Debates of May 1st, 2023

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, we hope to exercise our democratic right in the House. We do not want to be gagged and we do not want to have to repeatedly rise on points of order, as my colleague from Timmins—James Bay has been trying to do in the last few seconds.

My colleague—

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

It is a question of politeness, more than even order, to let someone finish a question. I would ask everyone to please remain silent.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for you and the office you hold. However, my colleague's behaviour is completely unacceptable. I hope that you are taking note of it. My colleagues in the House noticed it, as have I.

Here is the question that I have for my colleague. We are currently experiencing a housing crisis. There are no new investments in the most recent federal budget to address that crisis.

In Rimouski, in my riding, we have a record vacancy rate of 0.4%.

I would like my colleague to tell us why the government has not done anything or invested anything in the most recent budget to create—

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

Order.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize that I cannot answer fully in French.

When it comes to housing, this is what I would say. I have done a fair amount of digging when it comes to my home riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Within my home riding, I have talked to people, even developers, who will say that one of the biggest impediments to developing land is municipal issues and provincial and federal regulations. When the Conservative leader talks about gatekeepers, he is talking about removing those things.

I have been told that about half of the fees associated with the price of land actually relate to government regulations. What I would say to my hon. colleague is that the federal government has a role to play in terms of what it invests, but also how it asks the municipalities and provinces to invest money so that they can make things more efficient. It is supply and demand, so let us get those houses built.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo briefly mentioned health care and seemed to indicate that we were spending too much money on health care. I am wondering what he had in mind for health care. If we want to move to a more private health care system, like the States, they spend twice as much on health care per capita than we do and they have a poorer outcome. Their life expectancy is five years less.

I am wondering what the member's plans are for health care.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, the point I was trying to make was not that we are spending too much on health care. The point I was trying to make is that health care is one of the most pivotal needs in this country. Health care, housing and cost of living are what my constituents are telling me about. What I was trying to draw to the attention of the House and my hon. colleague is the fact that we are now spending as much money servicing the debt, the debt that the NDP is voting for, as we are on health care, and that is problematic.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to lend my voice today in support of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, on behalf of the government and on behalf of my community of Newmarket—Aurora.

Budget 2023 is entitled “A Made-in-Canada Plan: Strong Middle Class, Affordable Economy, Healthy Future”. However, like many things done in Canada, this is a plan that has an impact extending far beyond our borders, and that is because, in order for us to have a healthy future, we must have a healthy world, a world based on the rule of law where no people or nation can be threatened, subjugated or destroyed by illegal acts of aggression. That is why, since Russia's illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Canada has supported the people of Ukraine as they fight for their sovereignty and democracy, and for democracy around the world. Canada will stand with them for as long as it takes.

With more than $8 billion in total aid, Canada has provided critical financial assistance to the Ukraine government and has provided significant military and humanitarian support. In particular, Canada has sanctioned over 1,800 individuals and entities since February 2022. We have played a key role in the development of price caps on Russian oil and petroleum products to deprive the Kremlin of revenues to fund its illegal war. In fact, on March 2, 2022, Canada became the first country to revoke Russian and Belarusian eligibility for most favoured nation status, placing Russia and Belarus in the same category as North Korea, and in turn applying the 35% general tariff to virtually all Russian and Belarusian imports. Similar measures were subsequently implemented by the United States, the United Kingdom and other major trading partners.

Canada is playing a leading role in efforts to cut Russia off from the global economy and to hold Putin and his cronies accountable for their illegal war on Ukraine. With budget 2023, we are taking this measure one step further by proposing to amend the Customs Tariff to indefinitely extend the withdrawal of most favoured nation preferred tariff treatment for Russian and Belarusian imports. Bill C-47 would make this change a reality, and it needs our support as parliamentarians.

Our government's efforts to secure a safer world also includes working with our partners on the Russian elites, proxies, and oligarchs, or REPO, task force to block or freeze more than 58 billion dollars' worth of assets from sanctioned individuals and entities. Budget 2023, once again, builds upon these efforts. It does so by proposing targeted changes in the Special Economic Measures Act and the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, known as the Sergei Magnitsky Law, which would support the effectiveness of seizure, forfeiture and disposal framework introduced in 2022 as a means of holding Russia accountable for its illegal invasion of Ukraine. These changes represent an important step in strengthening our ability to pursue the assets of those who have enabled Russia's unjust war and to use them to help finance Ukrainian reconstruction.

The budget also proposes to make a related amendment to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to aid in these efforts. The changes would require the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose information to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in certain circumstances. We are proposing these changes, because serious financial crimes, such as money laundering, terrorist financing and evasion of financial sanctions, threaten the safety of Canadians and the integrity of our financial system. Canada needs a comprehensive, responsive and modern system to counter these sophisticated, evolving threats.

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

It being 6:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

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

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 7:00 p.m. so we could begin the late show.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Democratic Institutions

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Trudeau Foundation.

The Trudeau Foundation is the talk of the town in many ways, so it is important to review what the foundation actually is because the Trudeau Foundation is a curious beast. As far as its structure and its governance goes, it is kind of a chameleon, conveniently identifying as a charity some of the time and as a government institution at other times. Similarly, the Prime Minister identifies as sort of involved and sort of not involved. These blurred lines make the Trudeau Foundation and, through it, the government, highly vulnerable to foreign interference. Let me explain.

The Trudeau Foundation was created as a family foundation with a protected role in its governance for members of the Trudeau family. However, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, through minister Allan Rock, decided to give the foundation $125 million of taxpayers' money without actually changing the role of the Trudeau family in its governance.

It became government-funded and, in law, a government institution, according to the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, but it retained a protected role in its governance for members of one family, making it a government-funded government institution, which is also a family foundation with a protected role in its governance for one family.

I think that this is incredibly bizarre in a free, democratic and egalitarian nation. Giving members of one family privileged control of a government-funded government institution is not consistent with the idea of a just society.

The Trudeau Foundation is controlled by 30 members. Up to four of those members are appointed by the Trudeau family, and six are appointed by the Minister of Industry. In its governance, the Trudeau Foundation directly fuses the intellectual estate of the Trudeau family with the Government of Canada, and that is just wrong.

The Prime Minister himself, incredibly, is and remains a member of the Trudeau Foundation. He has professed repeatedly, and seems to want us to take at face value, the claim that he is not involved, not at all involved, in the Trudeau Foundation, that he has not been involved for years. That is wrong. He is involved. He is involved in a number of ways.

First, the Prime Minister of Canada is necessarily involved, by virtue of the fact that he appoints the Minister of Industry, who appoints six members. He is involved because his brother is a member of the foundation and his half-sister is on the board of directors, and he is involved because he himself is a member of the foundation. He has not resigned. He remains a member of the foundation. It bears his name.

Whether he goes to the meetings, the membership that he retains matters for effective control, should he choose to exercise it at any point. It demonstrates his deep, personal investment in the Trudeau Foundation. The personal investment is precisely why a foreign government has sought to curry favour with him through funnelling money to the Trudeau Foundation.

The system is clearly broken and the worn-out talking points the government is using clearly do not hold water. The structure is quite evidently broken, even before we start talking about the issue of what happened in this instance of foreign interference because it is this crude hybrid between a family foundation and a government institution. Its charitable face elicits direct donations from foreign entities, while its government face sits by and smiles. The Prime Minister, known, by the way, for wearing many faces, smiles all the more.

Canada Post would not collect money from foreign political parties nor would it allow members of a former prime minister's family to have a locked-in role in its leadership. That is because Canada Post is part of the government. The Canadian Cancer Society would potentially get donations from abroad, but it likely would not be a target for foreign interference because it is not closely tied to the government and does not bear the Prime Minister's name. It is purely a charity. One has roles for a government institution, and one has roles for a charity.

The problem is that the Trudeau Foundation is trying to have its cake and eat it too. It is trying to be both. The vulnerabilities are not only obvious, they are built into the structure of this organization, and members of the Trudeau family exploited those vulnerabilities to take the foreign money.

After attending a cash-for-access fundraiser with thePrime Minister—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member continues to push this particular envelope. I have actually been very clear, as have the Prime Minister and other ministers. No matter what the member continues to try to propagate to mislead Canadians, at the end of the day, the Prime Minister has had no direct or indirect communications with the Trudeau Foundation for over 10 years. It is actually a very simple truth. One would think that even members of the Conservative Party would understand that truth.

I do not want to insult the member across the way. Maybe the Conservatives are just trying to avoid the truth in order to push an envelope that they have been in since 2014. I think that was the year the leader of the Liberal Party was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party. Virtually from day one, the Conservatives have spared no expense in advertising and in research in terms of trying to find ways they could make this personal and make personal attacks against the Prime Minister. Absolutely nothing has changed. All one needs to do is go back to the days when he was the leader of the third party and listen to some of the S. O. 31s back then. At the end of the day, 2015 proved that what the member just finished saying was wrong and Canadians did not believe the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives have never changed the channel. There are so many issues that Canadians are facing today. Instead of dealing with those issues, the Conservative Party continues to use character assassination and attack the Prime Minister.

Today, the Conservatives get a kick out of the name of the foundation. We have non-profit foundations that do a lot of wonderful things, including the Trudeau Foundation. The questions the member wants to ask or Conservatives want to ask would be better put to the foundation itself, which is independent, just like many other foundations out there. However, this does not meet the Conservatives' cause. In a tin hat sense, they say there is this and that and who cares if it is true or not. It does not have to be true to be put on the Conservative agenda. They just grab from all over the place, put it together and say there is this huge conspiracy.

The reality is that it is very clear. The Prime Minister, over the last 10 years, has had no direct or indirect connection or communication with the Trudeau Foundation. No matter how the Conservatives try to spin conspiracy theories over there, it does not change the facts. The members across the way know the facts, but their approach is not to let the facts get in the way. Their job is to be critical of the person and the family, and that is what the Conservatives have been focused on since before the 2015 election, and it is still the case—

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, very simply, I laid out, in my previous comments, the governance of the foundation and the problems with it, the way the governance of the foundation integrates government with control by the Trudeau family of this public institution.

The member opposite asks why we do not take his word for it that the Prime Minister has not been involved and is not involved. Does he know why I do not take his word for it? It is because I read the annual report. It is not a conspiracy. It is not off somewhere on a web forum; it is in the annual report. Any member of the public watching can go to the annual report and look at who the members of the foundation are. They will see the name of the current Prime Minister listed in the annual report as a member of the foundation. He retains his position, which he has never resigned from, as do multiple other members of his family. They are members or members of the board of directors. This is the governing structure of this institution.

The Prime Minister's Minister of Industry appoints six members. He is clearly involved.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting. I would wonder if the member opposite would walk outside the chamber. Inside the chamber, he has parliamentary privilege. He can say what he wants to say inside here, almost without any limitations. Outside the chamber, would he entertain going out there and having a press conference and saying that the Prime Minister has been directly involved with the Trudeau Foundation? My bet is that he would not go out and say that because if he were to go outside and have a press conference and make the allegation that the Prime Minister does have direct communication with the Trudeau Foundation, he might find himself in a bit of hot water. There is a bit more expectation that if one is outside they have to be a bit more truthful than they are on the inside at times if one is a Conservative member of Parliament.

Housing

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the fact is that promises matter. It is why a few weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister about an important promise made last April, just over a year ago now, that would have helped address the housing crisis.

I should pause to talk about that crisis that we are in the midst of. It is one that has led to the unsheltered population in my community more than tripling since 2018. It is also why we are seeing house prices across Kitchener and Waterloo now being eight times the median family income, whereas back in 2005 it was only three times as much. The fact is that house prices have gone up 275% and wages have not only not kept pace, but they are not even close; wages have gone up 42%. We can look at the fact that for every one new affordable unit being created across the country, we are seeing 15 affordable private units being lost.

Obviously, those investments are not adding up, so here is that promise from budget 2022, released last April. It said:

...that the government will engage with provinces and territories over the next year to develop and implement a Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights and bring forward a national plan to end blind bidding. Among other things, the Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights could also include ensuring a legal right to a home inspection and ensuring transparency on the history of sales prices on title searches.

These are good and important measures. The right to a home inspection, for example, would help protect buyers and give them assurance before making a purchase at a time when multiple bids are coming in and many are getting squeezed out; and eliminating blind bidding would help ensure that others know the other bids that are being made and would help reduce the inflated prices when homes sell; and yet, it has been silence over an entire year until budget 2023.

Here is what was promised in budget 2023 this past April: “The government is also working with provinces and territories on the development of a Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights,...”. Therefore, a whole year has passed and what do we have to show for it? We have actually gone backwards. We have lost the commitment to blind bidding being eliminated altogether; that is just gone. We have also lost a commitment for a date to actually do anything. This is at a time when other levels of government are moving with urgency.

Here is what the office of the federal housing advocate had to say in assessing the last budget. She said:

The newly unveiled Federal Budget is a sorry disappointment. It completely misses the mark on addressing the most pressing housing crisis this country has ever seen.

When I asked the Prime Minister when this promise would be fulfilled, he went on to tell me how great the promise is. Well, it is not good enough. We are in a crisis. It is one that is affecting neighbours of mine and, in fact, defining my community today and into the future. Therefore, tonight I would like to hear from the parliamentary secretary. In light of not having any commitment for a timeline for action being taken and the fact that it is now removed from this budget, will the parliamentary secretary answer my question and tell us when the federal government intends on actually introducing and moving forward with the homebuyers' bill of rights?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, our government recognizes that escalating house prices are hurting young Canadians who are trying to purchase their first home. This is not only threatening their dreams of home ownership but also creating wealth inequity between older and younger generations. That is why we announced numerous initiatives over the past few budgets that would help first-time buyers. This includes the homebuyers' bill of rights, which will tackle unfair practices in the real estate market. It will also include measures to ensure the right to inspection and transparency in sales history.

At the same time, we have enacted important legislation to temporarily ban foreign investment in Canadian housing. The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act came into effect on January 1. It will ensure that housing in Canada is owned by Canadians, for the benefit of everyone who lives in this country.

We are cracking down on house flipping by ensuring that profits from property held for less than 12 months are fully taxed. Starting in 2023, with certain exceptions for unexpected life events, this measure will ensure that investors who flip homes pay their fair share; this will play a role in lowering house prices for Canadians.

We have also set up a first-time homebuyer tax-free savings account to the tune of $40,000. Like an RRSP, it is tax-deductible, and when used to buy a first home, it will be non-taxable, like a TFSA.

I also want to be clear on what we are not going to do. We are not going to be like the Conservative Party, which wants the federal government to do less on housing and hope that things will magically get better. We are not going to cut back housing funding for our most vulnerable people, as certain members across the way are suggesting we do. We are not going to download the responsibility for housing on provinces and municipalities, as the former housing critic, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, has suggested.

We are not going to do any of these things; rather, we are going to roll up our sleeves and do more to continue to help Canadians all across the country. We are going to keep making key investments into housing so we can get more supply built, which is something our country desperately needs. We will partner with provinces and cities. That is why we are launching our housing accelerator fund. This fund will help cities and towns clear up backlogs at the municipal level so that we can get more shovels in the ground more quickly, get more supply built and see lasting system changes that will continue to allow more supply to be built as our country grows.

I only have time to touch on a few measures that our government is taking to make housing more affordable. We believe that everybody deserves a roof over their head that is affordable and shows respect for their dignity. This is what the government is doing every day.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time I hear talking points about what the Conservative Party would do. I have less trust in that party doing more.

However, that is not the question I am asking. The bill does nothing for neighbours of mine who are living unsheltered. I am asking whether the government is going to follow through on the important promises that are being made in the midst of a housing crisis.

Yes, I am aware of what the homebuyers' bill of rights says. That is why I was asking about it. I appreciate the work the parliamentary secretary is doing to move further and faster. The homebuyers' bill of rights is one of many measures we need to make progress on the crisis we are in. Would she share specifically when it is going to be introduced?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his advocacy. We want to make sure, as he does, that everybody in this country has a home and that it is affordable.

As for his question, I would gladly sit down with him to talk about all the measures this government is doing, in particular, on the homelessness front, the homebuyer front and the foreign ban. I think all these measures at some point will help address the shortage of affordable housing we have in this country.