Debates of Nov. 20th, 2024

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is so disingenuous. We are ready to end this circus. Our conditions have been very clear for a month now in the House. No one can deny that.

I was talking about seniors living on the streets earlier. The government had a chance to help them by increasing old age security for seniors 65 to 74. We want to help them. This week, I saw a story on LCN about workers going to help clean a woman's house. Her living situation was pitiful. I cannot get over the fact that such a thing is being tolerated in this day and age.

The government had its chance. For a month, we have been talking to it about vulnerable seniors. It had its chance to help them. If it had helped them, we would be ready to talk.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert was on to something when talking about the Conservative tactics.

I would put to this chamber that the previous speaker before him, the member for Saskatoon West, has never been accused of being a riveting speaker. In fact, that was evidenced by the energy here in the House. It is refreshing for me, as a New Democrat trying to learn French in the House. I have to give, first, some comments about the incredible work of our translators, who not only do the translation but also translate the passion that the hon. member has.

As for this hon. member from the Bloc, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I know him to be a theatre person, someone from the national theatre of Canada, in fact. I just have one question for him, and it might be the question of the night.

Which Shakespearean character does he channel when he rises in the House to deliver his monologues or, sometimes, soliloquies?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question.

By the way, I would like to thank and congratulate the interpreters who work with me. I know it can be a challenge. Sometimes I get carried away and go off on a tangent. I am grateful to them, as I have already told them. It cannot be easy. I know it is challenging. I am infinitely grateful that they are able to convey my meaning to my unilingual English-speaking colleagues. I have said it before, but I wanted to say it again.

I started out as Hamlet, asking the deep questions: to be or not to be a parliamentarian. I started out in that direction, questioning myself the way Hamlet does. Afterwards, I would say I started leaning more towards Prospero or characters from Shakespeare's comedies like Twelfth Night—

[An hon. member]

Not Romeo.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

No, Madam Speaker, not Romeo, as my colleague says.

I would say first Hamlet, and then one of the characters from Shakespeare's comedies.

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

Madam Speaker, speaking of Hamlet, something is rotten in the state of Canada. Rent has doubled. Housing costs are way up. Young people cannot afford to buy a home. It is all because of the failing policies of the Prime Minister. We saw one cabinet minister resign today.

Does the member agree that what we really need to do is replace the Prime Minister with a common-sense Conservative alternative?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, that question involved a really big hypothetical, but things got a bit noisy so I only half heard the question.

My colleague alluded to Denmark. Funnily enough, since we are talking about corruption, in another Liberal era, there was a Mr. Gagliano who was appointed ambassador to Denmark. I do not know whether there is a connection, but Hamlet, Shakespeare, ambassador to Denmark and Mr. Gagliano—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, I will admit from the outset it will be hard to follow that act. That certainly was a very impassioned speech. I always enjoy hearing from my colleague in the Bloc when he has thoughts to offer in this place. However, he was absolutely right on a number of issues. I agree completely with him.

For starters, there is the fact that we have not been able to continue to work on the important legislation that Canadians expect us to work on. Let us be honest. For the preceding two and a half years before September, we were able to be an effective government through an agreement with the NDP. We had the opportunity to work with the NDP on common issues, on some issues that were more important to them; on some issues that were more important to us. We had the ability to work together and we got a lot done for Canadians during that time. I think it would be hard to argue against that when we look back at pharmacare, dental care and a lot of other initiatives. Yes, I will give credit to the NDP. The NDP did a very good job at negotiating those and bringing them to the government's attention, issues that many Liberals had also been fighting for within our caucus for quite a long time, at least as long as, if not longer than, I have been around. The point is that we were able to get work done. We were able to actually do something in here and deliver meaningful things for Canadians. I already mentioned pharmacare, and I mentioned dental care. The national school food program is another one, along with $10-a-day child care and making sure that the framework legislation behind that was well established. This is what Canadians have asked us to do by electing us to come and work on their behalf.

The member from the Bloc is absolutely right. I felt his sense of defeat about not being able to do anything, of coming here, sitting here and then suddenly realizing it is his time to speak after listening to over 170 Conservatives filibuster over the last 25 or 28 sitting days of this House. What have they been filibustering? They have been filibustering a motion that they introduced into this House. They have been filibustering a motion that asks to send a very important issue to committee. I will not say it is not a very important issue. Then, as soon as they introduced the motion, they said they had no intention of actually letting it pass. Why did they even introduce the motion in the first place? Is this the hill that they are ready to die on? It is easy, because the Conservatives want to give the impression to Canadians that it is impossible to do anything in Ottawa. Things have come to such a standstill that the only option left is to have an election.

The Conservatives have been betting on this for weeks now. I regret the fact that we ended up in this position. Unfortunately, I can understand the political motives behind it. The New Democrats decided they did not want to be part of that working relationship anymore after two and a half years of seeing successful things happen. I understand that decisions had to be made for whatever reasons. We can debate whether or not that was right or wrong, but the one thing we cannot debate, because there is no room for discussion in this, is whether or not we were effective for two and a half years and are not effective now, at least during the regular sitting time of this House.

I will say that it is really good that a lot of legislation was passed in the spring, legislation that the Senate is still dealing with and has been able to deal with during this time. I just came from a reception across the street put on by folks from the east coast, a shed party over there. I also talked to a senator who said it was a good thing that we did have a lot of legislation. We have been able to work through that and get caught up on a lot of that.

We are still continuing to deliver. We are still seeing legislation that would otherwise never be implemented if an election was called now, stuff like pharmacare, for example. Although we passed it here, it had to go over to the Senate and do its work there. While in the Senate, it had to go through all the proper stages.

Unfortunately, we have now come to a point at which the NDP is making it virtually impossible to do anything, but I do not excuse the Bloc completely either. As I indicated in my question for the member, I ask why it does not work with the government to say to the Conservatives that maybe 172 speakers for 20 minutes each on an issue is enough. I am not good enough with math to do the—

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

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam is rising on a point of order.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member knows that we are debating the financialization of housing—

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

The hon. member knows that there is a lot of latitude in what members can do. The hon. member has 20 minutes to come to the point that we are discussing, so I will give him the time to get there.

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

Madam Speaker, I am fully aware of the concurrence motion that we are debating today. I just wanted to set some of the context in which I find it troubling that we are having to debate these issues through concurrence motions. We should be debating housing through government legislation, which the NDP was able to successfully contribute to not that long ago.

That is what we should be debating. We should not be debating concurrence motions, moving things around, and how we take a committee report and send it back to committee as proposed in the amendment. We should be working on actual government legislation that would have a meaningful, tangible impact on Canadians' lives. A concurrence report coming from committee, although very important in terms of the work that we do here, does not have the ability to direct any kind of legislation other than in terms of asking the government to bring in a new piece of legislation with respect to the issue.

Let us talk about this concurrence motion and about housing more specifically. When it comes to housing, the reality is that we find ourselves in a unique position once again. We have introduced a program, the housing accelerator fund, which is very effective. Kingston received almost $30 million. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is great with his two-word slogans, and it was recently revealed in a story that—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is heckling me right now, so I will use him as an example. The member—

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that Liberals struggle with numbers, but axe the tax, build the—

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

We are not going to do that right now. The hon. member knows very well that this is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition really likes his slogans, and he is very effective at taking an issue and confusing it so Canadians cannot really see what the objectives are.

The Leader of the Opposition will say that the housing accelerator fund is a program that has never produced any housing. If we go back and look at everything they have said in the House, we see that 19 of the Conservative members at times have been very critical of the program, yet they themselves have written letters to the Minister of Housing asking for money for their communities through the program because, although the Leader of the Opposition sits there and talks about how the fund has never built any housing, they know that the $30 million, the amount that is coming to Kingston, is not meant to physically build houses but instead is there to unlock other housing developments.

As an example, the City of Kingston has historically, over time, maybe through provincial legislation and maybe through zoning efforts on its own, developed cumbersome processes to develop housing. Maybe the development charges are too high. Maybe permit fees are too high. Maybe there is too much red tape. The federal government says it is going to give the City of Kingston $30 million, and it has to be aimed only at how city officials remove their red tape and how they figure out ways to encourage more housing to be built faster in their city.

The funniest part about this is that it is something that the Leader of the Opposition himself was talking about a couple of years ago. At the same time that we introduced the program, before it had been voted on in the budget, he was actually saying that we took his idea. However, the Leader of the Opposition suddenly decided he was going to confuse the issue for Canadians so they do not know what is really going on here; he was just going to say, “The money going to the cities is not building housing.”

The money that is going to the cities is intended to encourage them and to find ways to reduce red tape and build faster so we can get more housing built. The federal government fully knows that there is no way we as society and as the government can build the amount of housing that is required, and nor do we want to. The government's job is not to build housing, except in certain circumstances where we are working with organizations, to build affordable housing, for example.

Therefore I find it really rich to hear Conservatives get up and talk about the failure of the government and of the housing accelerator fund, when behind the Leader of the Opposition's back, 19 Conservative members have been secretly writing letters to the Minister of Housing, saying that their mayor or their council really needs some of the housing accelerator fund because they know that it is going to help them build faster, that the program is going to work and that their communities need the money too.

There is an idea that the Leader of the Opposition says was his idea. He then starts slamming it as being completely ineffective, once we also agree and bring forward our very similar idea. Then while the Leader of the Opposition is doing that and while they are getting up in the House talking down the housing accelerator fund and saying it is an absolute failure, Conservatives are sending secret letters to the Minister of Housing saying, “Can we please get some of that money, because we know it's effective?”

Then the Leader of the Opposition finds out that the letters have been sent and he tells his MPs that they are no longer allowed to send letters to the government asking for help for their communities. Let us just think about that for a moment. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is no longer allowed to write to the government to ask the government to help his community.

Those are the people who elected him to come here. They are the people who gave him the mandate to represent them here, and the leader of his party is barring him from the ability to be able to advocate on their behalf, once he found out that many of the Conservative MPs were doing it behind his back.

Let us think about that for a second. Once a week, Conservative MPs have to go into a room and listen to their leader tell them what they are going to do: “Here is my three-word slogan for the week and everyone has to start saying it.” Then behind his back, they say to hold on a second; maybe this guy has it wrong and this is a good program. Then they write a letter to the Minister of Housing.

[An hon. member]

It's a great program.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, it is a great program. That is where we are right now.

It is important to ask who Conservative MPs are representing in the House. Do they represent their communities or do they represent the Leader of the Opposition? I think it is pretty evident from everything that has gone on in the news, the stories we have heard about the Liberal Party and what we talk about in caucus that we can get away with saying a lot. We can vote our conscience and get away with it. That is not the case with the Conservative Party, not when leaks are coming out saying Conservative MPs are concerned that the entire operation of the Conservative Party is whatever the Leader of the Opposition happens to think of on a given day and what slogan he comes up with in the shower on a given morning. He will all of a sudden give the new three-word slogan, and his team will monitor to see how many MPs have been saying it and at what time. They will get gold stars every time they say it. Then whoever gets the most gold stars gets a prize. That is effectively what is happening over there, so there is no representation of their communities.

I am extremely perplexed by where we are, specifically as we talk about the housing file. It is really important to ensure that when we are here, we represent the views of our constituents. I have stood up in the House from time to time and said that I agree with what an NDP member said when I know it is not the position of the government. I will give an example: I did not support buying a pipeline. I do not think any federal government should order a pipeline, but guess what.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the one NDP colleague who is clapping.

I am still going to be in the Liberal caucus tomorrow for saying that. I can do that. Conservatives cannot do that.

I encourage one Conservative MP to stand up and say one thing they disagree with their party on. They cannot because they know the wrath that will come from the Leader of the Opposition if they do. What this ultimately comes down to is representing constituents and holding strong to the values that we believe our constituents elected us to represent in this place.

With that, I have a subamendment to move. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “role”, the words “and impacts”.

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

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary claimed that members of the Conservative caucus are no longer able to write letters to the government. That is in fact false. In order to demonstrate the point, I wrote a letter to the government while he was speaking. The letter says as follows: “Dear Government, please help my community by calling a carbon tax election now.” If one of the pages could come over and bring that to the parliamentary secretary, I would greatly appreciate it.

What my community wants is very clear: It wants to replace the government and its failing policies with a government that will actually get housing built. The parliamentary secretary talked about a program the government has that is building bureaucracies. He admitted this in his speech. He said that the program does not build homes; it gives money to municipalities in the hope that they will clean up problems with their permitting process.

The Conservatives have a much better solution. First of all, we will make housing more affordable for Canadians by removing the GST from new homes. We will also say to municipalities that they have to meet certain housing targets to receive the same level of federal funding. If they exceed those targets, they will get a bonus, and if they do not meet those targets, they will face a clawback. We would pay for results instead of just giving municipalities money and feeding bureaucracies in the hopes that it is going to change things. Our plan will actually get homes built.

I will send that letter now.