Debates of April 8th, 2022

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I think members from all sides of the House should be supporting is the government's ambitious commitment, through budgetary dollars going into the hundreds of millions of dollars, to double the number of housing starts over the next decade, something we all know is critically important. We also know that it is not just the federal government that has to play a role. In fact, what we will see is the municipalities, the provinces and other potential stakeholders working with the national government to ensure we see a dramatic increase in housing starts in the country.

I wonder if the member could indicate whether the Bloc party supports the government's efforts to double the number of houses being constructed. That support would imply that we will continue to work with the municipalities and provinces to make it a reality.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is short 1.8 million housing units. The government's plan is to provide 100,000 more units. It is true that we need to build more housing units, but saying so and doing so are two different things.

I also want to raise the issue of social housing. Even though the budget does mention it indirectly, the government chose to use the expression “affordable housing”. That is not at all the same thing, and it could turn out that a two-bedroom apartment for $1,200 per month is considered affordable housing. The government says it is going to build 6,000 units, which is really not enough. We need clearly defined social housing, not affordable housing.

I also criticized another aspect of the speech. In the budget, Ottawa is threatening municipalities by telling them they will get their infrastructure transfer if, and only if, Ottawa thinks they have built enough social housing units. It is not up to Ottawa to tell municipalities how to do things and play father knows best. We expected much better.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend.

I very much liked my hon. colleague's speech. I thought he did very well, especially in the first half of it.

I would like him to expand a little more on the paternalism that we saw in the budget. We could be excused for thinking that the Prime Minister might want to be a premier of a province after reading the budget. He is getting involved in the jurisdictions of our provinces, and I would like the hon. member to give us his insights on this topic.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to greet my friend from Simcoe North. It is truly a great pleasure to work with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. Even though we are not in the same party, it is always a pleasure to listen to his proposals, which are always constructive.

Unfortunately, since arriving in the House in 2015, I have seen the Liberal government bulldoze and crush what used to be federalism. We now have a centralizing, hyper-interventionist state where the provinces, and thus Quebec, my nation, have no freedom to exist.

The historic compromise of the federation was that Quebec could have a place in Canada while being different from it. We do not believe it and that is why we are sovereignists, as it will be far easier for us to be good neighbours than bad roommates.

Unfortunately, what the budget shows us once again is that Ottawa is going to tell us what to do in health care. As I was just saying, Ottawa is going to impose conditions before going ahead with the transfers. Ottawa is making funding for infrastructure contingent upon the creation of social housing. The Liberal government is telling everyone what to do.

This stands in contrast to the recent article by Francis Fukuyama, who states that liberalism can exist in small nations such as Quebec, Scotland or Catalonia, where people are proud of who they are and where they can do things their own way and not just for the sake of doing it. However, this multiculturalist government, which wants to force everyone into the same mould, does not endorse this view.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people have been struggling since the beginning of the pandemic because our health care system is underfunded. The federal government has been reducing its share of funding to the provinces for many years. Instead of paying its fair share, this government chose not to announce an increase to health transfers in the budget.

Can the member explain why it is important for the government to increase health transfers to the provinces and get back to paying its fair share?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith and congratulate her on her excellent French. We always appreciate being asked questions in French in the House. I commend her and I thank her.

Indeed, there is nothing in the budget. In 2015 the government said that there would be consultations with the provinces the following year to come to some sort of agreement. We were told the same thing in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Yesterday we were told that there was nothing in the budget but the government would sit down and negotiate with the provinces next year. That is what the government told us during question period.

We do not believe it. The health care system in Quebec, much like others across Canada, has been under a great deal of pressure for a little over two years because of the pandemic, and people are burned out. The system needs more funding. This is urgent. Quebec has been calling for more funding, but the federal government is missing in action.

I humbly encourage my colleague to join us in saying that this is unacceptable and to vote against this budget.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Joliette and his Bloc Québécois colleagues for their strong opposition to the Bay du Nord project. Today, I am disappointed that this budget contains a $7.1-billion subsidy for fossil fuels when we are talking about eliminating them.

Could the member share with us the implications of adding a new fossil fuel subsidy at this time?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Kitchener South-Hespeler. I completely agree with him.

On the very week the IPCC released a report stating that there should not be any new oil projects, the former environmentalist who climbed the CN Tower announced that Canada is going to launch a new one-billion-barrel project.

The next day, the government presented its budget. We were hoping that the Liberals would counterbalance this historically unacceptable compromise. We know that environment ministers around the world have resigned over much less that that. This dishonest compromise makes no sense.

However, what do we see in the budget? Fossil fuel subsidies. We are cutting our emissions, so now we can produce more.

There is an urgent need for action, but it seems as though the government is not there at all. For the government, the industry is the most important thing. The government is extremely short-sighted when it comes to fighting climate change.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to put pressure on the government because this is unacceptable. I am very disappointed that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change compromised on this. It is historically unacceptable.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the subamendment just introduced by my colleague from Joliette strikes me as a fairly reasonable social and progressive measure. It proposes increasing health transfers, increasing the old age security pension, taking action on climate change and offering solutions to the rising cost of living.

The House will have to vote on these issues. I, for one, am a socialist. However, am I to understand that someone who considers themself a socialist might vote against this subamendment because the obligation “to consult and respect the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories” would bother them?

I am just speculating. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this subamendment, the Bloc Québécois is essentially proposing the expectations it had for the budget, which it had previously expressed to the Minister of Finance and at the Standing Committee on Finance.

In order to prepare our proposals, we looked at everything that is happening in Quebec, what the expectations for the federal budget were, and what needs to be done. That is what we have put in this subamendment and what the people of Quebec all agree on.

Our proposals should be welcomed by a left-wing party like the NDP. There is, of course, the temptation to centralize. If the Sherbrooke declaration is any indication, things should be fine, aside from the fact that the NDP has vowed to vote for the budget along with the government, so that it will not lose a vote of confidence.

My guess is that the NDP will vote against our proposal, even if they are in favour of it.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in the debate on the budget. I am sure it will come as no surprise to members in the chamber that I have a lot to say on the subject. It is an interesting budget, indeed.

Lest I be accused of burying the lede, I want to start by saying that I think the most important element of the budget is the new dental care plan. This is the first major expansion of medicare in over 50 years, since Tommy Douglas first introduced medicare and took it across the country, getting it passed here in Ottawa. It is something Canadians have been waiting generations for now, and it is going to make a really big difference, at first, in the lives of children 12 years and under, who should have access to basic dental care services this year. It will then expand to children 18 years and under, then seniors, then people living with disabilities next year. There will then be a full implementation of the program, so all Canadian households with a household income of $90,000 or less should have access to basic dental care by 2025.

This is a big deal, and it is going to make a difference for a lot of people. That is why I wanted to start off by reminding folks about it. Sometimes, in the media commentary around the budget, journalists and others have been quick to move on from that point, saying, “The NDP got dental care, but what have they done for us lately?”

This is in the budget. It is new. As it rolls out, Canadians will see and appreciate what a massive difference it could make for so many of our friends, neighbours and the people living in our communities. Just like medicare in its day, once Canadians see how this works, and as people experience the benefits and see people they know benefiting from the program, it will be something Canadians would be very proud to say is part and parcel of being Canadian. Having a right to dental service would be part and parcel of being Canadian. I strongly believe that it is something Canadians will not want to give up.

For me, that is the really big news in this budget, and it is the overwhelming reason why New Democrats are proud to support it. It is why we undertook negotiating with the government to get something out of this Parliament, which Canadians elected just six months ago.

Having spoken a little about dental care, I now want to talk a little about the state of politics and what has been happening, not only in this place but also outside of this place, and why New Democrats felt it was important to take a constructive approach to this Parliament to deliver real results that are going to make a difference in people's lives. I do not think it is news to anyone in this chamber, who are all involved in politics in one way, shape or form to a very high degree, that the nature of political discourse has been getting really nasty, nastier and nastier, over the course of many years now. This started even before the pandemic. There is no shortage of things to be angry about in a time of rising inflation and uncertainty during the challenges of the pandemic.

It is appropriate for people to feel concern, anxiety and anger at the changes that are happening around them and the impacts they are having on them in their lives. However, as elected people, as public officials, as leaders in our community, we have a choice to make. We could double down on that strategy of polarization, anger and division to drive a wedge between us and get as much political benefit as we can by going to people in their anger and ramping it up, taking advantage of that to elect more of those the people see as the best flag bearer of that anger, or we could recognize that things have been getting worse as our politics have gotten more polarized.

As gratifying and as satisfying as that anger can be, and there is an important element in politics of giving expression to people's legitimate frustration, it has not been getting us to solutions. It has not actually been heading off the real problems that are the source of that anxiety and anger. We are called to try to do something different, instead of doing the same old thing. We know, in the NDP, if people want to double down on that strategy of anger and polarization, there is no shortage of places they could go for people who are going to encourage that.

However, they want to see their politicians get down to work and recognize that there are real differences between, for instance, the NDP and the Liberals, just as there are real differences between the NDP and the Conservatives. Perhaps there are fewer differences than we are sometimes led to believe between the Liberals and the Conservatives, but they certainly like to ramp up the contrast on the differences that are there.

I think Canadians do want to see us get down to work. They do want to see us move forward on constructive proposals. That message was very clear in the last election when Canadians elected a Parliament that looks very much like the one before, after telling us in no uncertain terms that they did not want an election. In fact, in the lead-up to the last election, just in June before we recessed for the summer that turned into the election that no one wanted, every opposition party in this place pledged to not cause an election because they recognized that it was not what Canadians wanted. It was not going to be the solution to our problems.

When we came back here after the election, we asked ourselves how we could try to do politics differently. We did this not to disregard the important differences between us and other parties in the chamber, but to ask how we could work collaboratively.

The first instance of successful collaboration for me in this Parliament was when I worked with members of the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois at the finance committee to pass an amendment on the new pandemic benefits program that the government had introduced. The amendment was to make sure that, unlike in the first iteration, in the new program, companies that were accepting wage subsidy money would not be able to pay dividends to their shareholders. We agreed that was something that was important to do. That is an example of New Democrats being willing to work with people in other parties to get things done that would matter for Canadians.

In recent weeks, we managed to reach an agreement with the government to make sure that certain priorities that we fought for and believe are important, and that we think will serve Canadians well, would be in the budget. We are going to continue to work under the framework of that agreement to deliver on more, but there has been the beginning of delivering those priorities in this agreement. I want to talk a bit more about what some of those items are.

I will start by talking about revenue because it is a big part of the conversation about how the federal government gets on a good fiscal track. Our contention here, and why we opposed a Conservative opposition day motion that called for no new taxes at all, is that revenue has to be part of that conversation. There is no credible path to balance without talking about the revenue side of the equation. That is why there was work done in the agreement between us and the government on moving on revenue. There were a few measures, but I am going to talk specifically about is the permanent increase of 1.5%. on the corporate tax rate for banks and insurance companies

In addition to that, there was a pandemic dividend, another tax on banks and insurance companies, which was a one-time tax of 15% extra. That sounds like a lot. We have to bear in mind that it is 15% extra on their earnings over $1 billion. This is not about going after all of the mom and pop businesses that struggled in the pandemic, the ones that needed help and are still trying to get back on their feet. This is about giant companies that did very well during the pandemic and should be pitching in to help pay for the ongoing support needed to get Canadians the rest of the way through this pandemic. This is also about starting to get serious about tackling the climate crisis, which is something that, unfortunately, this budget does not do. I am going to come back to that in my remarks.

We got started on revenue, but we were just talking in question period today about the fact that two reports came out this week, showing that a number of other giant companies in other industries have made record profits. Cargill alone, in 2021, made $5 billion in net income, which is over half again what it had made in 2020. That is a giant increase, and it is an increase that goes well above and beyond its rising costs, or it would not be an increase in net revenue but an increase in gross revenue.

What we know is that a lot of companies are using this time of economic uncertainty to raise their prices much higher than their costs are going up. That is why we believe the government has not gone far enough in this budget. We believe that pandemic dividends should be applied to many more companies that have made much more money during the pandemic, as a result of the pandemic and the permission it appears to have given the companies to raise prices. They should not feel that permission is legitimate. There is a way to stop that or curtail it, which is by taxing that extra profit and reinvesting it in the things we need.

That is a little on the revenue front, and I could go on. We have talked about having a wealth tax on fortunes of $10 million and greater. We have talked about serious action on tax havens, which we do not see here. After successive Liberal and Conservative government have made cozy tax arrangements with tax haven nations, we know Canada is losing about $25 billion a year in revenue, and that is revenue that would well be spent here at home, if only our governments would stop allowing the wealthiest among us and the biggest companies to shelter their wealth from those legitimate taxes.

This budget also brings measures the NDP fought for that are about value for money. Dental care is about value for money, because we know that when we do not get access to preventative oral care, it creates health problems that cost more to fix later, once they have gotten worse, than it eould have if we could have nipped it in the bud. That is despite all the other benefits to people's quality of life, and from having access to timely preventative oral health care.

Value for money comes from the initiative on housing, and particularly the change in definition under the national housing strategy of what counts as affordable. For instance, prior to this budget and prior to the agreement with the NDP, the definition of affordable housing was 30% of the median household income in an area. That means that in many cases so-called affordable units could actually be rented out at higher than the market rate, and I will give some examples. In Edmonton, where the average market rent was $1,180 a month, under the definition of affordable in the Liberals' national housing plan, someone could charge up to $2,627 a month.

We got the definition changed, so that it is no longer about the income of the people who we happen to live next to, but is actually about having units rented at 80% of market rate. That would mean that in Edmonton, that unit, which public dollars helped to build, and which could have been rented out at over $2,500 a month, under the new definition would have to be rented out at $944 a month. That is just one example, and there are comparable examples from many different markets across the country.

That is about getting better value for public money, because we can announce as much money as we want to build new housing, but if we are contributing to new housing under the pretext of making new affordable units and those units are rented above market rate, we are never going to get out of the hole we are in, and we are not going to create affordable housing for Canadians. The New Democrats care very much about ensuring that when public dollars are spent, we are getting value for that money. We were not getting it under the national housing strategy, and we are now going to get it because of this important change in the definition, which does not cost Canadians an extra dime, but it will get a hell of a lot more value out of the money they are spending on housing.

On the rapid housing initiative, we heard earlier about the importance of social housing beyond simply affordable housing. The rapid housing initiative is the only program under the national housing strategy that delivers any social housing units. There is no question that we need to do more, but that is why it was a priority for the NDP to see a year's extension of the rapid housing initiative. It is under that program that we are seeing some social housing units built. There is no question that we need to do more, but that is how we get value for money.

I would add that we see reference again to pharmacare in the budget. I am very glad, because the reference to pharmacare in the Liberal platform was dropped altogether in 2021, and that reference to pharmacare would not be in the budget but for the NDP's negotiations. We used the leverage of our 25 seats in this place to get the government to do the right thing, which it said it would do.

That is about value for money as well as better service for Canadians, because a national pharmacare plan, while it will cost $20 billion on federal books, costs less than the $24 billion that Canadians currently spend on prescription drugs through various provincial and territorial programs, individual payments, and company benefit plans and the premiums they pay on those plans, so pharmacare is a way to get better value for the money Canadians already spend on prescription drugs, and actually would lower the overall cost by $4 billion.

The NDP is very much concerned about having good books, but not at the expense of individual Canadian households. We are not here to talk about how we take the real deficit, a deficit in services and the ability of Canadians to pay for the things they need, off the public books, transfer it onto individual Canadians and tell them to sink or swim on their own, particularly when so many are close to drowning financially after all the effects of the pandemic. We are here to ask how to pay for these things together, how to raise the revenue we need to pay for them and how we get the value for money that we need so that we are not paying more than we should for the things we need. That is what we are here to talk about.

I know my time is running out, which is too bad as I have many more things to say, but I want to talk about some of the deficiencies in the budget, and I will zone in particularly on climate.

The fact of the matter is that we do not have a lot of time to act. We do not have a lot of time to get it right. For decades now, Canada has been running a bet on the fossil fuel industry. We have been doing it in terms of revenue for government, hoping that it works out. We have been doing it on climate, hoping that it works out, and we have been losing on that bet. We have been losing on the climate side for sure. To the extent that eventually the floor is going to fall through on that bet, we have not been doing what we need to do to make sure that we have diversified our economy for the sake of workers who are going to feel it when the fossil fuel industry is not what it once was. We have already experienced some periods of that recently.

We have also been failing to diversify the sources of government revenue that will also have to be made up when the fossil fuel sector is not the same cash cow for government that it has been. The problem with this budget is that it doubles down on the bet, hoping that carbon capture and storage is going to allow the fossil fuel industry to continue. We saw that not only in the budget but also in the recent approval of the Bay du Nord project.

The government continues to hope that some new technology, as yet unproven at scale, is going to reduce emissions for fossil fuels adequately enough that we can pretend the fossil fuel industry is not the problem that it is in respect of the climate crisis. That is not the approach we need. We cannot continue to double down on the bet. We have to change tracks and start diversifying. That means investing in renewable energy.

There is a proposal out there for a western regional power grid, for instance. That is a major nation-building infrastructure project that can put people to work who have a lot of transposable skills from the oil sands to build something that is going to be of massive benefit to the country, that can generate massive revenue for the country and that will actually displace fossil fuels as one of the sources of electricity generation in Canada. That kind of project is a good thing. I raise that as just one example of the kind of innovative, big-thinking projects that could go a long way to changing Canada's emissions profile. Instead, we see $2.9 billion, or thereabouts, for carbon capture and sequestration, which gives back to oil companies that currently are making a lot of money with high oil prices. That is a miss.

Of course we know that when it comes to missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, which we heard earlier in question period, we need action. It has been years now since that report was released, and indigenous women and girls are still the object of violence. They are still disappearing. They are still being killed. Their families are still grieving. The bureaucratic kind of inertia of this place is not an excuse to deprive those families of justice or an excuse not to protect indigenous women and girls who are currently in danger just by virtue of living in our communities. That is completely unacceptable. We need to find a path forward. I know the member for Winnipeg Centre has been doing excellent work, pushing the minister and the government to get action. New Democrats look forward to supporting that work as best we can and seeing a much more definitive plan for how we make immediate progress as we move forward.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget has been described as modern supply-side economics. The traditional supply-side economics, as brought forward by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, went for deregulation and big tax cuts for big business so that it would expand. It worked, except it worked in Asia and not in North America, and we lost a lot of good middle-class jobs.

According to Janet Yellen, the U.S. treasury secretary, modern supply-side economics prioritizes labour supply, human capital, public infrastructure, research and development and investments in a sustainable environment. I would like the hon. member's comments on whether he sees this budget in the same light.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be more inclined to see it in that light, first, if we recognize that indigenous people are a large and growing segment of the Canadian population, particularly in Manitoba where I am from, and that we need to invest in indigenous people. We need to make sure they have the housing they need so that they are not concerned about overcrowding where they live or mould in their homes while they are trying to get an education so that they can participate in the labour market.

I would be more inclined to feel that way about the budget if it gave a meaningful timeline for employment insurance reform, which is a really important part of helping workers navigate a difficult labour market at the moment. Despite the fact that there are a lot of jobs available, it does not mean that every worker is the right match for the job that is available. We need to do more on that.

I was remiss in not mentioning the Canada disability benefit and I hope I am going to get a question on that so we can talk a bit more about that. Certainly, when we talk about a limited supply-side economics focusing on workers, there is a lot more focus we need to put on workers for this budget to earn that title.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his intervention and his comments, especially as they relate to greater co-operation in the House and the tone that we take. I think that is very important. I would like to mention that I have enjoyed working well with my colleague on the finance committee. As he referenced, we did make an amendment to government legislation. I hope I can look forward to some potential co-operation in the future with respect to legislation as well.

With respect to the budget, the question I have for this member is this: The government has put forward, in part of its housing strategy, a marquee new account for young people to save for a home. I wonder if he could let the House know what his thoughts are on the housing strategy in general but in particular this marquee savings account that this government will be touting all across the country.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to get such a thoughtful question on housing policy. I think the issue I have with that and that I am concerned about is that, in the absence of an aggressive initiative by the government to address the financialization of housing, efforts like this to make a little bit more cash available to first-time homebuyers are just going to get eaten up in the bidding process. If we had a relatively stable housing market, without the kind of year-over-year price increases that we have seen, this kind of thing might be helpful, but in a context where bidding wars continue to drive up the price year over year in incredible ways, my concern is that this is simply going to contribute to higher bids on houses. The winners there are developers and real estate agents, not the homebuyers.

That is why we need to see the government take action like, for instance, what they have done in New Zealand, where they have an incrementally higher down payment for every subsequent property. We need to cool the investment activity before a policy like this can really make the difference all members would want to see it make.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that a significant piece of this budget is the national dental care plan. This is essential, I think, for all of our health. It is one step toward completing Tommy Douglas's dream from 60 years ago, and I know the seniors in my community would welcome it. Starting this year, children will begin to get dental services, so that is a key piece with regard to which 25 New Democrats were able to leverage our power to bring such services to Canadians.

With that being said, he commented on a variety of other issues. I know that the people in Vancouver East are particularly concerned about the lack of action on the climate emergency. In British Columbia, we have experienced extreme weather from wildfires to floods and so on. I would like to ask the member to elaborate on this piece and the shortcomings within the budget.

As well, for people who are faced with disabilities in our community, I would like to hear his comments around what the government needs to be taking action on to address that.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the question of the Canada disability benefit that the Liberals promised in the last Parliament and promised again in their platform, I was hoping to see something on that. It was not an item we appeared able to get into the agreement, but it is something we really do need to move forward on quickly. People living with disabilities across the country, who have been legislated into poverty for far too long, deserve to see swift action on this. I know our disabilities critic has written the minister on this issue, calling for the introduction of legislation quickly, and that is important so that we can get the details right. I do not think it should be a rush job.

With respect to climate, as I was saying earlier, they are really not on the right track in this budget. We need to be looking at how we diversify our energy sources into far more renewable energy. They were willing to spend tens of billions of dollars on a pipeline, and then they turn around and say public investment is not the answer on renewable energy and that we need private capital to step up and do that. I cannot, for the life of me, figure out why it is acceptable to spend almost $20 billion on a pipeline and then plead poverty when it comes time to invest in renewable energy.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure to see you in the chair.

I know the hon. member and I can agree on a lot of things that are in the budget, and I am delighted because that is what Canadians want us to do. They want us to work together to do what is best for Canadians, so I am delighted we can find some common ground in budget 2022.

One area he did not discuss in his speech that I would like to get his opinion on is the additional $8 billion in defence spending on top of what we have already committed to with “Strong, Secure, Engaged”.

As the member knows, I am the mother of two serving members and the mother-in-law of a serving member. There is a joke on the Hill that I am the force generator. As the force generator here on the Hill, I would like to get the member's opinion on the increase in defence spending, given what is happening in Europe right now, given the fact we need to modernize NORAD and given the fact we need to look at “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. We wrote it almost five years ago and a lot of things have changed. I would like the member to elaborate.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I talked a little earlier about the polarizing nature of political debate. In the last week or so, there has been a tendency to think one is either on board with spending 2% of GDP on defence spending, which would represent about $25 billion a year every year going forward, or one is not in favour of any defence spending at all. That is a false dichotomy.

What New Democrats have always said is that our men and women in uniform need the equipment and skills to do what they are asked to do. We saw them deployed during the pandemic to our long-term care facilities. We have seen them deployed domestically and internationally in response to natural disasters or humanitarian crises. These are things they need the equipment to be able to do. It is no secret to anyone that there has been an incredible inability by governments of both stripes to be able to procure new equipment for our defence forces.

We do support some spending in order to get them the equipment they need. We are very skeptical about 2% of GDP as the right amount. Clearly, we have priorities like dental care, pharmacare and other things we think should take precedence over that much of an increase in defence spending. We are not opposed to some increases in defence spending, but we are adamant that 2% of GDP is more than we ought to be affording for defence spending at this time, given all the other pressing demands on the shoulders of Canadians.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair.

I am starting to see you in the chair so often, in fact, that I am wondering about your ambitions. I know you take great pride in being on the opposition side, but maybe you are trying to tell us something. In all seriousness, the fact that folks are kidding along speaks to the fact that you are very well liked in the House and well respected. I had the pleasure of working with you at the finance committee over the years and wish you well.

I will tell you at the outset that I am sharing my time with the member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

Like any budget, budget 2022 is ultimately a statement of values. Of course, there are details: there are nuances, the technical side and numbers, but it is a statement of values. In this budget, we see a number of issues addressed. I want to speak about the budget from the vantage point of a member of Parliament from the community of London, Ontario. It is a community like so many others where people are focused on, and concerned about, housing.

I also look at this budget and see, and am thankful, that the government has continued to a take a layered or nuanced approach to housing. It is not understanding it as just one thing, but separating it and understanding that there are challenges that come along when dealing with the continued issue of homelessness in Canada. London is like all other cities in the country. It is certainly plagued with that challenge. However, there is also the issue of supply and pricing and what those mean for young professionals especially, but also for others. The budget certainly takes a view that separates those two.

The first category deals with individuals who have real social issues and challenges. They have experienced homelessness and perhaps are also dealing with alcohol or drug addiction, or could face those issues of deep poverty that prevent them from realizing their best selves, or they have mental health issues that are standing in their way. The extension of the rapid housing initiative that we have seen in this budget speaks to that ongoing issue. The extension would see, in the next few years, an additional 6,000 affordable units built. This is a hugely important outcome for these individuals: the members of our community who unfortunately fall into this category.

I would hope, and I would expect, that as part of that we would see a continued partnership among the government, the CMHC and not-for-profits to realize a good outcome. While the government is very good at identifying the problem, it is in no position, and nobody expects it to be in a position, to understand and have expertise on the ground. That varies, of course, from community to community. Not-for-profits in communities have that understanding, that knowledge and that background.

In my community, where the rapid housing initiative has been implemented, we have seen continued partnership among the federal government, the CMHC and not-for-profits to ensure that the rapid housing initiative comes to fruition. Certainly this is in municipalities as well. We are going to continue to work with them to ensure the quick construction of units.

On the other side of the ledger, there is the new housing accelerator fund. This is $4 billion over five years beginning in 2022-23. It will be operated by the CMHC, and the focus is on supply. I mentioned before that we have to divide housing. We have to understand it for what it is: an inherently complex area of policy. There is no silver-bullet solution, so to speak. We need to understand that, while the rapid housing initiative will deal with the problems that I spoke about just now, the issue of affordability and of rapidly escalating housing prices is something that needs to be dealt with through other policy mechanisms.

For example, in London, we have seen the average cost of a home that was around $400,000 just a few years ago double to in excess of $800,000 by last count. This is affecting the city. This is affecting the wider region. We have had many individuals drive until they qualify. It is no fault of their own. They are going to do what is best for their families. They have left the GTA, for example, and have come and settled in London.

A program such as this speaks to that challenge because, as more people have come and as our population has increased, we see supply challenges. London is one of the fastest-growing communities in the entire country. A program like the housing accelerator fund puts assisting municipalities with issuing permits as quickly as possible, and cutting down on other red tape and delays, at its very core.

It is great to see that the government has listened to the home builders, for example, across the country. Certainly, I want to thank home builders in London, Ontario. The London Home Builders Association does great work. I have engaged with its members over the years on this issue.

Realtors have brought this up. I want to thank the London-St. Thomas Association of Realtors, or LSTAR, for its work.

This is something that will deal with the issue of supply and ensure that Canadians faced with the challenge of home prices will hopefully, in the near future but not immediately, see an effect and a downward trajectory in overall home prices.

The other thing I wish to talk about, still focused on housing because it does remain the top issue in my community, is the announcement by the government yesterday of the creation of the tax-free first home savings account. This is something that I spoke about at great length during the election campaign. I was going door to door and engaging with constituents, not just young people, for example, who were having a tough time in terms of being priced out of the market right now in London. Their parents were also deeply anxious about the prospects for their kids going forward, in terms of being able to afford homes.

This is a program that would allow first-time home buyers to save up to $40,000 tax-free. The funds would be contributed. They would go in on a tax-free basis and be withdrawn again tax-free. No tax would be applied on any investment gain.

As I have said, it is great not just for young people, but for anybody facing the challenge of getting into the market right now. The top concern that I hear constantly is about putting together the money for a down payment. A tax-free account such as this, modelled on the TFSA but also on the RRSP system, would go a long way toward helping families.

For the last thing that I will talk about, I will go in a different direction. I do so in my capacity as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. It is an enormous honour to work with her on issues relating to revenue in general and specifically the CRA: the Canada Revenue Agency.

As we saw yesterday, budget 2022 proposes $1.2 billion over the next five years beginning in 2022-23. This would go to funding the audits of large entities and non-residents engaged in aggressive tax avoidance. It would also increase the prosecution of those engaged in tax evasion.

We have seen great efforts in this direction over the previous four or five years, beginning in budget 2016, in fact. We saw a very significant increase to the CRA by way of this government's commitment and the recognition that investing in the CRA does yield a result. In fact, for every $1 invested, $5 is returned.

I want to thank the officials and the public servants of the Canada Revenue Agency for their work over the years. Of course, there is much more work to do on the issue of avoidance and evasion, but we are certainly seized with that on this side of the aisle. We take the ideas of the opposition on this as well, but there have been gains in this direction. I would expect those gains to continue, certainly building on the investments of the past few years and yesterday's announcement as well.

I look forward to engaging with colleagues so that we can see these measures fully passed and dealt with so that they can benefit the country.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk specifically about an area of the budget with respect to a private member's bill, Bill S-216. Bill S-216 is a piece of legislation that seeks to remove the archaic “own activities test”. The budget said that it wanted to have the spirit of Bill S-216 brought into effect.

First, will these changes be made in the Budget Implementation Act? Second, a big part of Bill S-216 is removing the “own activities test”. This is an archaic provision that forces Canadian charities to directly supervise the behaviour of other organizations they may choose to partner with. This is particularly challenging in areas that have had a long history of government misuse, such as indigenous charities and otherwise. Because of that, they often have mistrust. It is almost colonial or patriarchal in scope for Canadian charities to have to take over. To sum up quickly, will the changes appear in the BIA, and will the “own activities test” be removed?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to get a question from a colleague who I have the pleasure of working with on the public accounts committee. While we do not know each other terribly well, it has been good to begin to get to know him over the past few months.

I know there is interest in Bill S-216. I have heard it from other members of Parliament on the government's side and from colleagues in opposition. We shall see. The budget does talk about the spirit of Bill S-216. What that ultimately means in terms of how that will manifest is something to be discussed among colleagues in the House.

I would also be very happy to engage with the member opposite by way of a phone call, a coffee or whatever it might be to hear his thoughts on why this reform is needed and the best ways to go about it.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from London North Centre. One thing that is missing from this budget is help for seniors. There is absolutely nothing.

On page 188, it says that seniors are not doing so badly and are not really living in poverty. However, I would remind my colleague that last August, during a totally useless election campaign, the Prime Minister promised seniors he would increase the guaranteed income supplement by $500 for people living alone and $750 for couples, but there is nothing for seniors in this budget.

The government continues to discriminate against seniors by dividing them into two classes. Old age security will go up starting at 75. There is nothing for people aged 65 to 74.

I would like my colleague to explain how the government can claim that drugs, rent or any consumer goods cost less for people 65 to 74 than for people 75 and up.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I would simply tell my colleague to look at the actions of the government during the pandemic. Seniors certainly were a major focus for the government, and we will continue to make seniors a priority. There are a few things I could, by way of specifics, look at in the budget in speaking to the needs of seniors. They are areas where Canadians would benefit in general terms. One is the issue that I spoke about at the outset of my speech: the rapid housing initiative. I can tell the member that so many seniors in housing need have benefited through that program. The pharmacare and dental care will go a long way to support seniors, as well.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my Conservative colleague's interest in Bill S-216 and how important that is. The question I have today for the member is regarding foreign aid.

We did see an $8-billion investment in our military. One of the things that I have mentioned in the House is that an increase in military aid is tied to an increase in humanitarian aid, because war is a failure of development and it is a failure of humanitarian action.

Would he be supportive of a call to tie our amount spent on defence to our amount spent on humanitarian aid?