I have to give it a failing grade. These same Liberals were in Washington last week telling us that they care about the environment, climate change and sustainable development. Our friends in the government need to be reminded that sustainable development is about striking a balance between the environment and the economy. Creating structural deficits will only move us further away from sustainable development and deprive future generations of the tools they will need to adopt measures to fight climate change. That is the second reason I will be opposing this budget.

I will recap the three reasons I will be opposing this budget. First, the government is spending huge amounts of money. Second, it has not created targeted measures for businesses like Autocar Excellence, the company I mentioned. Third, this budget demonstrates fiscal irresponsibility that leaves a burden on future generations.

In closing, I want to quote two different sources. Obviously, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the FADOQ, the organization that represents our seniors. It believes that this budget takes our seniors for fools and discriminates against them. Those between the ages of 65 and 75 are out of luck. The winners are those who are over the age of 75 because they are entitled to a $500 cheque from the federal government. The FADOQ is wondering why the federal government created two classes of seniors and why it thinks the cost of living and rent is higher for those aged 75 and over. The FADOQ is also wondering what the basis is for this public policy that discriminates against seniors.

The government claims to be the champion of diversity, but now it is engaging in ageism and discrimination against our seniors. Members need to hear the felicitous comments of a 95-year-old senior who managed his fortune so well that it is now worth an estimated $2 billion. He wants to know why the government does not manage Canadians' money as though it were its own and why it is acting childish and failing to make responsible decisions.

What is shameful is that this budget does not meet the objectives that taxpayers have the right to expect. That is why I intend to vote against it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it very difficult to hear Conservatives say that this budget does not meet the expectations of what Canadians think is important. Right now we are focused on taking care of Canadians, as we have been over the last year. This comes down to a very simple decision: Do we want society as a whole to take on the burden of the incredible sacrifice that has come with COVID-19, economically speaking, or do we want to let individuals take on that burden by themselves? The people who are really affected by this, the small businesses, suffer the most.

The member agrees, because he voted in favour of all the spending measures to date, but does he not see that investing in Canadians throughout this time is absolutely critical in order to rebound successfully?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer to the member's question is why does he not go and see the entrepreneur who is waiting for the government's pandemic supports that are not in the budget? I refer to the entrepreneur I spoke about in my speech in the transport and tourism sectors.

The Liberals are failing to help those who really need it. They are not using the money wisely and are actually increasing the burden by growing expenses that will have an impact on future generations. That is why I will oppose this budget with a lot of conviction.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

He talked about vaccination. That might be our only way out of this crisis.

This past weekend, I was talking to a pharmacist in Beauce. She was expecting 400 doses this week, but she is getting only 100.

I would like my colleague to comment on the whole vaccine procurement mess.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to answer a question posed by my colleague from Beauce. His region had to deal with another wave of the pandemic. As the member knows, my father lives in Beauce and has been vaccinated. There have been deaths though.

More vaccination delays mean more repercussions for people's health. People are paying the price for vaccination delays, and that is a shame.

The message we have to send now is that people need to get vaccinated so we can slow the spread of the virus in Chaudière-Appalaches.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague on his leadership. He is helping Beauce do what it does best, which is create quality jobs and wealth.

My colleague can count on me to make sure we find workers and work against Liberal measures preventing us from finding the quality workers we need to meet our needs.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Quebec for his speech.

As he is also from Quebec, I would like to ask him a question. To date, no member of the Conservative Party has answered this question since I came to this place and started asking questions about the budget.

The Conservatives seem to agree with us that health transfers to the provinces should increase on an ongoing basis as Quebec and the provinces have asked for. However, no Conservative has agreed that the health transfer should increase to 35%.

The Conservatives are unable to tell me if they agree with Premier Legault and the other provincial premiers.

Therefore, I am asking outright if he agrees with the figure proposed by Quebec and the provinces.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

Let me reassure him that federal Conservative governments have always been open to suggestions from Quebec. During the 2008 economic crisis, for instance, health transfers were not only maintained, but also increased by 3% a year during an extremely difficult period.

That is why, contrary to the Liberals' approach of interfering in provincial jurisdictions, we choose to respect these jurisdictions and support the provinces.

I remind my hon. colleague that a Conservative government—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the member, but he will be able to continue another time.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to be back in Ottawa and to have the opportunity to respond to the budget. Today I will be speaking on housing.

I want to begin by sharing a personal story. In 2016, I distinctly remember reading in the Abbotsford News that house prices had increased over 30% during the spring season. I was filled with anxiety and the fear of missing out, the fear of being unable to provide a safe and affordable place to raise my kids, and the fear of losing hope of ever owning a home.

When I recently hosted a telephone town hall in the tri-cities region, it was reiterated that the concerns I personally held are now the norm and they are growing. During the course of that discussion, the message received again and again was that young professionals do not see a pathway to home ownership. Hope is being lost.

As the Conservative Party's shadow minister for housing, I scoured the budget for a plan to meaningfully address the ongoing housing affordability crisis plaguing this country. However, the budget includes nothing for young Canadians or first-time homebuyers trying to get into the market. The document barely mentions Canada's housing supply crisis. Urban indigenous people seeking long-promised support for, and autonomy over, their housing requirements were snubbed as well.

Even though the Liberals admit that our real estate market is better for foreign investors than for Canadians trying to find a home, their proposed solution is to further consult and maybe implement a foreign buyers' tax in 2022. When it comes to addressing money laundering, the Liberals, again, turn a blind eye to this insidious problem.

All in all, there was an opportunity before us not to be reactive, but to respond to the needs of those trying to secure new homes, those looking for stable places to live and those seeking more security in their lives. We are not there as a nation, and the anger and frustration is growing.

These are serious issues with significant impacts on Canadians' futures, and they deserve far more time than I have in my 10 minutes today.

Housing prices exploded during the pandemic. According to the Canadian Real Estate Association, the national average rose 31.6% compared with March of last year, to a record price of over $716,000. The reasons for these skyrocketing prices are many, and if there were an easy fix we would not be having this discussion. Indeed, even in my critiques, I will acknowledge there is no easy solution to the housing problem.

Among the new factors are the Bank of Canada's quantitative easing practices. Its manipulation of interest rates is increasing real estate and asset inflation, encouraging high debt levels and punishing savers.

The Bank of Canada cut its key interest rate three times in the early days of the pandemic, when Mr. Poloz was governor. The current governor indicates that the bank will keep rates low until at least 2023. Mr. Poloz has stated that, “If the side effect is a hot housing market, that's one I'll take every day.”

I am sorry, but what about the 30-year-old renter in Coquitlam with two university degrees and a good job who is on the brink of giving up on ever owning a home? She followed all the rules and we are failing her.

We must not forget just how wrong CMHC's predictions about the housing market were in the early days of the pandemic. From spring 2020 all the way through winter 2021, CMHC claimed we would see a decline in average home prices of between 9% and 18%. This was despite the Canadian Real Estate Association's statistics showing a vastly different story. Members have likely caught on that the difference between CMHC's predicted 18% decline and the actual 31% increase is almost 50%. This is the Crown corporation we are entrusting with Canada's housing future.

As an opposition MP, I am often asked what I would do differently, and what my party would do differently. Here are some ideas today. First, the Liberals should address our housing supply gap by unlocking private capital and incentivizing municipalities to take action. We need a tax policy that encourages housing development in Canada. Increasing the ability of entrepreneurs and developers to construct purpose-built rentals is both a more elegant and more responsive approach than the tired tax-and-spend standby of the Liberals.

The Library of Parliament found that the tax provisions of the 1970s and 1980s, under the multiple unit residential building program, or MURB, led to the creation of 195,000 units at the lowest estimate, but potentially as many as 344,000 units.

This cost $1.8 billion in today’s dollars, about $9,000 per unit in forgone government revenue, as opposed to the Liberals' rapid housing initiative, which spends 23 times that per unit.

Too often I hear from entrepreneurs, developers and city councillors that municipal bylaws and NIMBYist zoning practices are keeping homes from being built. Look at the many Vancouver neighbourhoods still zoned for single-family homes that no local family can afford. Federal infrastructure dollars should be directed to municipalities that increase zoning densities and amend restrictive bylaws around transportation corridors to get more housing built. Federal support should be directed to communities that remove backlogs on development permits so builders are not waiting years for approval.

The second point is that the Liberals should do what was promised and give indigenous people more autonomy. The Aboriginal Housing Management Association, or AHMA, has stated in no uncertain terms that it is outraged. Its CEO, Margaret Pfoh, said she has “never been as shocked or as disappointed” as she was when reading the budget. She went on to relay that there has been virtually no progress on the creation of an urban indigenous housing program and that this budget does not even make mention of it, despite the fact that the Prime Minister included it in the mandate letters of both the minister and the parliamentary secretary.

The Conservative Party of Canada wants to increase autonomy for indigenous people and support them as they strive to meet their housing needs. It is puzzling that the government does not.

The third point is to have a robust plan to address the role of foreign buyers in Canada. Budget 2021 proposes consultations on the implementation of a foreign buyers' tax, which is actually an old Liberal campaign promise. The parliamentary secretary for housing has admitted that Canada is “a very safe market for foreign investment, but not a great market for Canadians looking for choices around housing”, so I am a bit shocked the Liberal budget response is so weak. Does the government not understand just how much it dismayed Canadians to hear it finally acknowledge that the system is rigged for foreign buyers?

I remember, in the summer of 2019, a homeowner on Grewall Crescent, in Mission, B.C., talked about the busloads of foreign buyers coming to neighbourhoods and dropping asking offers on homes without conditions. How is this good for a Canadian family trying to get into the market?

Dr. Kershaw of Generation Squeeze appeared before the finance committee last week. He said that such a tax would only be a minor tool and is ultimately insufficient. SFU’s Dr. Josh Gordon has written about the need for continuous and comprehensive tax measures.

We need to signal to foreign buyers that Canadian housing is for Canadians first. What about a higher capital gains rate for foreign investors? What about penalizing quick flips to avoid rampant speculation? The government needs to address this from multiple angles.

The fourth point is tackling money laundering. It is not only foreign buyer activity that artificially inflates the price of home ownership and puts it out of reach for Canadians. Criminals who clean illicit funds through residential property are yet another factor. There is a reason terms like the “Vancouver model” and “snow-washing” are used by global law enforcement. These problems arose in Canada and are embedded here. Yesterday on the way to the airport I heard on The Roy Green Show that $100 billion is laundered in Canada every year. Despite mounting evidence and recommendations from experts, we continue to see minimal action from the government. For instance, the Expert Panel on Money Laundering with a focus on B.C. real estate found a significant disconnect between FINTRAC and reality.

What did we get from the Liberal budget? Only $4.6 million over four years for minor FINTRAC projects when, according to experts, the organization itself is ineffective and the legislation guiding it needs to be updated. Canadians are losing trust in the institutions that are meant to protect them. We need to bring them into the 21st century.

The fifth point is having mortgage policies that work for Canadians. Current rules allow for the removal of $35,000 from one's RRSP for a down payment. This is not anywhere close to covering a down payment in most of Toronto and Vancouver. The Liberals' first-time home buyer's shared equity program has failed for many reasons. This becomes especially evident when we realize that increasing amortization periods to 30 years on uninsured mortgages would achieve the same goals but would cut out all the administrative costs of the shared equity program. Mortgage stress tests play an important role in protecting lenders from defaults, but when they are as divorced from reality as they currently are from interest rates, they only serve to cut out those who are struggling the most to enter the housing market. As well—

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

We will leave it at that. The member may complete his comments during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must admit I am bit perplexed by the member's comments with respect to unleashing the development world into building new housing, to design purpose-built housing, particularly multi-unit housing. He said that he wanted to unleash incentivization for builders and developers to do that. How?

I would like to know what his plan would be, because it already exists. There is a very healthy GST rebate for anybody who builds a new multi-unit building or somebody who even substantially renovates it. There already is a mechanism there to incentivize it for developers. He criticized it, but he did not actually give any suggestions as to how he would see that incentivization take place, especially when one already exists.