House of Commons Hansard #356 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was documents.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
It is duly noted. The Chair will come back to the House if necessary on the issue.
Having reached the expiry of the time provided for today's debate, the House will resume consideration of the privilege motion at the next sitting of the House.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I am back tonight to continue to advocate for solutions on one of the issues that is most pressing in my community, and that is continued rising homelessness.
Now, how bad are things right now? Back in 2018, we had just over 300 people living unsheltered across Waterloo region. That point-and-count study was repeated in 2021. The number more than tripled—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I would invite members to exit the chamber so that Adjournment Proceedings can continue without noise.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we more than tripled the number of folks living unsheltered in just those three years. There is another point-and-count study happening right now, and folks, support workers across Waterloo Region, expect that number to be significantly higher, as do I.
How did it get so bad? We need to be talking about that in this place, so we can focus on real solutions. One reason it has become so bad is that, over the last number of decades, governments of multiple parties have dramatically cut funding for more affordable housing to be built.
In fact, it was as of 1995 that the funding was cut significantly. This has led to the point where, in Ontario, 93% of all affordable homes were built before 1995. It also means that, across the country, our stock of social housing is now at the bottom of the G7, at around 3.5%. Not only have we stopped building the affordable housing we need, but governments have also allowed for the erosion of the existing supply of affordable housing.
Research from the Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative shows that, in my community, for every one new unit of affordable housing getting built, we are losing 39. Worse still, we are seeing the financialization of housing as housing is being commodified. We are seeing more and more large corporate landlords buying up and profiteering from homes that used to be affordable, raising rents and evicting folks. Of course, we also have governments that are not investing enough to prevent and reduce homelessness.
This is something that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has looked at very specifically, giving numbers for parliamentarians to consider. To get just a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness across the country, we need to see the federal government increase its funding to seven times what it currently is. The PBO estimates that this would require an additional $3.5 billion a year.
The good news is that we can afford this. We can look to other programs the government currently funds. We can look at subsidies to the oil and gas industry, for example. There is $18 billion there. We can look at the Trans Mountain pipeline; there is $34 billion more there. We can look at the military, which is $26 billion and going up to $50 billion. All we need here is just $3.5 billion for unsheltered folks. We can look to move dollars to those who need it the most.
My question tonight is this: Will the government do better by those living unsheltered and commit the funds we need to close this gap?
Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing
Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my friend, whom I have known for a number of years now. I know his points come from a sincere place. He cares about his community; specifically, he cares about the issue of housing.
He began by talking about the 1990s and cuts that were made. He is right. Previous governments, Liberal and Conservative, let the country down when it comes to the issue of housing. The current government has sought to do something quite different by, really, being the first government really in a generation to understand that there is a federal role with respect to affordable housing.
The member also mentions the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Specifically, he mentions the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. That is a very good thing because that report talks about the Reaching Home initiative, among other things. This is the signature program when it comes to the federal government's response to helping communities on the issue of homelessness.
What do we know about Reaching Home? As a result of it, 87,000 people who were on the street are no longer on the street now. That includes people in the member's community of Kitchener Centre. These are people who are housed now with supportive housing. What does that mean? It means having mental health support on site and support for physical health care, such as nurses, on site. Quite often, job training programs are provided on site or very close to the facility that is being funded. That is how we get things done. That is how we build homes to ensure people have a roof over their head.
The member talks about encampments. The current federal government put forward $250 million in budget 2024 to support communities. Having encampments is a scourge. It is not acceptable. We have to respond. We have been clear that provinces need to match the funding in order to maximize the number of communities that can be supported.
I care about this. The government cares about this. I think all members of Parliament do. However, the record is clear that we are responding in a way that the Conservatives would never do. They talk about cuts. In fact, the Conservatives presented what they call a housing plan, which is a little more than something written on the back of a napkin that the Leader of the Opposition put forward in a private member's bill and that does not talk about homelessness at all.
There is more to do. We are committed to that kind of a vision of social justice, and we will get it done.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, first of all, the parliamentary secretary makes important points, and I hope I made clear in my speech that it is not that the government is doing nothing. In fact it has increased funding to reduce homelessness across the country. The reality right now is this: The result is that over the last number of years, the number of folks living unsheltered has tripled. Therefore the results in my community mean that more folks are hurting and are living on the streets, and we have not seen the results of the funding.
My question to the member remains this: Does he recognize the reality that in Waterloo region, the number of folks living unsheltered has tripled, and will he advocate to step up the funds that have been put on the table to ensure that we get to a point where we achieve the goal we both want, which is to at least cut homelessness in half over the coming years?
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, I certainly recognize that in the member's community and in my community there is homelessness. Where it exists, it is unacceptable. We have a moral responsibility to respond, and yes, the government has made critical investments in that regard, but there is more to do.
I would point out, however, that the member's community is being supported, and we want to continue in that vein. I will point to specific examples, though, because he unfortunately failed to cite any. I think there is honesty on his side when he says he recognizes what the federal government is doing, but at 82 Wilson Avenue in Kitchener, $2.4 million of support housed 48 people. Kitchener Housing received $1 million for 500 units that were either built anew or repaired. Finally, the member is quite an advocate for co-op housing, and 50 people are living at the Beaver Creek Housing Co-operative in Waterloo as a result of a $750,000—
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, carbon tax Carney and the heat pump hustle have come to town. We have learned about the lobbying efforts that carbon tax Carney has been undertaking to enrich himself, using his access as a special adviser to the government in the U.K.
What is interesting are the similarities to what happened after carbon tax Carney was named the de facto finance minister by the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister lost confidence in his finance minister and brought in Carney, we saw the exact same kind of behaviour that we have seen from carbon tax Carney in the U.K. within hours of his being appointed to the role. The Prime Minister is shielding him from Canada's conflict of interest laws, notably, the same laws the Prime Minister was found guilty of breaking twice. The Prime Minister broke the law, twice, just like the public safety minister broke the law, just like the trade minister broke the law.
The Prime Minister is shielding Mark Carney from that law because, within hours of having been named to that position, what did he do? He thought he would start by doing what Liberals do, which is to help out their buddies, and gave a $2.14-billion loan to his friend who runs Telesat. The Liberals got really upset when I talked about how there are market-based solutions that could be done much more cheaply than what they were proposing to do, but it was not about solving high-speed Internet; it was about enriching their friends.
What else did Mark Carney do in his first week on the job? He tried to get his hands on $10 billion of pension money in a scheme for Brookfield, the company that he is chair of. In that same first week, what did carbon tax Carney also do? He decided he would let the Prime Minister know he needs to change mortgage rules so we can have longer and larger insured mortgages. Why would carbon tax Carney want to do that? Of course, it is because Brookfield is the second-largest private mortgage insurer in the country. This is what it does. It helps out Liberal insiders, all while Canadians struggle just to get by.
What is the upside for Canadians with the appointment of a de facto finance minister outside the bounds of the obligations that public office holders have, the ethical rules that the Liberals cannot seem to stay on the right side of? We know Carney is looking to succeed the Prime Minister, and obviously, the Liberal Prime Minister wants to displace the finance minister as a contender for that job.
When we boil it all away, we have another Liberal elite who wants to help his friends and Liberal insiders while Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers. Two million Canadians are using food banks every month and a third of those food bank users are children. According to Statistics Canada, 25% of Canadians do not know where their next meal is going to come from. That is the legacy of the Liberals who are so determined to help out their friends.
I am sure I will get a non sequitur answer from the parliamentary secretary, who will talk about anything other than the Liberals' failure to represent what Canadians need, which is an accountable government and an institution they can trust.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member opposite is true to form. There is no one who is better at being able to stay focused on the issue of character assassination, and one does not even have to be an elected politician at times.
I find interesting how many times the member tried to get the message out about carbon tax so-and-so, listing off another individual. I know what it is, because I have also seen the email on it. The Conservative Party actually has a fundraising email that is virtually the same as what the member opposite is saying. That is just it; this is all about games, the Conservative Party and character assassination, consistently.
The Conservatives always talk about “Liberal-friendly”. Take a look at the issue we have been debating for the last 12 days in the House of Commons. Instead of dealing with issues that Canadians are really concerned about, the Conservatives are more concerned about games. They are concerned about the Conservative Party, and that is it, but not about Canadians and the issues that Canadians have to face.
A good example of that is when the Conservatives talk about Liberal appointments, saying that Liberal people benefit, and they criticize Annette Verschuren. Annette was appointed as chair of SDTC, and the Conservatives constantly say she is a Liberal. However, this individual was an adviser to Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney and Jim Flaherty, all Conservatives. She is also an individual who contributed thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party, yet the Conservatives will say that she is a Liberal insider.
It does not matter to them; the facts and reality are completely irrelevant. All they want to do is make people look as bad as possible, even if this spreads misinformation, and then try to generate cash through misleading emails to Canadians.
I would love to see the Conservatives' email bank. It has got to be a million plus in terms of the number of individuals. How do they get that data mine? Well, they learned stuff from the United States. This is the far right moving into the Conservative Party. It is the MAGA right, and they understand how they can milk the system. That is exactly what the Conservative Party, or the Conservative Reform Party, is all about.
However, when it comes to being responsible, forget that. The Leader of the Opposition refuses to get a security clearance so he could actually find out information about foreign interference. Instead, there are members across the way crying out, “tell us the names”, even though they know that it is illegal for us to do so. They still say it. All they have to do is tell the leader of the Conservative Party to join with the leaders of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, and the Prime Minister, and get the security clearance. If he does that, then he gets to see the 11 names.
However, I bet that if he saw the 11 names, he would not share them, because it would be illegal for him to do so and he might have to go to jail. Therefore of course he is not going to do what his minions are telling him to do when they say, “share the names”. To me, that is irresponsible, and I have witnessed it first-hand for years.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Madam Speaker, let us just zero in on that for a second.
We of course have said that the briefing is a muzzle attempt by the Liberals, and that is exactly what the parliamentary secretary said. However, what he has also said is that people who reveal secret intelligence should go to jail. Well, they should come out with their hands up. It was reported in The Globe and Mail today that “federal officials provided intelligence about India to Washington Post”. That is the Liberal government breaking the Canadian Criminal Code.
The member is a parliamentary secretary for the government. Do we think for a second that he is going to get up and condemn the criminality in his own government? We have seen it all over the place, whether it is with the arrive scam or whether it is with the latest scandal where they are now breaching their own national security rules. It is “rules for thee but not rules for me”, which is what they say.
I am fascinated that the member is interested in getting on the Conservative Party mailing list, but maybe he should open up a book and learn a little something about what goes on in this place. Our job is to represent Canadians, not to represent Liberal elites like they have with carbon tax Carney, who has lined his pockets with the heat pump hustle and who is doing the same thing as a board member at Stripe. It claimed it was cutting credit card fees; well, that is what the fake finance minister said. Meanwhile, Carney is pocketing the cash at Stripe because it is not passing on the savings to consumers. It is all about Liberals helping themselves.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. Here is what an iPolitics article said: “[The leader of the Conservative Party]'s approach to national security is 'complete nonsense', says expert.” It states, “Conservative Leader...is 'playing with Canadians' by refusing to get a top-level security clearance and receive classified briefings on foreign interference, according to one national security expert.” We are talking about Wesley Wark. Wesley Wark was a security adviser not only for Liberal governments, but also Conservative governments.
On national security issues, the article goes on to say, “the Tory leader is knowingly misleading the public by claiming he doesn’t need the clearance because his chief of staff has received briefings.” How stupid is that, Madam Speaker? I would suggest what really needs to happen is the Conservative Party needs to wake up, do what is right and instruct the leader of the Conservative Party to get that security clearance so he can—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, I got up in the House of Commons to speak about the capital gains increase and what it meant for Canadian farmers during question period. I thought I would take a few moments today just to explain to Liberals how farming actually works. I do not think they fully understand how it works over on that side, particularly when it comes to generational farm transfers throughout families.
We just finished harvest in Saskatchewan. Farmers plant the crop in the spring. There is a little work that goes on in the summer. Then in the fall, they take in the harvest. This happens year over year. That is the very simplified explanation of how farming works. The price of farmland in Saskatchewan in 1996 was about $360 to $390 an acre. In 2024, it is $3,190 an acre.
We can look at how expensive it has gotten to buy farmland in this country, particularly in my home province of Saskatchewan. We also have the capital gains tax increase from 50% to 67%. The Grain Growers of Canada calculated, when factoring in all the variables, that this amounts to about a 30% tax increase on the sale of farmland.
Farmers do not have a defined benefit plan. They do not have a pension plan. Their retirement savings is the sale of their farm when they get to retirement age. The Liberal member who is going to reply to this is going to get up and say the Liberals increased the lifetime exemption to $1.25 million. Yes, it is true they did that.
However, on top of that, when somebody sells their farm, once they clear that number, that is where that new tax rate kicks in. That is why the Grain Growers of Canada said it is about a 30% tax increase when it was 50%, and now it is at 67%. That is where that number comes from.
We can look at the valuation of farms and the way it has gone. I know people will say good for farmers that they can sell their land for that much money, and they can have a wonderful retirement. The reality is the cost to buy farmland, seed inputs, machinery, semi-trucks and everything that someone needs on their farm or on their ranch in order to make their business run has skyrocketed exorbitantly.
However, the value that farmers get for the crops they sell has been roughly the same over the years. There are fluctuations in the market because it is a global market. Prices go up and prices go down for what farmers can sell their crops for and what they can contract it for. However, the costs are always going up and up when it comes to the machinery they are purchasing.
Farmers have to pay off banks for the debts on their land. They have to pay off the debts on their machinery. They have to pay off the debts on their house. They have to pay all this stuff off with the money that they get from the sale of their farm. The government is now going to be taking 30% more off the top of that.
How is a farmer expected to have a fulsome retirement when the government is taking 30% off the top with the new capital gains tax increase?
Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
Madam Speaker, I will begin by explaining the “why”: Why have we introduced these changes to capital gains in Canada?
The revenue generated from our changes to capital gains will help pay for many of the programs we have put in place. I am thinking, among others, of our national school food program, which aims to help vulnerable children who do not have enough to eat. This helps them learn.
To point out another reason, our government believes that hard-working Canadians who make a salary and get their revenue from labour should not have to pay a higher rate of taxation than Canadians who make money off of capital. I do not believe in having wide disparities in the way labour and capital are taxed. I believe, as our government believes, that income inequality needs to be addressed. This policy, as well as others, such as our luxury tax on boats and private jets, aims to do just that.
This morning, I had the opportunity to attend a round table hosted by Oxfam on the issue of tax fairness and how to address the growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest in our society. While I could spend much time explaining today's discussion or listing figures, I will note that under the current tax system, a nurse or schoolteacher could pay a higher tax rate than somebody cashing in their stock portfolio. I could talk about the Canadians affected by this change, who have an average income of $1.4 million in any given year. I could detail how middle-class families, small businesses and farmers would be better off under our proposed changes. I have done all that before and I will do it again, but today I would like to talk about something a bit more personal.
I represent the riding of Outremont, which includes the neighbourhood of Outremont, but also Côte-des-Neiges, Mile End and the Plateau. These neighbourhoods represent the microcosm of Canada. We have strong linguistic duality, many ethnic and religious communities, and wide disparities in income and wealth. For average income, my riding is slightly above average, rounding out the top 100, but for median income, my community is ranked the 25th-poorest in the entire country out of 338 ridings and the fourth-poorest in all of Quebec. This is very visible on the ground for me. From the beautiful homes that line gorgeous Mount Royal, with amazing views and beautiful parks, to the old and sometimes dangerously unmaintained apartment buildings in Côte-des-Neiges, which is next to the rumbling of our urban highways, the distinction could not be more stark or more visible to me.
I would like to be very clear: I do not begrudge for a second those living in beautiful houses in Outremont, as I live in a beautiful house in Outremont. I also do not pity those living in the apartment blocks in Côte-des-Neiges. I was born in a one-bedroom apartment in Côte-des-Neiges and had such a beautiful childhood in that neighbourhood. However, I believe that everybody deserves a fair chance and deserves an opportunity, one that might be just a bit easier than the one I had to fight and claw for.
That is where the federal government can and should play a role. That is what fighting for tax fairness is all about. All boats rise with the tide, so all Canadians, including Canadians who pay capital gains, benefit when we create opportunities for other Canadians.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Madam Speaker, yes, all boats can rise with the tide, but they can all sink with it too.
Given what the Liberals are doing with the capital gains tax increase, let us look at what they have done for farmers in nine years.
The Liberals are raising taxes by 30% on farmers. That will not make farmers better off. They are hammering them with the carbon tax, which will be quadrupling very soon. Farmers will be paying tens of thousands of dollars every single year and will not get it back from the government's phony rebate program.
The Liberals have looked at trying to label beef as unhealthy. They were warned in advance and did not even bother to put in an application to get the BSE designation for Canada removed when they had the opportunity to do so a couple of years ago.
The fuel regulations the Liberals will be implementing will be detrimental to farmers. Farmers will be paying a higher tax rate because of the fuel regulations. We can also look at the way the Liberals have been posturing around fertilizer reductions and what they are trying to do with that.
The Liberals have done nothing but assault Canadian farmers and Canadian producers, when they are the ones who are tasked with feeding the world. The track record—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Madam Speaker, by ensuring that large investment profits are not taxed less than the paycheques of middle-class Canadians, we are not only ensuring greater tax fairness, we are also supporting our ability to invest in Canadians and in a growing economy that benefits all generations.
This is an important step in our government's plan to build a Canada that works better for everyone, where young people can get ahead, be fairly rewarded for their hard work and be able to buy or rent a home. It is a Canada where everyone has a fair chance to live a good life, right across in our beautiful country. That is exactly what our government is doing with this proposal.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)