Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question on an important issue. We have experienced this back home, in Sherbrooke. Some co-ops have to renew their mortgage. Those co-ops faced tremendous uncertainty under the Conservative government. Indeed, there has been some progress in that regard, and I thank the current government for that.

It is important to recognize that co-ops are an important part of the solution, but not the only one. Sherbrooke is developing more innovative co-op ideas thanks to co-operative housing.

My colleague raised an excellent question regarding renovations. Renovations are also part of the equation, as I said earlier. We recognize that renovations are a key part of the solution, including in Sherbrooke, where the needs are huge. As we have said, renovations are important to the NDP. Building new housing units is also very important, because there is such a huge need. Since this is a crisis, we need to take action immediately, not in 10 years.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks and for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Toronto Star article, which reveals the Liberals' tendency to go on and on about how they have done things and to inflate the numbers to convince people they have taken action.

In light of that article, it is difficult to believe the parliamentary secretary when he tries to convince the House that his government has done a lot of stuff. From now on, it will be hard to believe any numbers he gives us. The article is disturbing because the Liberal government seems to have several different interpretations of reality when it comes to statistics and counting. There is one reality when they are making speeches to convince people they are doing good work. The facts tell of another reality, the reality we see in actual numbers from the Government of Canada, numbers that are impartial and non-partisan, unlike the parliamentary secretary, whose every word is partisan.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what my colleague is referring to exactly. That is something another member said.

What I would say to him is that there is a pressing need, as I mentioned earlier. What is missing is immediate investments. Should we form the next government, and we hope that will be the case by the end of this year, our plan is to make immediate investments in real, concrete projects that are ready to be built.

Of course, we want to contribute to renovations and housing subsidies. Those are practical measures we will take once we are in office. I hope that the member will support us so that, in a few months, our party can finally keep its promises, something that the Liberals have not managed to do over the past few years.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the people of Sherbrooke to speak to the opposition motion moved by my NDP colleague from Saskatoon West. This excellent motion reminds us of the importance of housing in Canada and the real crisis that is gripping our entire country.

Although some real estate markets—those that are more saturated, where prices are higher and housing is more scarce—may be harder hit, I can assure members that the crisis is affecting the entire nation, including my riding of Sherbrooke. Every year, in July, there are families who are unable to find affordable housing that meets their needs. Large families are particularly affected.

This is a reality in Sherbrooke, and I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to this issue in order to help find solutions. Our hope is that our constituents across the country, including my constituents in Sherbrooke, will have safe, quality housing that meets their needs and provides them with the ideal environment in which to work, experience personal and financial growth, have a good quality of life and thrive in our country. That would help everyone prosper.

When there is a crisis, we have to take urgent, concrete, immediate and specific steps to resolve it. We see this as a crisis because it is not a problem that can be fixed sometime in the distant future, after the next election, with a 10-, 15- or even 20-year plan. A crisis calls for urgent, immediate action. That is what is lacking right now. I am sure everyone here understands that this is a crisis. The only thing lacking is the government's commitment to treating this as a real crisis that calls for urgent, immediate action.

I do not want to question the Liberal government's intentions on this file. I am sure it recognizes the need for housing. However, it does not recognize that the need to act is urgent. We are glad its strategy includes billions of dollars in investments, but the problem is that none of that money will flow for several years, well after the next election.

That is why we have to wonder whether the government really understands the importance of investing in housing now. That is what affordable housing groups would really like to know. They know there is an urgent need for action, but they do not think the government feels the same sense of urgency.

Just this past Tuesday, back home, the Sherbrooke tenants' association and FRAPRU, a social housing organization that is well known in Quebec, spoke out about the current crisis in Sherbrooke. To meet the needs of the very long list of people waiting for social housing, the association estimates that it will take 300 social housing units every year for five years.

We see the same thing across Canada. Canada's big city mayors estimate that 170,000 people are waiting for social housing. In Quebec, we often talk about low-income housing. In Sherbrooke, low-income housing is the responsibility of the Sherbrooke municipal housing authority. The waiting lists keep getting longer. That is why the need is so great. Unfortunately, nothing is being done to shorten the list. We need 300 units a year for five years to get to the end of this waiting list and finally provide quality housing to all those in need in Sherbrooke.

There are some important statistics on housing that are worth mentioning.

The most troubling one is that some households are spending as much as 50% of their income on rent, just to put a roof over their heads. The higher that percentage goes, the more precarious their situation becomes. Some people in Sherbrooke even spend as much as 70% or 80% of their income on rent. That does not leave them with very much to spend on groceries, just to put food on the table.

We know that basic needs include shelter, food, clothing and the love of family and friends. Indeed, the love of family and friends is crucial in life. When someone has to spend 50% or 80% of their income on rent, that is problematic. It is even said that it should not be more than 30%.

When people have to spend so much of their income on rent, they have less to spend on things like leisure activities, food and clothing. On top of that, heating is sometimes not even included in the rent. That is a problem for many people in Sherbrooke. Sometimes rent costs so much that it is hard for people to find a clean, comfortable place to live that has clean air and is maintained at a reasonable temperature. These are real-life situations.

The Sherbrooke tenants' association reports that even when people do find housing, it is not necessarily safe. Landlords sometimes fail to update housing units and to install air conditioning and proper insulation. God knows that right now, temperatures across Canada are well below zero. Heat is a necessity. No one can live in Canada without some form of heating to ensure that their home has clean air and is maintained at a reasonable temperature.

The disturbing crisis we are seeing in Sherbrooke calls for immediate investment. Every day, the association hears from people in need who cannot find housing or who have been evicted and are looking for somewhere to spend the night. It is vital to consider all emergency resources, which is why we fought for the homelessness partnering strategy, now called Canada's homelessness strategy. It is an important part of this strategy to help people get off the street and into adequate housing.

When people are chronically homeless they must be able to go to an appropriate place where they are safe. In Sherbrooke, organizations such as Partage Saint-François are very important. I supported this organization that helps the homeless in Sherbrooke by donating $15,000 from my annual golf tournament. This organization provides a bed, food and warmth to those in need. We have to remember that.

That is why it is so disappointing to have to move this motion today to point out once again the government's lack of leadership on this crisis. We are particularly decrying the fact that what has been announced does not meet the pressing housing needs.

As I said yesterday, the Liberals are all talk and no action on several files. They like to talk and pat themselves on the back, but when the time comes to take action they are nowhere to be found. They are just big talkers. Talk will not help people find housing.

Parliamentary secretaries are double counting to try to lead us to believe that the government is doing more than it really is. Unfortunately, that is why, today, we are being forced to push the government to do more and invest in the construction of at least 500,000 social housing units. That is what is needed so that every Canadian can have a roof over their heads. When people have a place to live, anything is possible. They can get ahead in life and contribute to the development of our great country and our economy.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague wants me to list all the Liberal government's bad spending choices, I would not know where to begin. Of course buying a pipeline for $4.5 billion U.S. is an outrageous expenditure by the government. It also shows that the government is completely making things up as it goes along on this file.

When it comes to investing in pipelines, the government is able to scrape together $4.5 billion U.S. However, when it comes to social housing, there is no money available and we have to wait until there is some wiggle room for investing, even though there is a housing crisis across the country.

It is a matter of priority. When it comes to supporting oil pipelines, the money is readily available. When it comes to resolving Canadians' real problems, the government asks Canadians to wait until after the election. In 2019, I think that Canadians will be able to see that the government could not care less about Canadians and their well-being.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague raise that issue yet again. The Liberals seem to be forgetting that it was not the opposition that voted against them in 2006, but rather Canadians. No one member of this House decides who forms the government. Canadians decided the Liberal reign was over because of Liberal corruption.

I would like the member to correct the talking points he receives from the Prime Minister's Office. It was not the NDP that tossed the Liberals out; it was Canadians. I hope he realizes that one day.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate and rise for the first time in this temporary House to give a speech.

Unfortunately, we are once again debating a Conservative motion. Whether in the permanent House or here in the temporary one, they have fixated on two things: the carbon tax and balanced budgets.

As I was saying to a colleague earlier, we are being asked to vote on a motion that would indefinitely tie our hands with respect to taxes in Canada. If the members of the House pass this motion, the government and the House will never be able to increase taxes under any circumstances. This is a rather restrictive motion that would tie our hands indefinitely. The motion does not have a time limit, even though my colleague seemed to be saying that it would only apply to the Liberals' next term. The motion clearly states, in black and white, that the government must never raise taxes of any kind.

My colleague may have had good intentions when addressing fiscal responsibility. The NDP is a very responsible party when it comes to taxation. Members need only look at the record of the numerous NDP governments in many provinces over the years. By examining the record of other major Canadian political parties, we come to realize that the NDP has the best record on fiscal responsibility in Canada.

Naturally it makes sense to talk about taxation, responsibility and a balanced budget in the House. These are important themes for those listening to the debates, for several observers of Canadian politics and for people in the financial and business sectors concerned with these issues.

Every government must manage public finances responsibly and must have a credible plan for returning to a balanced budget when it makes investments and accumulates deficits. This is probably the biggest shortcoming of the current Liberal government. It has no plan for balancing the budget. That is what the Conservatives' motion condemns.

If that was all, we would be having a different discussion. Unfortunately, the Conservatives go much further. They want perhaps to divide the House by asking us to indefinitely prohibit tax increases in Canada. As I stated earlier in a question addressed to my colleague, it is totally irresponsible today, in 2019, to support such a motion that would forever tie our hands.

On this file, the Conservatives are big talkers. They act as though they were perfect and never ran any deficits. They keep talking about balanced budgets, but recent history shows that they do the opposite of what they say.

Earlier, my Conservative colleague said that running deficits inevitably leads to raising taxes and paying more in interest every year. It is true that the interest rates are high and that they increase over time, according to forecasts. If interest rates go up, so does the cost of the public debt. That is money that goes directly in the pockets of Canadian and global high finance. Major financiers are lining their pockets and giving bonuses to bank executives.

My colleague said that interest rates would inevitably go up, but she failed to mention that the Conservatives added $150 billion to the public debt over the last decade they were in power. The Conservatives themselves increased the public debt by $150 billion. I would therefore like to ask my colleague how much that represents in higher taxes and higher interest charges.

The Conservatives are all talk and no action. When it comes time to walk the talk, unfortunately, that is when we see the Conservatives' true colours, for they do not do as they say. They tell others to do as they say, but will not do so themselves, unfortunately.

What can we say about the Liberals in all that?

The first item in the Minister of Finance's mandate letter is a plan to balance the budget in 2019-20. Lucky for us, that is this year. Perhaps in the upcoming budget we will have our answer to that promise and that mandate letter, which puts balancing the budget at the top of the list. At that point we will see whether that promise can be added to the very long list of broken Liberal promises. Unfortunately, that is the reality. The Liberals make promises during the election campaign but then do the opposite once they are elected. That is what awaits Canadians during the next election campaign. Canadians will have to be vigilant and keenly aware of what the Liberals are all about—not just this Liberal government, but Liberals in general. Indeed, time after time, the Liberals have said one thing during an election campaign only to do the opposite afterwards or simply deny saying what they did to get elected.

That promise to balance the budget hints at the kind of political tactics the Liberals are likely to redeploy during the upcoming election campaign.

One thing the motion does not mention is what is in store for Canadians if the Conservatives win the next election: Stephen Harper-style austerity. I remember it well. Conservative austerity measures really hit hard in 2011. Soon after winning their majority in 2011, the Conservatives began cutting in every department. If I remember correctly, they instructed departments to cut nearly 5% of their budget.

That Conservative approach is what lies in wait for Canadians. Let us not fool ourselves. When the election rolls around, Canadians will have a choice to make. Voting for the Conservatives will mean voting for the kind of cuts we saw in my riding, Sherbrooke, where services to the public were reduced.

The Conservatives are already trying to convince people that their plan to balance the budget will not affect services to Canadians. That is totally false. Canadians must not allow themselves to be misled by such appealing promises. The truth is that it will be 2011 all over again.

Cuts were made to services in Sherbrooke between 2011 and 2015. There is no longer an Immigration Canada office in Sherbrooke. People no longer have in-person access to the services offered by Immigration Canada, they can rarely attend their citizenship ceremony in Sherbrooke, and they can no longer or rarely ever take citizenship tests there. People have to travel to Montreal to have access to those services. That is the reality created by the Conservative cuts. The impact of those cuts is still being felt in 2019 since the Liberals did nothing to remedy the situation.

The same thing goes for the Canada Revenue Agency. Before the Conservatives' 2011 austerity measures, the people of Sherbrooke had access to in-person services at the Canada Revenue Agency. When the Conservatives took office, they put an end to all in-person services there. They simply posted the telephone number to call for services on the door of the CRA office. That is the reality created by the Conservative cuts and austerity measures. With all due respect to the Conservatives, Canadians will be warned that cuts to services are hiding behind all this talk of balancing the budget.

Although I will not repeat what she said, I believe my colleague from London—Fanshawe pointed out just now that taxes are important. With all due respect to the Conservatives, taxes do serve a purpose. Throughout this debate, members seem to have forgotten that taxes serve a purpose: they make a fairer and more just society possible. As my colleague said, those who pay the least tax are also those who receive the most services. That is the kind of society we want to live in, a society where the least fortunate still have access to quality services so they can overcome their difficulties, succeed in life, and have a shot at a better future. Conservatives need to realize that taxes serve a purpose even if that offends their Conservative ideology.

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, my colleague seemed to be implying that the motion is asking the government not to raise taxes. However, what is written in black and white is that the government, or those who vote for this motion, would be prohibited from raising taxes indefinitely.

Does my colleague believe that, in 2019, voting for a motion that would forever prohibit tax increases in Canada, no matter who is involved, whether the rich, major corporations or others, is a responsible thing to do?

[Business of Supply, January 29th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer the question posed by my colleague from Edmonton West, and I would not want to let him off the hook.

In his speech, he stated that the guaranteed income supplement was substantially and significantly increased. He also said that hundreds of thousands of seniors were lifted out of poverty. I am not quoting him exactly, but that is roughly what he said. However, seniors in my riding are coming to my office to tell me that their income is stagnating and that they struggle year after year.

Just now, the parliamentary secretary spoke only in generalities and mentioned hundreds of thousands of seniors.

Could my colleague provide specific numbers concerning the increase in the guaranteed income supplement and how many seniors they have helped, and could he tell us how they have helped them?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2019]

With regard to real estate and office space leased by the government from private sector businesses since November 4, 2015, broken down by department or agency: what are the details of all the contracts, including (i) vendor; (ii) amount; (iii) start and end date of the contract?