Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2023

Consideration of Government Business No. 30

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the government has a very proactive and progressive legislative agenda. We would like to get a lot of legislation through. We just brought in the anti-scab legislation. Whether it is budgetary measures or legislative measures, we have a full agenda. We know that it is in the best interests of Canadians for them to be passed.

The frustration is when the Conservatives stand on concurrence motions to filibuster debates or try to adjourn the House to prevent debates from occurring in the first place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members again that when someone has the floor, it is respectful to wait until they are recognized during the appropriate time if they wish to say something.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country.

We are debating Bill C-56. The NDP-Liberal government continually fails to address the real issues that it has caused for all Canadians. It says the bill will somehow bring down the cost of living and grocery prices.

People in my community are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. Food bank usage is the highest it has ever been, with over 30% more clients year over year. This is consistent across the country and also in my community. People with disabilities and seniors on fixed incomes are hit particularly hard.

Instead of cutting the carbon tax and government spending, which is driving up inflation, the Liberal-NDP government believes that implementing Bill C-56 would somehow solve the inflated cost of living and grocery price issue.

There is a lack of competition in Canada's grocery industry, an industry held mostly by Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, and this is a problem the bill would not solve. We have already seen the Prime Minister and the government fail at keeping their promises, like having cheaper groceries before Thanksgiving. That date has long come and gone.

Canadians are faced with higher costs than many other developed countries due to a lack of competition, whether in industries like grocery, airline, banking or telecommunications. High taxes, bureaucracy and red tape make Canada unproductive and uncompetitive. The Liberals added a second carbon fee, basically a second carbon tax. Saying the legislation takes some kind of stand against grocery stores is nothing short of performative with a nice title.

The policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition, with its inflationary deficit spending and high-tax agenda, has caused our inflation rate to be as high as it has been, and continues to be, which has caused the highest interest rates in a generation. The legislation is trying to deal with problems created by the government without addressing any of the causes. It is as if we are walking along and someone trips us and while we are lying on the ground looking up, that individual puts his or her hand out and asks to help us up. Meanwhile we would be thinking that if that person had not tripped us in the first place we would not be on the ground.

The NDP-Liberal coalition thinks that taxing farmers who grow our food, taxing transport trucks that move our food and then taxing grocery stores that sell our food has nothing to do with inflation. We have to remember that it was the Liberal finance minister who had declared victory on inflation only to see it go higher.

We also have to remember that inflation is compounding. Most people are familiar with compounding interest on their investments. However, this is the harmful kind of compounding, because it means things cost more.

For a 3% inflation, for example, that is 3% on top of last year, where during the same month it could have been 8%, as we were seeing in 2022. Therefore, the inflation rate this year is 3% plus 8%, which is 11%, but is even more because it is compounded compared to two years ago.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that inflation was homegrown and that it was costing the average Canadian $3,500 a year. That is not per family; it is per person. No wonder people are having trouble heating their homes. They were last winter and we are seeing them have a tough time again this year.

I send multiple surveys each year to every home in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, and it is amazing the huge amount of people who respond to them. A recent one was this past summer. Here are the results: 70% say they are buying fewer groceries; 81% say they are taking fewer trips; 78% say they are donating less to charity; and 89% say they are putting less into savings. Many people also put detailed notes, sharing their ideas, solutions and heartbreaking stories with me.

The John Howard Society of Okanagan and Kootenay has stated that it is now having clients come to its organization saying that they have just lost their homes and do not know what to do. Now the organization does not know how to support these people because it was not built for the capacity it is now seeing.

It is no surprise that people cannot afford a home when the price of homes and rent in Canada has doubled over the last eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years to save for a mortgage.

Saving for the average mortgage for the average home used to take five and a half years before the Liberal government. A recent C.D. Howe Institute study determined that in Vancouver, nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is government gatekeepers adding unnecessary red tape. That means that over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is due to delays, fees, regulations, taxes and high-priced consultants.

The NDP-Liberal government has poured billions of dollars into housing programs and there is little to show for it. Removing the GST from home construction was proposed in a private member's bill by the leader of the official opposition. The difference between what he was proposing and what this bill would do is that this bill would help, but it is not focused on affordability like the official opposition member's bill is.

When I am home in my community at many different activities and events, a top issue many people bring to me is the increasing cost of their mortgage payments and how it is affecting their families and families they know. I was talking to a dad who said his mortgage just increased by over $1,000 a month. Another person, who has three kids, reached out. He is the sole income-earner for the family as his wife stays home to look after the kids. He was looking for any tax credits for kids' fitness and other activities, something I had to tell him the Liberals cancelled.

The latest MNP consumer debt index shows 51% of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to complete their financial obligations. It said, “Facing a combination of rising debt carrying costs, living expenses and concern over the potential for continued interest rate and price hikes, many Canadians are stretched uncomfortably close to broke. There is no mystery as to what is causing Canadians’ bleak debt outlook: it’s getting increasingly difficult to make ends meet.”

A recent survey released by financial firm Edward Jones Canada said, “Canadians are stuck in a chaotic whirlwind of personal financial stress,” and, “The poll clearly shows that Canadians are so preoccupied with just getting through the day, that the idea of paying debt feels like a distant dream.” It also found that 88% of Canadians say their personal financial situation is impacting their well-being.

In addition, 65% of Canadians now say they are concerned about saving for retirement, and 63% are concerned about how to prepare for an unexpected financial event. There are less savings, more concern and more risk. Forced sales events are up 10%, with mortgage defaults climbing, as just reported by the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board. It is not just me talking about the financial situation in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada said that Canadians are now facing the biggest financial challenges of their lives.

The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal coalition have really lost touch with Canadians. This bill would assist with one small sliver of an issue with building homes, but it is not a housing affordability bill. As we see now with the fall economic statement and the Liberals being supported by its partner, the NDP, this spending will continue on a path of deficits and keeping inflation and interest rates high. This bill would not address the causes of high food costs, inflation or high interest rates. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

We can send this bill to committee to be studied, and hopefully, some amendments can be made at committee and brought back to the House.

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

Madam Speaker, the member referred to Loblaws and the importance of competition. I would be interested in her thoughts regarding when Stephen Harper allowed Loblaws to acquire Shoppers, thereby decreasing competition in Canada's grocery industry. He is the one who brought it down ultimately to five companies.

This legislation would take away the efficiency argument. It seems to me, like the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, this is good legislation. I do not know what the Conservative Party is going to do on this legislation. Can the member indicate whether she will be voting in favour of this legislation or will she be doing like she did on the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and voting against it?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member was listening to my speech, because I actually said I would be supporting it going to committee and that I was hopeful there would be some amendments at committee. That is what I said at the very end of my speech.

Regarding an organization like Loblaws, we have to remember how the government treats an organization like that. It gave refrigerators to Loblaws. During that time, I was getting phone calls from small businesses in my community, such as floral shops and a very small cheese shop, asking if they would also be given fridges. Of course, that was not the case. They were only given to one of the largest companies in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member said she is going to be voting in favour of the legislation. What she did not answer is if the Conservative Party would be. I would hope the Conservative Party would be supportive of the legislation. Maybe the member could give some sort of indication why the Conservative Party tends to want to prevent government legislation from passing, even legislation that the Conservatives support. The member says she supports this legislation. I am going to believe her on her word that the Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation.

When would she like to ultimately see this legislation pass through Parliament, including the Senate? Would she like to have it done before Christmas? Is that not a reasonable expectation?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, referring to how there are debates and debates are shut down, it is the government that does the calendar. The government chooses what is brought forward every day. The Liberals continually shut down debate in this House.

I am really glad I was able to bring forth the comments from people in my community on this particular piece of legislation. I can think of three times over the last very recent weeks where I had prepared a speech, was prepared to debate and bring the voice of my community here, and the government moved closure and shut down debate. The reason we are here is to bring the voices of our community into this place, and the government continues to shut down debate on legislation and stifles us from bringing the voices of our community here.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, can the member share with this place recommendations we have tried over and over again to extend to the government to use that would do far more to meet the needs of Canadians at this point in time?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have made a number of recommendations. As I mentioned in my intervention, the government does nothing to address the causes of why inflation is high and why interest rates are high. We have made recommendations to cancel the carbon tax. We have also made recommendations to be reasonable and accommodating and to look at removing the carbon tax for farmers. That is sitting in the Senate right now and is being stalled. We have made suggestions to take the carbon tax off all forms of home heating across the country, because the government, due to its panic over Liberal members who might lose their seats, decided to only make the carbon tax unavailable to one type of home heating. We have made that suggestion. The carbon tax alone we know has been analyzed, and removing it would bring down inflation. That is just one thing we would do.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, as well as all Canadians.

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it is breathtaking just how desperate the Liberals have become. In the House of Commons, we are witnessing a curious trend: imitation disguised as Liberal innovation.

The recent flurry of activity from our Liberal counterparts presents a spectacle. It is desperation masquerading as originality.

It is really fascinating. The Liberals have hastily adopted common-sense Conservative strategies to cloak their actions as a remedy for affordability, all the while seeking recognition for ideas that were not theirs to begin with.

Unfortunately, their replica has flaws, and the Liberals know that they need to ram this legislation through before Canadians realize that it is nothing more than a cheap knock-off.

If the government is looking for another idea to steal from Conservatives, maybe it could finally decide to repeal the carbon taxes, which are the real reason Canadians are facing the soaring cost of living.

First, let us dissect the fabric of the Liberals' imitation. The Liberals’ newfound fascination with affordable living appears more as a last-ditch effort to mirror our common-sense Conservative initiatives, although it lacks the authenticity and the understanding required to genuinely address the woes of everyday Canadians.

This sudden adoption reeks of desperation. Maybe they have seen the polls. Maybe they are hearing in their ridings that the Conservatives are the only party putting forward common-sense ideas.

Maybe the Conservative message of common sense sounds good to them too, but their leadership comes down heavy-handedly when they vote in favour of our legislation, like the Liberal member for Avalon, who tried to do the right thing for his constituents initially, although he eventually betrayed them and caved to his master like a typical Liberal always does.

The government's thievery of Conservative ideas seems relentless. Were members aware that the fall economic statement contained no less than four Conservative private members’ bills?

For example, there is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act with respect to mental health services, from the good doctor from Cumberland—Colchester. There is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code for adoptive and intended parents, from my friend, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. There is Bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act, on interoperability, from my riding neighbour to the east, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. There is Bill C-365, an act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians by the amazing member for Bay of Quinte.

While the Liberals eagerly snatch concepts from our playbook, they turn a blind eye to the actual root cause of the economic pains faced by Canadians: their out-of-control debt and deficits, out-of-control spending, a carbon tax that does not do anything for the environment, a rapid housing initiative that cannot build homes and inflation that results from all of their financial mismanagement.

These are the real culprits behind the soaring cost of living, behind escalating interest rates and the burdensome grocery store bills and fuel prices that burden the citizens of this country every day. Our Conservative blueprint for affordable living, particularly our Conservative leader’s building homes not bureaucracy act, stands as a testament to our commitment to the welfare of Canadians.

Our messaging, like the “bring it home” initiative, encapsulates not just slogans but a genuine drive to resolve the housing crisis plaguing our nation.

In contrast, the Liberals’ response to this crisis they partly crafted lacks the depth and innovation required for a lasting solution. Their plan, often confined within the boundaries of existing programs and reannouncements, fails to project a path forward. It is a patchwork of recycled notions rather than a blueprint for real, sustainable change, and they have no problem announcing the same promises over and over again with the same pompous Liberal attitude that most Canadians have grown tired of.

The question remains: Are the Liberals truly addressing the housing crisis or merely engaging in performative arts to mitigate the damage that their policies have caused and the fact that the vast majority of Canadians desire to see them removed from office? Their sudden attempt to provide solutions and then force them on Canadians seems more reactive than proactive, a calculated response to evade accountability rather than an earnest effort to rectify the havoc they created. I can only hope it means they are getting ready for an election.

Liberals may tout their actions as responsive and comprehensive, but in reality, they bear the marks of limited vision and failure of leadership.

The building homes not bureaucracy act, as presented by our Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, is not just a set of words—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I think the hon. member recognized that he mentioned the official opposition leader by name. I want to remind him that he is not to mention the names of parliamentarians who sit in this House.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, the building homes not bureaucracy act, as presented by the Conservative leader, is not just a set of words or an ostentatious announcement. It is a clarion call for genuine reform, which that act is all about. It embodies the Conservative commitment to forge a future where affordable living is not a privilege but a right for all Canadians. Its depth, its foresight and its genuine intent to alleviate the housing crisis differentiates it starkly from the borrowed and incomplete solutions offered by the Liberal government.

We, as Conservatives, are not satisfied with token Liberal gestures, and Canadians are not either. We need substantive change and substantive solutions that do not create just photo ops and news clippings. Canadians cannot live in a photo op, a press release or an initiative. They need affordable housing and a Conservative government that is going to bring it home.

The choice is very clear. It is between either a Conservative vision anchored in genuine innovation and a desire to provide common-sense solutions to Canadians, or a Liberal stance marred by imitation, which lacks depth, and is not worth the cost. Canadians deserve more than rehashed plans; they deserve visionary initiatives that ensure a brighter, more affordable future and a leader with the common sense of the common people who is united for our common home. Let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, the member just implied that they deserve a leader with a visionary nature. We had that in the last federal election when 338 Conservatives and their leader said that a price on pollution was actually a good thing. Yes, Conservatives have ideas, but we find that they often flip-flop, and this is one of those ideas they actually flip-flopped on. We saw it today in the debate when Conservatives said that they wanted to get rid of the price on pollution.

We cannot trust the Conservatives and their policies, which are very reckless. We cannot tell what they are really going to do on this legislation, or if they even want it to pass, because they are so preoccupied with the far right.

My question to the member is this: Recognizing the issues of the flip-flops within the Conservative Party, can we acknowledge today that the Conservative Party will in fact stay in touch with Canadians and support this legislation?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It looks like other people want to try to answer. I would let them know that it is not their opportunity to do that, and they may want to wait.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to understand that, first of all, Canadians are speaking very loudly. They are tired of the government. They are tired of policies that damage their futures, and that impact the ability of their children to afford homes and themselves to afford homes.

As far as his suggestion, for example, that the Conservatives supported the carbon tax is concerned, he will not hear one word out of my mouth, ever, that I supported the carbon tax, as I do not, and I never will, because it does not work, end of story.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always surprised to hear the Conservatives harp on the carbon tax day after day when they talk about inflation. When serious studies—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will ask the member to start over again. There seems to be some discussion on both sides of the House.

I would ask members, if they want to have a conversation, to please take it out in the lobby. That would be much more respectful.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to do so.

I was saying that I am always surprised to hear the Conservatives harp on the carbon tax day after day, when we know that it does not have a major impact on inflation. Serious economic studies tell us that the carbon tax causes inflation to rise by 0.1%.

The Conservatives keep harping on this. Not only that, but their leader recently said that the carbon tax would be the issue at the ballot box. We know very well that this tax does not apply to Quebec, which means that the Conservative leader does not care one iota about what is happening in Quebec.

I wonder what is really driving the Conservatives to talk about the carbon tax. Are they perhaps doing this to give their friends in the big oil and gas companies some overt, explicit support? Are they not ultimately oil and gas lobbyists?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of things.

The clean fuel standard, which applies in Quebec, is actually a carbon tax. While there may not be a carbon tax as such, there is a clean fuel standard. That is a carbon tax.

When I talk to my constituents, they want me, as their representative in the House, to ensure they have the ability to move forward and to make a living. I see farmers who have hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of carbon tax on irrigation operations, on grain drying, on heat for their barns and those sorts of things. It affects their bottom lines, and their prices are fixed.

It is about Canadians' well-being. If the carbon tax actually had a positive impact on the environment, then it would be worth looking at, but it does not. It has not, and it will not because it is a tax. It is only a tax, and it has no impact on improving the environment whatsoever.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Alberta spoke a lot about housing. Obviously, we hope that we could get through to the bill so that we could actually get some supports in place for people who are fighting for housing.

However, my concern is around how he expects that Canadians could trust his leader on housing when, really, he has only come to this in the last two years, while New Democrats have been calling for more action on housing for over 30 years. We know that the party executives are lobbyists for oil, for pharma, for real estate and for non-unionizing companies. The Conservative leader has actually blamed municipalities and, in fact, has called Canadians' homes “shacks”.

How could we trust the leader on housing?

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree that the current leader of the government is not to be trusted. The Prime Minister is a sham, and he has achieved nothing but failures for our country.

If we want to look at an act that would help Canadians with housing, then we need to look at the Conservative leader's and the Conservative Party's plan in the housing and not bureaucracy act, which would actually make a difference for Canadians and would get them into homes that are sustainable moving forward.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Our government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in these times of high inflation. It is committed to continue to make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger future for all Canadians.

We all know the rising costs of groceries and the lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country. I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing those important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56. We know that for far too many Canadians, including young people, the dream of owning a home is becoming increasingly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will just stop the hon. member here.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies to my colleague, but I believe that he was going to share his time with the member for Avalon.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure that is quite a point of order, but I appreciate that the hon. member mentioned it for the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora. Generally, messages are sent to them, and they would try to acknowledge that then, but it is up to the members to remember if they want to share their time.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.