Garnett Genuis

[Petitions, December 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you could just clarify the rules around members of Parliament, in particular members of the Liberal caucus, signing their own petitions.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 9th, 2024]

With regard to the government's Procurement Strategy for Indigenous Business, since November 4, 2015, and broken down by department or agency which participates in the strategy: (a) what individuals are responsible for reviewing adherence to Indigenous procurement requirements, specifically broken down by who is responsible for enforcing adherence to the (i) rules regarding proper identification of an Indigenous business, (ii) rules regarding subcontracting, (iii) rules regarding joint ventures, (iv) other rules; (b) of the total number of contracts allocated under the Indigenous procurement set-aside, what percentage went to businesses with (i) no employees, (ii) two or fewer employees, (iii) 10 or fewer employees; (c) of the total number of contracts allocated under the Indigenous procurement set-aside, what percentage went to companies that are not listed in the Indigenous business directory of any organization other than the federal government; (d) what is the percentage of times in which the procurement rules were followed, particularly broken down by (i) rules regarding proper identification of an Indigenous business, (ii) rules regarding subcontracting, (iii) rules regarding joint ventures, (iv) other rules; (e) of the total number of contracts allocated under the Indigenous procurement set-aside, what percentage went to shell companies; (f) looking at companies who received contracts under the Indigenous procurement set-aside up until one year ago, what percentage of them are still in operation; (g) looking at companies who have received contracts under the Indigenous procurement set-aside, what percentage of them received their contract through a joint venture with a non-Indigenous company; (h) looking at companies who have received contracts under the Indigenous procurement set-aside, what percentage of them were founded (i) before 2015, (ii) before 2018, (iii) before 2020, (iv) before 2023; and (i) looking at companies who have received contracts under the Indigenous procurement set-aside, what percentage of them were identified as Indigenous on the basis of having ownership that is (i) First Nations, (ii) Inuit, (iii) Métis?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 9th, 2024]

With regard to Canada’s relationship with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC): (a) what are the complete details of all development assistance spending intended to have an impact in the DRC over the last two years, including, for each spending item, the (i) amount spent, (ii) recipient and any additional delivery partners, (iii) allocation timeline, (iv) amount spent on each item; (b) what are the complete details of all development assistance spending intended to have an impact on Congolese refugees outside of the DRC over the last two years, including, for each item, the (i) amount spent, (ii) recipient and any additional delivery partners, (iii) allocation timeline, (iv) amount spent on each item; (c) what is the position of the government regarding the activities of the March 23 Movement (M23) rebels; (d) what is the position of the government regarding other nations supporting the M23 rebels; and (e) what is the position of the government regarding the end of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?

[Questions on the Order Paper, December 9th, 2024]

With regard to the Framework for Cooperation on Countering Terrorism and Violent Extremism between Canada and India, signed by the current government: (a) is the framework still in effect; (b) has any information been shared between the law enforcement or security agencies of Canada and India since June 18, 2023; and (c) was any information shared at any time between the law enforcement or security agencies of Canada and India regarding individuals who were subsequently murdered or who have faced credible threats against their life?

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I think we should be committed to the idea of actually working with and listening to indigenous leaders. It has been clear in some of the work we have been doing at the government operations committee and elsewhere that too often the Liberal government claims to be concerned about reconciliation but is not actually listening to what indigenous leaders and indigenous people are saying their priorities are. I think that has been a big problem with the government, and it is something that needs to change.

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, why is it important to look at the results? The last nine years provide us with some good evidence of what happens when there is a government that is focused on trying to signal concern about certain issues but is not actually concerned about the results.

As I mentioned, I have been doing a lot of work on the issue of abuses in the area of indigenous procurement. It is a situation where the government wants to look like it is achieving a certain target in terms of procurement from indigenous businesses. It has achieved that target by padding the numbers with a lot of joint venture arrangements or companies that are not actually indigenous-owned and indigenous-controlled. This allows it to say it has reached its target. The AFN is saying it is more like 1% of contracts, even though the government says it has met its 5% target.

When there is a government that is not interested in the results but is interested only in looking like it cares, people are trying to find workarounds to say they have achieved the target, they have checked the box, rather than being concerned about the results. On housing, again, it is very clear that the conversation with the government is all about how much it is spending and not about how much Canadians have to spend. The acid test of a housing policy is how much Canadians have to spend.

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, quite obviously, anyone listening will note the way the member created a question by creating a premise and then asking why that premise was true, rather than asking whether the premise was true.

Let us go back to what we are actually talking about today, which is the proposals we have put forward for strong action by the government around the construction of new homes. I talked about two key areas: One is the position we would take with municipalities, requiring them to meet certain targets in terms of the construction of new homes, and the other is around tax relief associated with the construction of new homes, a tax relief that would save people purchasing their first home significantly in terms of the cost they will pay. These are substantive and real measures that would deliver results.

I put it back to the member. Why is his government failing? Why has his government done so badly in terms of achieving the results that clearly are required: the construction of new homes so that housing can become affordable in this country again?

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, that reminds me that I want to recognize the very good work being done by Mr. Guglielmin, who I know is a strong advocate for responsible housing policy in the area of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

The focus of Conservatives is on delivering results for Canadians, and our housing policy would hold us to that standard of delivering results. It would also hold our municipal partners to the expectation of meeting the requirements around new home construction. We have also put forward a motion today that, on top of the existing plan, would build on it by providing tax relief directly to facilitate the construction of new homes and to make it easier for Canadians to purchase new homes.

The third report of INAN deals specifically with housing for indigenous people, and the failure of the government to build homes has ripple effects across all dimensions, all communities and all parts of Canadian society. The government has made many promises with respect to indigenous reconciliation, yet right now we are seeing its scandalous failure to follow through on those promises.

It is a scandalous failure because Liberals have actually allowed a whole industry of non-indigenous elite insiders and pretenders to take advantage of programs and policies that were promised to indigenous Canadians. There are people inside the government, like the member for Edmonton Centre, who have pretended to be indigenous in order to advance their own commercial interests as well as their own political interests. Moreover, there is a turning of a blind eye to the whole industry of fake, non-indigenous pretenders.

It was reported in today's Globe and Mail that an auditor was trying to draw attention to the problem of abuse of programs that are supposed to benefit indigenous people, yet that auditor had continuous roadblocks put in the way. The government actually imposed new rules to constrain and limit the work of auditors at the same time as those auditors were coming forward to identify the rampant issue of pretenders taking advantage of the policies. The government, it seems, wanted to allow the abuse to go on so it could make it look like it was doing better and could say, “Look at all this money we are giving to indigenous people,” when, actually, fraudsters and non-indigenous elites were taking advantage of the programs.

Therefore we need to build the homes in this country and restore the promise of reconciliation, and that is exactly what a Conservative government would do.

[Committees of the House, December 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, presented on Monday, June 13, 2022, be concurred in.

I will be sharing my time.

Christmas is approaching, and I want to wish colleagues a merry Christmas as they begin their preparations. As I have been reflecting on the Christmas story, it seems closer to home than ever. We have a distant, unfeeling Emperor Caesar Augustus who is bent on raising taxes, and this poor young couple who travels to Bethlehem. There is a housing shortage, so they have to give birth in a barn. If only Caesar Augustus had axed the tax and built the homes, it would have been a more comfortable first Christmas. However, it does show that God can come to us in the midst of challenging circumstances, so I do wish colleagues a merry Christmas.

Conservative priorities are clear. They are to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Today, we are focusing on the need to build the homes. Indeed, Conservatives are ready for a carbon tax election. If the Liberal government does not want a carbon tax election, how about a housing election? We are ready to contrast our constructive proposals to build the homes in this country with the demonstrable record of failure that we have seen from the Liberal government.

The Liberals put forward something called the housing accelerator fund. They think that people will believe that it is accelerating homes just because it is in the name. However, they admit that this program they have put forward does not build homes. It gives extra money to already inflated bureaucracies, and it feeds those bureaucracies instead of actually contributing to the construction of homes.

The Conservative opposition has put forward a meaningful and constructive proposal that is being debated today. It is about providing real relief to homeowners. In order to save Canadian homebuyers up to $50,000, or $2,500 per year, in mortgage payments, our motion is to call on the Liberal government to immediately eliminate the federal sales tax on new homes sold under $1 million and to call on the provincial premiers to match this proposal.

Particularly this afternoon, we are debating the concurrence of the third report of the indigenous affairs committee, which deals specifically with indigenous peoples and the need for housing policies that allow indigenous Canadians, all Canadians, to be able to access the homes that they need. This is why we have put forward proposals that do actually build homes.

In this debate about housing policy, we can see the old story of New Democrats and Liberals wanting to be judged by their intentions instead of by results. Conservatives believe that the effectiveness of a political party and of their policies should be judged not by the intentions or by how much money is being spent, but by the actual results in terms of the affordability of homes.

What Canadians care about when it comes to housing is not fundamentally how much the government is spending on housing. It is how much Canadians who are renting or buying have to spend on housing. That is really the acid test of a housing policy. It is not how much money the government is spending, but how much money the individual who is buying or renting has to spend in order to make that purchase.

In fact, under the Liberal government, the record of failure is very clear. Housing prices have doubled, rent has doubled and costs are way up as a result of the policies of the government. There are many different reasons why these policies they are proposing are not working. It does not take much of an analysis to know that they are not working. One simply has to look at the results. Canadians of all backgrounds are paying more for housing than they ever have. They are paying more for housing in a country that has an abundance of land.

Liberals have blamed inflation on supply chains, yet they have not reckoned with the fact that the land we use is right here. We have more land than almost any country around the world, yet our housing prices are higher than almost anywhere else.

If we compare where we were nine years ago, in 2015, and where we are now after nine years of the Prime Minister, the record is clear that Liberal policies are failing. Under the leadership of the member for Carleton, we have sharply put the spotlight on the problem of housing affordability and the centrality of building new homes, so we have put forward a constructive proposal for how to do this. We have been very specific in our proposals around housing. We have been very specific in what we have put before the House and what we have put before Canadians.

We have proposed a framework, and the member for Carleton, our leader, has put forward a private member's bill on it, whereby municipalities would be expected to meet certain targets in terms of new home construction. They would have flexibility in terms of how they do it. It would not be up to the federal government to decide precisely what to build or where to build it, but there would be an expectation, as there has to be an expectation, that every level of government would work together to ensure sufficient construction of new homes. If municipalities failed to meet those targets, they would face clawbacks in terms of federal funding, and if they met or exceeded those targets, they would receive a bonus.

The policy would tie federal spending to the requirement of results when it comes to housing. This would bring the kind of results orientation that Canadians expect from their government. I heard a member opposite say that this is common sense, and I agree. He is coming around. It is common sense to measure one's housing policy by the results. We would hold ourselves to that standard—

[Privilege, December 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives are focused on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, Liberals are trying to distract with their temporary tax trick. The member has a background of immense experience in supporting small business owners and understanding legal technicalities that impact businesses. One thing we have been hearing about is the administrative and compliance costs associated with how the government is going to be switching the rules around GST back and forth; this is going to create an immense burden for small business owners. Rather than our proposal for eliminating the carbon tax everywhere and for good, which is clear and simple, what the Liberals are doing imposes a major burden on small business owners. Would the member share a bit about that?