Peter Fragiskatos

[The Budget, April 8th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair.

I am starting to see you in the chair so often, in fact, that I am wondering about your ambitions. I know you take great pride in being on the opposition side, but maybe you are trying to tell us something. In all seriousness, the fact that folks are kidding along speaks to the fact that you are very well liked in the House and well respected. I had the pleasure of working with you at the finance committee over the years and wish you well.

I will tell you at the outset that I am sharing my time with the member for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital.

Like any budget, budget 2022 is ultimately a statement of values. Of course, there are details: there are nuances, the technical side and numbers, but it is a statement of values. In this budget, we see a number of issues addressed. I want to speak about the budget from the vantage point of a member of Parliament from the community of London, Ontario. It is a community like so many others where people are focused on, and concerned about, housing.

I also look at this budget and see, and am thankful, that the government has continued to a take a layered or nuanced approach to housing. It is not understanding it as just one thing, but separating it and understanding that there are challenges that come along when dealing with the continued issue of homelessness in Canada. London is like all other cities in the country. It is certainly plagued with that challenge. However, there is also the issue of supply and pricing and what those mean for young professionals especially, but also for others. The budget certainly takes a view that separates those two.

The first category deals with individuals who have real social issues and challenges. They have experienced homelessness and perhaps are also dealing with alcohol or drug addiction, or could face those issues of deep poverty that prevent them from realizing their best selves, or they have mental health issues that are standing in their way. The extension of the rapid housing initiative that we have seen in this budget speaks to that ongoing issue. The extension would see, in the next few years, an additional 6,000 affordable units built. This is a hugely important outcome for these individuals: the members of our community who unfortunately fall into this category.

I would hope, and I would expect, that as part of that we would see a continued partnership among the government, the CMHC and not-for-profits to realize a good outcome. While the government is very good at identifying the problem, it is in no position, and nobody expects it to be in a position, to understand and have expertise on the ground. That varies, of course, from community to community. Not-for-profits in communities have that understanding, that knowledge and that background.

In my community, where the rapid housing initiative has been implemented, we have seen continued partnership among the federal government, the CMHC and not-for-profits to ensure that the rapid housing initiative comes to fruition. Certainly this is in municipalities as well. We are going to continue to work with them to ensure the quick construction of units.

On the other side of the ledger, there is the new housing accelerator fund. This is $4 billion over five years beginning in 2022-23. It will be operated by the CMHC, and the focus is on supply. I mentioned before that we have to divide housing. We have to understand it for what it is: an inherently complex area of policy. There is no silver-bullet solution, so to speak. We need to understand that, while the rapid housing initiative will deal with the problems that I spoke about just now, the issue of affordability and of rapidly escalating housing prices is something that needs to be dealt with through other policy mechanisms.

For example, in London, we have seen the average cost of a home that was around $400,000 just a few years ago double to in excess of $800,000 by last count. This is affecting the city. This is affecting the wider region. We have had many individuals drive until they qualify. It is no fault of their own. They are going to do what is best for their families. They have left the GTA, for example, and have come and settled in London.

A program such as this speaks to that challenge because, as more people have come and as our population has increased, we see supply challenges. London is one of the fastest-growing communities in the entire country. A program like the housing accelerator fund puts assisting municipalities with issuing permits as quickly as possible, and cutting down on other red tape and delays, at its very core.

It is great to see that the government has listened to the home builders, for example, across the country. Certainly, I want to thank home builders in London, Ontario. The London Home Builders Association does great work. I have engaged with its members over the years on this issue.

Realtors have brought this up. I want to thank the London-St. Thomas Association of Realtors, or LSTAR, for its work.

This is something that will deal with the issue of supply and ensure that Canadians faced with the challenge of home prices will hopefully, in the near future but not immediately, see an effect and a downward trajectory in overall home prices.

The other thing I wish to talk about, still focused on housing because it does remain the top issue in my community, is the announcement by the government yesterday of the creation of the tax-free first home savings account. This is something that I spoke about at great length during the election campaign. I was going door to door and engaging with constituents, not just young people, for example, who were having a tough time in terms of being priced out of the market right now in London. Their parents were also deeply anxious about the prospects for their kids going forward, in terms of being able to afford homes.

This is a program that would allow first-time home buyers to save up to $40,000 tax-free. The funds would be contributed. They would go in on a tax-free basis and be withdrawn again tax-free. No tax would be applied on any investment gain.

As I have said, it is great not just for young people, but for anybody facing the challenge of getting into the market right now. The top concern that I hear constantly is about putting together the money for a down payment. A tax-free account such as this, modelled on the TFSA but also on the RRSP system, would go a long way toward helping families.

For the last thing that I will talk about, I will go in a different direction. I do so in my capacity as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. It is an enormous honour to work with her on issues relating to revenue in general and specifically the CRA: the Canada Revenue Agency.

As we saw yesterday, budget 2022 proposes $1.2 billion over the next five years beginning in 2022-23. This would go to funding the audits of large entities and non-residents engaged in aggressive tax avoidance. It would also increase the prosecution of those engaged in tax evasion.

We have seen great efforts in this direction over the previous four or five years, beginning in budget 2016, in fact. We saw a very significant increase to the CRA by way of this government's commitment and the recognition that investing in the CRA does yield a result. In fact, for every $1 invested, $5 is returned.

I want to thank the officials and the public servants of the Canada Revenue Agency for their work over the years. Of course, there is much more work to do on the issue of avoidance and evasion, but we are certainly seized with that on this side of the aisle. We take the ideas of the opposition on this as well, but there have been gains in this direction. I would expect those gains to continue, certainly building on the investments of the past few years and yesterday's announcement as well.

I look forward to engaging with colleagues so that we can see these measures fully passed and dealt with so that they can benefit the country.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, April 6th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the unspeakable and senseless acts of violence perpetrated by the Putin regime, including those recently uncovered in Bucha, demand accountability. This is why the RCMP will be deploying a specialized unit of investigators to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

Would the Prime Minister please elaborate on the RCMP's intentions to assist the investigation of war crimes committed in Ukraine?

[Online Streaming Act, March 29th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my question for the member relates to her background as a journalist. I wonder if that background informs her assessment of the bill. If it does, what parts of the bill really stand out as improving upon the status quo?

[Taxation, March 25th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the CRA understands that this has been a stressful time for seniors. While paper T4A forms were initially misprinted, the digital copies given to the CRA have been accurate since the start of tax season. Impacted seniors can file online at any time using these digital documents. There is therefore no plan to extend the tax filing deadline at this time.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I have a respect, a friendship and a great affinity for the colleague that was just mentioned, the MP for Louis-Hébert. I was elected with him in 2015. On that matter, we simply disagree. I do not believe that there has been a politicization of the pandemic. Certainly, there has been division in Canadian society; there is no question.

However, there is nothing wrong with encouraging people who can get vaccinated, where it does not pose a health challenge or some other challenge to their physical well-being, to get vaccinated. That is—

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is not unreasonable to suggest this. However, one also has to do so while keeping in mind the nature of the pandemic and the fact that it is constantly a fluid situation. It is a constantly ever-evolving situation.

I think that, when we look at the pandemic, we cannot look at it in isolation. We have to look at it domestically. We have to look at the international situation. We have to be mindful of those things. We have to take public health advice. It is very difficult to come up with a timetable when the pandemic is constantly evolving and constantly in flux.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, my colleague's constituent is a public servant. The federal government has engaged with public servants throughout. Accommodations have been given where possible, and it continues to engage on that basis and other bases. I will say that more ought to be done by all governments, at every level, to work with individuals who are still vaccine-hesitant.

There is a difference between anti-vaxxers and those who are vaccine-hesitant, and perhaps there needs to be more engagement with individuals who fall into the hesitancy category. The media have a responsibility in that regard, public health experts have a responsibility in that regard, so too do governments. I do not know the individual circumstances of the constituent, but that is what I would put to my colleague.

[Business of Supply, March 24th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to see you in the chair again, and I hope you are doing well today.

It is always an honour to rise in the House to speak on matters. Today we are speaking on the opposition motion of our colleagues in the Conservative Party. Reading directly from the motion, it calls for the lifting of “all federal vaccine mandates”. It offers a few rationales for that point of view. Namely, because the provinces and territories have either put in place a plan to do so or have already done so, the federal government should act accordingly.

The issue this ignores entirely is one of jurisdiction. Provinces and territories should continue and will continue to take decisions that are within their jurisdiction based on the local health situation. Of course, public health agencies at a local level will inform that process with their engagement with the chief medical officer of every respective province or territory. That is the system. That is how it works. That is how it should work in a federation.

The federal government, for its part, will operate, as I say, in its jurisdiction on the question of mandates and on the advice of the public health experts at the Public Health Agency of Canada. I am not sure if members have noted this for Hansard, but I will. I want to thank public officials at PHAC. Throughout this pandemic, they have stood up in ways that are immeasurable and in ways that history will recognize as a true contribution to Canadian public policy and to an emergency response.

Where I want to focus my attention today is not so much on the politics of those questions. I want to take a step back, if I could, and ask a fundamental question. It is a surprise to me that this issue keeps coming up. My colleagues in the Bloc have not raised it, and my colleagues in the NDP have not raised it. They may have raised it when the opportunity posed itself, but they have not made it a motion. They have not decided to devote an entire opposition day to it.

My friends in the Conservative Party have, and they continue to devote themselves to this issue. Today's question period, for example, is a case in point. Almost the entire duration of question period was taken up by focusing on this one issue. There are so many other things happening in Canada, and internationally too, that they could have raised, but they kept going back to this.

I am not sure why. I have some thoughts on the matter. I think it has everything to do with the fact that, at some point in the history of the Conservative Party, it became a libertarian party. What is at the core of the philosophy of libertarianism? I know I only have a few minutes, but there are a few insights that need to be put on the record.

Philosopher Robert Nozick is perhaps the most noted libertarian. He said, “There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more.”

I offer that. I am not a Conservative, but I have Conservative friends and frequently they will resort to arguments about individualism. We need to understand a philosophic rationale for libertarianism, which Robert Nozick provides. It is about the individual for him and nothing more.

In political terms, we can look to Ronald Reagan, but especially to Margaret Thatcher. The transition in the Conservative Party started modestly in the 1980s but especially continued in the nineties and continues into the modern day, and Margaret Thatcher was absolutely instrumental in that change. She said:

...who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business....

Here is another point of view that emphasizes the individual. It is all about self-reliance. The state's job is to get out of the way. The state can provide for a few basic things such as police, a military and basic taxation. Apart from that, apart from offering this idea of what Nozick called the “night-watchman” state, it is about individuals being left alone to pursue their interests as they see fit.

Particularly, as it relates to mandates, when Nozick said, “Using one of these people for the benefit of others, uses him and benefits the others”, I think that is what provides the Conservatives with so much concern about mandates, that it represents state overreach. It represents the state interfering in the lives of individuals and trampling on their individual rights to pursue their interests as they see fit. It is an interesting idea.

Much has been written about libertarianism, but its weakness has become clear during emergencies and crises, particularly public health crises like COVID. So much so that an ardent disciple of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher, the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson, said that in fact there is “such a thing as society.” There are individuals, yes, but they live and exist within a society, and those individuals have a duty to one another. That is where I think, as a point of departure, we have to begin the discussion on mandates.

It is not as if we and those who support the introduction and maintenance of federal vaccine mandates do not recognize the importance of individuals. Of course, we do, as well as individual rights. That philosophy is also core to the Liberal Party of Canada, but mandates in the context of COVID‑19, which is still with us and is global, which is what a pandemic is by definition, are key and they are not forced vaccination. Mandates reflect a public health duty. Mandates have saved thousands of lives. In Canada, taken with vaccinations, mandates have helped to save the lives of no less than 400,000 people according to the estimates of experts. Epidemiologists and other public health experts have put that number forward. In the United States, the number is even higher obviously. Over a million lives were saved there. In Europe, the same sort of narrative follows.

Another way to understand the value of mandates is to follow what the philosopher T.M. Scanlon said, “If we can prevent something very bad from happening to someone by making a slight or even moderate sacrifice, it would be wrong not to do so.” Therefore, mandates ask all of us to make a moderate sacrifice. That much is sure. Only the state has the ability to implement such a system, a vaccine mandate system, but that moderate sacrifice is absolutely worth it when we understand that the result of that leads to lives being saved.

Our colleague who just spoke cited the very well-known and well-respected commentator on Canadian public affairs, who is also the public health specialist for The Globe and Mail. When André Picard talks about, for instance, the elderly and those who are immunocompromised still facing a heightened risk, even though we see declining rates of hospitalization and infection rates, we have to remain vigilant and the federal government needs to maintain a broad perspective as part of the calculus as to whether or not vaccine mandates still have a place in Canada.

As we just heard, it is important for the Public Health Agency of Canada to, among other things, assess the international epidemiology. Of course, COVID‑19 remains a pandemic. For that reason, operating in its area of jurisdiction, understanding the international situation, not just the domestic one, the advice given to the federal government is that vaccine mandates still have a role to play.

For the Conservatives, this apparently represents a limitation of individual freedom and state overreach, but it should not. Vaccine mandates are about saving lives and that is a duty that we should all live up to. We are individuals who live in a society. Without adhering to a duty to one another, a collective responsibility, individuals cannot thrive, so what I call for, as a final point here, is to recognize the importance of duty in our politics and not just individualism.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak and look forward to questions.

[Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, March 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting to know my colleague across the way. I understand that we both went to Queen's, so that is only a good thing. We could build off of that to hopefully help deal with some of our disagreements, and we disagree on this point.

I only point to the example set by Madam Lagarde, who, in her time with the International Monetary Fund, made clear that the fiscal approach taken by this government was absolutely fair and progressive and put in place taxation measures that benefited the middle class, so that everybody could thrive and find a way forward, in terms of equality of opportunity in this country. We are going to continue to pursue such an agenda.

[Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, March 23rd, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things there. I do not know where to begin. It will not be a surprise that I cannot agree at all with the member.

First of all, he is a graduate, as I understand it at least, of the London School of Economics, so he will understand, I hope, the basics of parliamentary democracy. The governing side sits here and the opposition sits there, so an accord is not a coalition. That is the first thing that needs to be put to the member. I know he is upset that parties have found a way to work together, but we will do so on behalf of Canadians.

On the point about the child care benefit that was introduced under former prime minister Harper, that was not a means-tested benefit. That benefit sent millions of dollars, in fact, to millionaire families, and that is not meaningful public policy.

As far as the fiscal issues that he raises, first of all, inflation is not in the hands of the federal government to control, but we are helping Canadians deal with costs. Child care would be an example. We will continue to work on pharmacare and now dental care to make sure life is more affordable, and we will present budgets that are absolutely fiscally responsible. I look forward to the coming weeks to see exactly that outcome.

Certainly, gone are the days of cut, cut, cut, when we saw the Harper Conservatives lead the country into an economic mess that this government has helped to clean up.