Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 53
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2020-07-22 12:48 [p.2708]
Mr. Speaker, according to reports, the Liberal government failed to request up-to-date housing reports before approving migrant workers to come to Canada. Since then, we have seen outbreaks on farms that have put our food supply and the safety of workers at risk. With COVID-19 on the rise, why did the minister not request up-to-date housing reports?
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
2020-07-22 12:49 [p.2708]
Mr. Speaker, employers of temporary foreign workers have an important role to play in helping prevent the introduction and the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Temporary foreign workers entering Canada must comply with all public health requirements, including a mandatory 14-day quarantine. These rules are important for maintaining public health and safety.
In addition, employers of temporary foreign workers are also responsible for their workplaces—
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2020-07-20 14:46 [p.2607]
Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. The CMHC paid $250,000 to a group that labels homeowners as lottery winners to see how they could be taxed some more. The minister claims the Liberals are not looking at a capital gains tax, but recall that before the previous election, there was a document entitled “Ontario Caucus Priorities 2019 Platform”, where these tax options were being considered by no less than the current parliamentary secretary to the same minister. The CMHC study is looking at a home equity tax.
Will the government end this charade and commit to no new tax, no tax hikes, on principal residences of homeowners?
View Bill Morneau Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bill Morneau Profile
2020-07-20 14:47 [p.2607]
Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. This is not something that this government is considering. We are not looking at tax changes on principal residences. That is not something we are looking into and we will not be considering that in the future.
View Richard Lehoux Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Lehoux Profile
2020-07-20 14:47 [p.2607]
Mr. Speaker, CMHC spent $250,000 on a study to determine how the government could squeeze more taxes out of homeowners.
Will the government promise to put an end to this practice and stop always demanding more and more taxes, especially from honest Canadian workers? Will it promise here and now that it will not punish them and that it will drop the idea of a home equity tax on primary residences?
View Bill Morneau Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Bill Morneau Profile
2020-07-20 14:48 [p.2607]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
We cannot drop an idea that we never had. Changing the tax rules for principal residences is not part of our plans or our policy. We have no such plans.
View Denis Trudel Profile
BQ (QC)
View Denis Trudel Profile
2020-05-25 17:23 [p.2383]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for naming all the measures that the government has put in place over the past two months. I believe that these are targeted measures. There is more work to be done. Seniors, children with disabilities and workers have been taken care of.
Over the past two months, the government has announced measures totalling between $250 billion and $300 billion. That is fine. As I mentioned earlier, 150,000 Quebec households were unable to pay their rent in April despite the CERB. In May, 10% of renters were unable to pay their rent. In Montreal, 15% were unable to pay their rent.
In a few days, the government managed to put together and enact a law that will send $73 billion to workers. That is fine. However, in the past three years, it has not managed to pay the $1.4 billion that would help Quebec with its housing crisis. In Quebec, 10 major cities have been asking for the government's help for years and telling it that they need the $1.4 billion now.
In Quebec, not-for-profit housing organizations, co-operatives, tenant associations, engineers and urban planners have been united during the pandemic in asking for the $1.4 billion needed to house the most vulnerable during this crisis.
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
2020-05-25 17:25 [p.2383]
Madam Speaker, we want Quebeckers to receive their fair share of our historic investment in housing. We hope to enter into a bilateral agreement with the Government of Quebec and with the other provinces and territories. We made a commitment to enter into a bilateral agreement with Quebec based on the principles of partnership, collaboration, consensus and responsibility.
View Diane Finley Profile
CPC (ON)
View Diane Finley Profile
2020-03-11 14:54 [p.1934]
Mr. Speaker, earlier today my colleagues and I sent a letter urging the Prime Minister to work with us to address flooding along the Great Lakes. Many people in Haldimand—Norfolk have businesses and homes right along the shoreline.
That shoreline has already seen record high water levels. These people are not just worried about potential damages, but also for their safety.
Will the Prime Minister set partisan politics aside and work with us to address this very serious issue?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-03-11 14:54 [p.1934]
Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is always a primary concern for the government. We will work to ensure the safety of Canadians along the Great Lakes and elsewhere.
At the same time, on this side of the House, we recognize the prevalence of extreme weather events and flooding is only going to increase with climate change. That is why making serious measures to fight against climate change, like a price on pollution right across the country, are the kinds of things that Canadians expect and to which the Conservatives have closed their ears and hearts.
View Eric Duncan Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, for a Prime Minister who wants to work across the aisle and work together, that answer is unacceptable. This is very simple.
It seems like the Prime Minister is more interested in attacking the opposition than in protecting homes, livelihoods and the safety of thousands of Canadians living along the shores of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River.
Could the Prime Minister let those Canadians know what detailed action he is taking this year for a potentially devastating spring thaw? Will he commit to working with us, and it is very simple, on a bipartisan committee, to help these people out?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-03-11 14:56 [p.1934]
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with the water levels in the Great Lakes. The International Joint Commission, a joint panel between Canada and the United States, manages these levels.
We are working with the U.S. and the IJC, which is actively examining measures to address these issues. The IJC will be providing a briefing to members in the coming weeks. I invite the member opposite to join.
Again, fighting climate change will be an important part of keeping these Canadians safe, and I invite the members to join with us on that, as well.
View Philip Lawrence Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, normally spring is a time of rejuvenation and reinvigoration. However, for many residents on the Great Lakes shoreline it is a time of anxiety and worry. With record high water levels, they are concerned about flooding destroying their houses, which they have all worked so hard for.
Could the Prime Minister please inform the House what actions the government is taking to protect residents along the shorelines of the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence River and the Ottawa River?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, certainly the water levels in the Great Lakes are a cause for significant concern. The management of water is done through the IJC, which is a joint panel between Canada and the United States. The IJC is looking actively at measures it may take to address some of those levels.
We are in conversation with the IJC, and I believe that the IJC will be on the Hill to provide a briefing to members in the coming weeks.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2020-02-07 10:38 [p.1078]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for sharing his time with me so I could add my comments on the bill.
I want to also thank my constituents for sending me here for a second term and for the trust they placed in me in the past election.
Bill C-3 was in the last Parliament. I was a member of Parliament at that time and I remember the debates on the subject. Much of the content of the legislation being proposed before us is similar. The fact that this happens to be one of the government's earliest bills, when we have so many urgent, more critical issues to deal with, just calls into question the judgment of the government in pushing this forward at this time.
I support the contents of the bill. I support making a complaints body. I support greater oversight over the civil service and in other situations as well. I spent the better part of the last Parliament on two different committees, foreign affairs and finance, calling exactly for that greater oversight. Our role as parliamentarians is to ensure the oversight of the Government of Canada's spending, but also the oversight over the civil service and what it does.
I know, Madam Speaker, that you sat on a committee in the previous Parliament, the OGGO as we call it, operations and government estimates.
Again, there are so many other things with which we could be dealing.
I often have heard members say, for example ,this is a good, or, for example, this legislation has this concept or, for example, these are the types of problems this legislation will solve.
This will bring me to my Yiddish proverb, one that says, “for example” is not the same as proof, proof of why we should be pursuing this legislation at this time with this expediency. There are so many other issues.
I will use, for example, there are other issues we should have brought forward and dealt with immediately. These issues are of number one concern to people in Alberta, people in my constituency and people all across Canada.
I will mention, for example, the first time homebuyers incentive program. Just last week, the Government of Canada, to a question I asked on the Order Paper, gave us an answer on the $1.25 billion of spending on a program that had helped fewer than 3,000 people. I called it an election gimmick many months ago when the program came out.
I chased down the Department of Finance officials. I chased down Evan Siddall, the CEO of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the minister and many others at different committees to get answers before the House. Now we see from the results that the program has failed. It would be much more interesting for the House to do a deep dive into this program more closely.
The Government of Canada has said that 2,700 approvals happened, but as my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge mentioned to me, industry standards say that only about 50% of the people actually went through with it.
We have put aside $1.25 billion, and probably have helped 1,300 people achieve their dream of home ownership, which is an abysmal failure for a government program, a program pushed forward by the Minister of Finance and the minister for families and social development. The program was highly defended by Department of Finance officials and CMHC officials who did not like my chasing down answers on behalf of constituents. People in my riding are very worried about that.
That is a bill we could be reviewing right now, a piece of legislation to review the program and maybe eliminate it. It would save some money, time and look into why we failed as an oversight body to stop this election gimmick. That is my first example.
Originally the Government of Canada said that 100,000 people would be helped by the program. After 99 days, in the data provided in the House, we know that only about 32,000 people would be helped over a four-year time span. When I originally asked the question at committee about where the government got the number of 100,000 people, the Department of Finance officials told me that CMHC gave them the numbers and CMHC officials told me that the Department of Finance gave them the numbers. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that has been your experience in the past on different parliamentary committees, where department officials disagree about who gave whom what numbers. That would be a worthy enterprise for the House, to look into why this program so massively failed.
I know that in this next budget, potentially we could be expanding the reach of the program to $789,000 homes. I am very worried that the expansion of this program would not meet any of its goals.
We could, for example, have looked at the approval of Teck Frontier and the legislation governing it. The Teck Frontier project is a $20.6 billion investment in northern Alberta: 10,000 jobs, 7,500 construction and 2,500 operating jobs annually for four years. It is wholly within the territory of Alberta. It is wholly within the jurisdiction of Alberta. We control our natural resources.
As an Albertan, I do not want a handout. The people of my constituency do not want a handout. We do not want a just transition directed from Ottawa to the people of Alberta. We simply want to be given the respect and dignity to continue creating wealth. We are fine if a portion of the equalization and transfer payments are redistributed to our friends in rest of Canada.
However, Teck Frontier would be an important issue to be debated before the House. It must be approved.
As I asked yesterday in the House, I am wondering if the Government of Canada is afraid to say “yes” to prime minister Jason Kenney—Premier Jason Kenney. I was thinking in French. It would be an interesting one to look at that.
Albertans will say that if this project is not approved, they will know they are not respected within the Confederation. That is a drastic change to how the Confederation is supposed to work. I want the Confederation of 1867, the way the Fathers of Confederation intended it to be, truly autonomous provinces, able to develop their resources, able to do the best things for the people of their province. Provincial governments are elected to do that.
I know the people of Quebec understand this and have fought for this for decades now, just like all provincial residents should do. They should be looking to the provincial governments. It would be worthy, for example, of the House to look at, to ensure the Government of Canada is making the right decisions on behalf of Canadians and on behalf of Albertans.
We could be looking at the Trans Mountain pipeline, its construction and the series of missteps, dithering and failures of the Government of Canada that led to point where a business, Kinder Morgan, opted out. Northern gateway was cancelled, energy east was cancelled, TMX was expropriated.
As my colleague, the member for Carleton likes to say, “All our exes are in Texas.” All those companies moved their money to Texas, and are now building thousands of kilometres of pipeline in Texas for product that will compete at the Oklahoma hub with Alberta product. That situation is an absolutely travesty. For example, that would be something we could have considered instead of doing Bill C-3 immediately.
Bill C-3 could have been cobbled with other matters before the House.
Results: 1 - 15 of 53 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data