44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 30, 2023 11:00AM
- Oct/30/23 3:26:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on June 12, be concurred in.
We are talking about the national housing strategy report, which was done by our human resources committee and delivered in June 2023. We should know that the national housing strategy is a program the Prime Minister announced with great fanfare in 2017, as I have said in the House before.
He and a number of his colleagues stood in front of a big building under construction and talked about how this strategy, which was going to be about $40 billion, would be a life-changing, transformational strategy. The federal government was back in the housing business, and it was going to be a really big deal. It was a 10-year plan.
It is still a 10-year plan. The numbers were ballooned to $82 billion, and at the time of the study, it was going to change the world, which was all well and good. We know the Prime Minister is particularly good at these photo ops and announcements with quite a rhetorical flourish.
We received the study in June 2023. Just before that, we had spoken with the former minister of housing. We asked the minister of housing, a couple of different times, if he would describe the housing situation in Canada as a crisis. He could not use that word. What we heard from the minister at the time was that housing was a challenge, and there were some problems and difficulties, but he could not use the word “crisis”.
I would also like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kelowna—Lake Country.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago, there is a new Minister of Housing, and there is a renewed sense that we need to do something about the housing situation in Canada. The new minister, when asked if Canada was in a housing crisis, a year after the previous minister, acknowledged that, Canada is in a housing crisis. He used the word himself.
When I asked him at the time if, in 2015, eight years ago, and 2017, when the Prime Minister announced this life-changing, transformational national housing strategy, Canada was in a housing crisis. He would not use the word “crisis” when it came to that. He said we had some challenges. There were some difficulties, but he would not describe it as a crisis at the time the Liberals launched this national housing strategy, this $82-billion, 10-year program.
We heard from the CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which is the agency responsible for delivering the national housing strategy and all the programs therein. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is also responsible for insuring a lot of mortgages in this country, millions of mortgages. It does a lot of research on the housing situation in Canada. We have heard a lot from it about the fact that we are in a crisis and that Canada needs to build, in total, about 5.8 million homes by 2030 to restore some semblance of affordability in the housing market.
It is important to acknowledge at this point that the most homes that Canada has ever built in a single year was in 1976 when building a home was a little easier. Homes were not nearly as complex, but 270,000 units were built that year. The average today is about 240,000. We would need to ramp up the building of homes to about 745,000 units per year to meet that affordability target that the CMHC itself says we need to do.
What was this national housing strategy supposed to do? We know, from the reports and from listening to the CEO of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that this national housing strategy was to remove 530,000 Canadian families from core housing need, reduce chronic homelessness by 50%, protect 385,000 community housing units already in existence, provide 300,000 households with affordability supports, repair 300,000 existing housing units that needed repair and create 100,000 new housing units.
With the $82 billion, we are just over halfway through the program, which begs the questions of where we are at and what it has accomplished.
Even the CMHC would acknowledge that we have a long way to go, and it would acknowledge that in part because its own research has told us that the situation is worse than ever. At the time that the Prime Minister announced this strategy, we had some housing challenges. Today, it is a crisis.
We now know that, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, rents have doubled. We also know that, after eight years of the Prime Minister, house prices have doubled and mortgages have doubled. Frankly, despite the grand proclamations of the Prime Minister and the constant patting of themselves on the back for all the great work they are doing with this national housing strategy of $82 billion, it seems as though the Liberals are starting to catch on that just saying they are going to do good things with photo ops and announcements is not really solving the problem.
As it turns out, now the Liberals are announcing new things and new ideas, including things like removing the GST from purpose-built rentals. They are finally catching on, but I worry it might be too little, too late because, in the midst of all of this, in the midst of a housing crisis getting worse and worse, the government has been spending money like it is going out of style. It borrows excessively. The Liberals stand behind this whole business that they were there for Canadians during COVID, but we know that a couple of hundred billion of that borrowing had nothing to do with COVID supports, and that is having an impact on inflation.
In fact, Tiff Macklem, the governor of the Bank of Canada, has said that inflation in shelter prices is running above six per cent. Part of this, he says, is due to higher mortgage interest costs following increases in interest rates. However, it also reflects higher rents and other housing costs, and these pressures are more related to a structural shortage of housing supply. He also said it is going to be easier to get inflation down and make housing cheaper if monetary and fiscal policy are rowing in the same direction.
Therefore, we know that announcing with great fanfare an $82-billion 10-year comprehensive plan to solve the housing challenge of the time, fast forward to today, has turned into an absolute crisis in the housing market and, frankly, a crisis that is, in part, created by the inflationary pressures that the government, and its excessive spending, is putting on the market.
Now we have this report that says that, yes, it is bad. We have work to do. That is effectively the message. Even Ms. Bowers acknowledged that it is going to be very challenging to meet the targets. We know why. The Governor of the Bank of Canada has told us that the inflationary spending of the government is just making it harder. Every nickel it spends is making it harder.
The members of the government do not seem to understand that we need to get out of the way and not only incentivize the private sector, but also bring down the inflationary deficit spending and axe the carbon tax, which is making everything more expensive. We need to reduce the taxation burden. We need to reduce the taxation of deficit borrowing on the backs of Canadians so that they can afford to eat, heat their homes and maybe even have a home one day.
Nine out of 10 young people in this country have given up on the dream of ever owning home, and the responsibility for that falls squarely at the government, its inflationary spending and its reckless way of borrowing billions of dollars. The government says it is going to borrow money so Canadians do not have to, but its members do not realize that the money being borrowed by the government is being borrowed on behalf of all Canadians. It falls to all of us to pay it back. Therefore, we have a situation today where a government will borrow billions of dollars to give Canadians a few hundred dollars to help them pay for things that, because of the government's borrowing, now cost thousands more dollars.
We have a situation where our government is now so desperate that it is playing politics, so it is axing the carbon tax in some parts of the country where the Liberals' poll numbers are really bad, but not in the rest of the country, as we found out, because people there did not vote Liberal. That is the problem. People have to vote Liberal if they want to get treated better by the government and if they want the government to relieve them of the pressures of its inflationary spending.
The national housing strategy can be described as a failure. The Conservatives have written a dissenting report on this, and we need to recognize that the government is simply not getting the job done. Even though its members have great talking points and photo ops, they are making life more expensive every day for Canadians. Canadians know that, despite their promises, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.
1605 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:36:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the constructive criticism that the member opposite has levelled at the national housing strategy. However, I think it is important to highlight the fact that we actually have a strategy and that, for almost 30 years, municipalities asked consecutive federal governments for housing assistance. They did it individually as municipalities, and they did it collectively, through organizations such as FCM. For 30 years, the federal government, including government formed by the member opposite's party, decided not to make those investments. Therefore, the national housing strategy represents an answer and a response to those stakeholders who have asked for assistance.
My question to the member is this: Why did it take so long for the member opposite and his party to recognize that it is important to invest in municipalities and non-profit associations to help our most vulnerable population?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:38:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I like the member, but, gosh, his speech was science fiction. The Conservatives, under the dismal Harper decade, lost more affordable housing units than we have in the last quarter century. It was the worst government ever for affordable housing, with 800,000 units lost. That is 800,000 Canadian families thrown out in the streets because Harper, and the member for Carleton working with him, decided it was more important to throw tens of billions of dollars through the Harper tax haven treaties than it was to actually invest in housing. They did not invest in housing. They blew it all up. Between them, the Liberals and the Conservatives lost one million affordable housing units over the last 17 years.
We saw the disrespect that Conservatives have for actually building housing with the Doug Ford government. They took an incredible amount of land out of the Greenbelt, which would be used for profiteering and for the rich. I have to ask my friend this: Do the Conservatives now repudiate those decisions made by the Doug Ford government?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:39:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there was an awful lot to unpack there. I think that if anybody is engaged in science fiction, it would be the NDP, because it keeps supporting a government that does not seem to understand the damage it is causing to Canadians.
The fact of the matter is that government makes more money on housing than anyone else in the whole phase, at 33% of every housing unit in this country, on average. Thirty-three per cent of the cost of a house is government. All we are saying is that we need to get government out of the way, get more housing units built and hold other levels of government to account for federal infrastructure spending.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:40:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board's data, from 2006 to 2015, the prices in Toronto for homes doubled under the Harper government. They went from roughly $300,000 to $600,000, yet the Harper government did not put a plan in place to mitigate the drastic rise in housing prices.
Two years into the Trudeau mandate, there was a strategy put in place. This has been looking for ways to take on the challenges that we have today.
My question to the member opposite is this: Why did the Harper government not do anything when prices doubled under the Harper government's term?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate for my hon. colleague what his own minister of housing said just a few weeks ago at our committee: At the start of the current government's term, in 2015, the housing situation in Canada was not in crisis. People could afford to buy a home and find a place to rent. Eight years later, house prices have doubled, rents have doubled, people cannot find a place to rent, interest rates are skyrocketing and mortgages have doubled. It was not a crisis when Prime Minister Harper was here. It is a crisis today, thanks to eight years under the Prime Minister.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:41:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, Canada is in a housing crisis that the Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal government are responsible for creating based on their decisions and policies. They want Canadians to forget how bad housing has become during their time in government. Red tape, bureaucracy and soaring costs have slowed down builders' construction of new homes when Canadians need them most.
Since 2015, house prices have doubled in Canada. Monthly mortgage costs have more than doubled and are now over $3,500 a month. It takes over 60% of Canadians' income to cover the cost of owning a home. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Canada's 10 biggest cities is $2,314 a month, compared to $1,171. Nine out of 10 young people in this country who do not own homes believe they never will.
According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, housing starts are dropping dangerously across the country. Housing starts are down 25% in Ontario and 10% in Toronto. In my home province of British Columbia, Vancouver is down 17% on a seasonal basis. Before the current government, it took 25 years to pay off a mortgage; now it takes 25 years just to save for the down payment.
We increasingly see stories in British Columbia of people returning to the rental market because they cannot afford their mortgages. According to UBS Group, Toronto is ranked as the world's worst housing bubble; and Vancouver is the third most unaffordable housing market on earth. We built fewer homes last year than we did in 1972, when our population was half the size; however, we see $27 million in bonuses at the CMHC, while it fails to fulfill its own mandate of affordable homes.
Conservatives have offered a plan to help Canadians in the building homes not bureaucracy act, a private member's bill tabled by the leader of the official opposition. If made into law, this common-sense bill would require big, unaffordable cities to build more homes and speed up the rate at which they build homes every year to meet our housing targets. It would reward municipalities eliminating costly gatekeepers and roadblocks based on the number of housing units completed, not just started. It would ensure that more housing units are constructed around public transit stations. It would cut the bonuses and salaries of those at CMHC if it is unable to speed up approval of applications for housing programs to an average of 60 days. It would list 15% of the federal government's 37,000 buildings and all appropriate federal land to be turned into homes people can afford. Finally, it would remove GST on the building of any new homes with rental prices below market value.
Removing the GST for rental with prices below market value is of particular importance; this would help build more affordable and attainable units for residents in my community and across the country. The Liberal members opposite know that, under their GST plan, the exemption will be used to construct luxury apartments instead of affordable units. It is simple: Canadians need homes, and builders want to build them. However, the Liberal government's failed policies are stopping them every step of the way, which has led to higher inflation and higher interest rates.
When builders are struggling to start new housing construction, the Prime Minister increases the cost to build by not having a softwood lumber agreement, making the cost of wood used for construction higher in Canada. His deficit spending has increased inflation and caused high interest rates. The Canadian dollar being consistently low compared with the U.S. dollar means that all the goods purchased for home construction, whether raw materials or refrigerators, cost more for Canadians. We can easily go across the border to the U.S. and find comparable houses at half the price.
Interest rates are higher than ever in a generation, which means higher debt costs and less money to put toward construction costs. Over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is due to delays, fees, regulations and taxes. Why would any person want to build new homes when the high debt costs, increased construction costs, fees and regulations seem to be never-ending? It took the government eight years to roll out its accelerator fund as part of its national housing strategy, but there is no clear, direct correlation between this fund and the total objectives of all its programs to build the 3.5 million new homes needed in just seven years, by 2030. This is the number the CMHC has given that would make housing affordable once again in Canada.
That is the legacy of the Liberals' national housing strategy. Today, my Conservative colleagues and I had the opportunity to question the president and CEO of the CMHC at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, or the HUMA committee. My colleague from Parry Sound—Muskoka explained that, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, inflation and shelter prices are running above 6%. Part of this is due to mortgage interest costs, following Canada's increases in interest rates. Because of the structural shortage of housing supply and higher rents, inflation is becoming a more persistent issue in Canada.
The president of CMHC explained that in order to achieve housing affordability in Canada, we need an across-the-board increase in housing supply. He also said that CMHC recognizes that the private sector is the biggest player in supplying and building affordable housing in Canada; Canada requires private sector capital, and governments must create economic conditions that incentivize this private sector investment in housing; and innovation and addressing the skilled labour supply will help create these conditions.
Instead of demonizing the construction industry and all private sector housing providers for the lack of affordable housing, government must be focused on lowering the cost and time to build through reforms at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, ending the inflationary deficits that are driving up interest rates.
In meeting number 48 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, in the study on the national housing strategy, the chief economist at CMHC said the following:
The “financialization” of housing is a word we hear a lot. The reality in Canada is that about 95% of the rental market is provided by the private sector, so financialization is something that exists by design in our rental market.
Conservative members believe that the private sector is not only critical but also essential to solving the housing crisis. No government can spend its way out of a housing crisis, but the government needs to provide incentives and, most importantly, taxation regimes and policies that will help keep costs and interest rates down.
At the HUMA committee today, my Conservative colleague from Simcoe North asked the CMHC president how much additional cost will be imposed through the NRCan and the National Research Council's national building code. She said that the CMHC is doing a study on this and it may have an impact; this building code has been around for about three or four years now. However, CMHC is also just now doing this study.
These are costs that are borne by the developer or the homeowner, if they are the developer, of the home or the units. Ultimately, the owner of the unit will pay the price. Some studies are suggesting that this code will cost $30,000 to $50,000 a unit.
The Liberals' record on housing has resulted in rents that have doubled, mortgage payments that have doubled, an ongoing and worsening housing supply gap and housing starting to decrease. In addition, the Liberals have no idea whether the billions spent on reducing homelessness has made any difference. The government is simply not worth the cost.
Therefore, I would like to move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:
“the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, presented on Monday, June 12, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities with instruction that it amend the same to include reference to recent Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation data indicating housing starts are decelerating quickly, with housing starts in Vancouver on a seasonal basis down 17% in just the last month, in Toronto housing starts in September have dropped 10% when comparing September 2023 with September 2022, Canada's national numbers show an 8% decrease in September 2023 compared to September 2022, and on a provincial level, Ontario and British Columbia continue to be hit hard, and September 2023 saw a 24% drop in Ontarian housing starts, with British Columbia showing a 26% drop from September last year, roughly 4,000 less homes than were begun last year in just Canada's two least affordable provinces; and accordingly, that it recommend that the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities take responsibility for the extent of the failures of the National Housing Strategy, the scale of the housing crisis, and the Liberal record on housing since 2015, and further recommend that the government bring in measures to address the housing crisis including measures similar to the proposals contained in Bill C-356, Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act.”
1618 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:55:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I am looking at some numbers. This goes right to the member's own constituency. I know she does not support the government's policies dealing with housing but there is the 651 Cambridge Avenue project. From what I understand there are going to be 75 units, not to mention the commitment for the housing accelerator fund to provide millions of dollars in Kelowna—Lake Country toward the construction of 950 homes.
The member is exceptionally critical of the government and the government's policies of developing homes. Would she be prepared to be straightforward and honest with her constituents in her comments by saying whether that means she does not support these government-supported initiatives?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:56:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what the results are as to why we are in this housing crisis. The results speak for themselves. People are paying twice as much for rent than they were eight years ago when the government took over. They are paying twice as much for houses. As I mentioned in my intervention, it takes as long right now to save for a down payment as it did to save for one's home. Those are the results of the government. The results speak for themselves.
It is incredibly challenging for people. I talk to residents in my community all the time. They have multi generations moving back in together and adults still living in their parents' homes. It is incredibly challenging for people and those are the results of the government after eight years.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:57:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Conservatives act as though they are the saviours of the housing crisis, but of course they are and were part of the problem that created the housing crisis. They cancelled the co-op housing program in 1992 and severely cut social housing funding. In fact, we just heard the leader of the Conservatives today talk about social housing and co-op housing as though it was a Soviet-style model of delivery of housing.
My question to the member is this. If they really want to actually address the housing crisis like they claim to, why are they not taking on wealthy investors who are jacking up rent, renovicting people, displacing people and rendering them to the streets?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:58:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware of this, but there are rent controls in certain provinces in this country.
The fact of the matter is that people cannot even afford to rent the most simple of places. We have people living in tents. We have people living in RVs in parking lots. The affordability crisis is really affecting people. They cannot even afford food, let alone housing. It is driving people even further into this housing crisis because everything costs more, including the government's tax increases and the inflation that is happening, leading to interest rates that are where they are.
Everything is becoming more expensive, and it is literally driving people into places where they cannot even afford basic necessities. Those are the results of this NDP-Liberal government over the last eight years.
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 3:59:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who also sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
I am trying to understand the motion. This is a committee report on the national housing strategy. We got information directly from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, and the strategy. The report contains some 15 recommendations. Certainly, some observations can be made. Has the national housing strategy worked? If not, why?
Instead of recommitting it to the committee, the motion should say that the recommendations have not gone where they needed to go, namely to the government, so that it can take note of them and deliver results.
We already have another report on financialization. We heard from CMHC again today. I want to try to understand why this report that the committee produced has to be recommitted, through this motion, to committee instead of being approved by the government.
As it stands, I disagree.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, typically, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the issue of the day. We all know that this was not supposed to be the issue of the day. This is the Conservative Party once again playing a political game on the floor of the House of Commons, preventing legislation from passing. The Conservatives do not really have anything to say about the legislation, so instead they bring in a concurrence motion to try to frustrate the government's ability to pass legislation.
That has somewhat been lost so far in the discussion that we witnessed after question period. Housing is, no doubt, a very important issue. I do not question that at all. In fact, when it comes to housing, when I was first elected back in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I was the housing critic along with the party whip at the time. I can say that even prior to that point, I had an active interest in housing and in non-profit housing in particular with the creation of the Weston Housing Co-op, and in working with associations like Blake Gardens and Gilbert Park to a certain extent after I got elected, on the Gilbert Park aspect of it. I had an interest in infill homes and the importance of having governments engaged in dealing with housing issues, from suburban new homes to inner-city housing problems of dilapidated homes that needed to be torn down, to vacant lots that were available and to housing renewal programs to improve the housing stock. Therefore, the issue of housing is not new to me at all. I am very familiar with it and I am very comfortable with respect to the way that the Government of Canada in the last number of years has approached this issue.
Before I get into some of the details of that issue, the reason we are debating once again another concurrence motion has not been lost on me. We all know that there is a finite amount of time here in terms of debate. The Conservatives always cry over there not being enough time for debate when it comes to government legislation. They constantly do that. They will whimper away. They will cry and say they want more debate, that we are limiting debate and bringing in time allocation. The Conservatives do not want to sit late nights; they have demonstrated that. They have shown that they will adjourn debates even before the day is over, but they will whine and cry that there is not enough debate on government bills. At the same time, they will prevent government bills from being debated. Then they will say that today's choice is housing, so they dig in and find the issue of housing and say that here is a super important issue. Yes, it is important, but every issue that the Conservatives bring to the floor through the concurrence debate they will claim is an important one. However, the primary purpose is not to debate the issue at hand; it is to prevent the debate on government bills.
Again, let us look at the amendment that has been brought forward and that the Speaker just finished reading. What is the essence of the amendment? The Conservatives want to bring it back to committee. I wonder if the member who moved the motion even brought it up at the agenda. We are going to have three hours of debate on this motion. Did the Conservative Party even raise the issue of having this debate at the standing committee? I would not be surprised if it did not. Actually, I would think that the members know full well that everything we are going to be debating for three hours here could have been very easily done in the standing committee. However, the problem with doing that is that it would have obligated the Conservatives to come up with some other excuse or to allow the debate on what was supposed to be debated today, which was Bill C-34, the investment Canada bill. The Conservatives talk a lot about foreign interference, but when the rubber hits the ground, they are slipping and sliding all over the place.
At the end of the day, there is a very strong correlation between foreign investment and foreign interference, and what we have seen is the Conservative Party now using the issue of housing as a way to allow the debate to continue. The Conservatives are making it very clear that if we want to see that legislation pass, like many other pieces of legislation, the government will ultimately have to bring in time allocation. We have to wait until we can get support from an opposition party in order to be able to bring in time allocation. Conservatives will tell people outside the chamber that they are concerned about foreign interference, but if anything, all they do is cause a filibuster and put up roadblocks to prevent good legislation from ultimately, in this case, going to committee, where it can actually be debated and talked about in great detail and brought toward amendments. The current government, unlike the previous government, is actually open to amendments if they are good ones, even if they come from the opposition side.
The Conservatives did the same thing in regard to the Ukraine debate and on many pieces of legislation. One would think they would be a little more sensitive in terms of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. If we can pass legislation, I believe it in Canadians' best interest, like a lot of the legislation we are bringing forward. The debate the Conservative Party wants to have today, in terms of housing, could just as easily have been done in a standing committee; in fact, the amendment is suggesting that it be done and brought to a standing committee of the House.
If only we were able to use the government business portion to deal with government bills, maybe we would not have so many whining and crying Tories saying we are bringing in time allocation and not allowing enough time for them to debate government legislation. I would argue they cannot have it both ways. They cannot bring in all of these different filibuster types of motions and then go to Canadians and say that we are not allowing them to debate bills. That is what they are doing, and to make it even more of a challenge, when we as a government say we want to provide more time and sit until midnight, the Conservatives are the first ones who jump up, yelling and screaming, and say no to that. How many times have we seen Conservatives stand up in their place and say, “I move now, seconded by so-and-so, that so-and-so be heard to speak”? It is not so the person can speak; instead of debating, it actually causes the bells to ring. That is what I mean by Tory games. That is really what this is: a reckless Conservative Party of Canada that does not understand the value of being more productive on the floor of the House of Commons. That is really quite unfortunate, because we all collectively pay the price.
I talk about housing because I, as I know my colleagues do, take the issue of housing very seriously. Even at times when the opposition is doing nothing but focusing attention on character assassination, we continue to be focused on the issues that are important and relevant to Canadians, whether it is inflation, interest rates or the cost of housing.
I go back to 1993, when something was felt here in Ottawa at the time, by every political party inside the chamber. Whether they were Reformers, Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats, every political party back then advocated that Ottawa's role in housing should be marginalized. I remember it well because I can remember debating, in the north end of Winnipeg, why it was important that Ottawa play a role in housing in Canada, why we should ensure, within the Constitution, that Canada, as a national government, plays a role.
Whether it was back then, when there was no political will, it seemed, from any political party to recognize the value of a national government's playing a role in housing, or today, my opinion has never changed. When one thinks of housing as an issue, one would probably have to go back to the world wars to find a prime minister who was as keen on developing a housing strategy. In fact, that is what this report is about. The Conservatives want to criticize the national housing strategy. They are saying, in essence, that we should not have one. They are being critical of the money we have invested in the national housing strategy.
I do not know the exact numbers today. If I were to speculate, I know that when I was the housing critic, we had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000-plus non-profit housing units. Those housing units, in places like Gilbert Park, which I have represented for many years and still do at the national level now, provided affordable housing. That is not the only option out there; there are other forms of affordable housing that are important to support. When one thinks of the raw numbers, of a direct grant that goes toward a block of housing units, the federal government spends literally millions, going into the hundreds of millions of dollars every year, supporting non-profit housing from coast to coast to coast. The national housing strategy took that into consideration in terms of providing the assurance of multi-year budgeting potential. It provided the finances to ensure that a large portion of the non-profit housing stock can actually be maintained through capital improvements.
When the Conservatives start criticizing the national housing strategy, they need to factor in the tens of thousands of homes in the regions of Canada that are, in fact, being supported through the strategy, directly and often indirectly also. They want to have that kind of a debate. They want to hear some of the numbers. I would suggest that, at least in part, the motion that was brought forward makes some sense, in the sense that it is a great issue for a standing committee to deal with.
Think in terms of the alternatives to housing that are government-owned and government-operated, either directly or indirectly, through different groups or the municipalities or provinces but supported in good part by federal dollars. Think outside that box. Think of housing co-ops. Before I was elected as a MLA, there was the Weston Residents Housing Co-op. It was a way in which we were able to help revitalize a community and, at the same time, provide affordable housing for many people. I think of Willow Park and Willow Part East. Willow Park East might be the oldest housing co-op in Canada and possibly even in North America. Housing co-ops, I believe, are a wonderful opportunity for people to have joint ownership. There is a huge difference between a housing co-op and, let us say, an apartment block. I always say that in a housing co-op, someone is a resident, not a tenant, because they own. They have collective ownership of the property, so they have a lot more in terms of opportunities. For the first time in years, we now have a government that has been supporting housing co-ops and wants to see the expansion of that area.
What about non-profit groups? One of the most successful non-profits we have in the country today is Habitat for Humanity. In the province of Manitoba, it excels. It has probably put in more infill houses than any government program that I can recall offhand. In the province of Manitoba, it is about 500 brand new homes in communities, whether in Winnipeg North, The Maples, Point Douglas or everywhere in between. It is making these homes available to people who would never have had the opportunity to get homes. The federal government supports Habitat for Humanity because we recognize the important role that non-profit agencies have when it comes to housing.
We have taken a litany of budgetary actions that have provided opportunities for the federal government to play a strong leadership role in housing. The Conservatives say that the housing market is what it is today because of the federal government. I hate to think what it would have been like if Stephen Harper were the prime minister today. There are challenges, but it is wrong to say that it is all about Ottawa and the Government of Canada. I have news: It is not going to be the Government of Canada that resolves the issue, in terms of providing money. The Government of Canada has a strong leadership role to play, something the current Leader of the Opposition and Stephen Harper never provided when they were in government. We are at the table. We are working with municipalities and provinces, developing programs and encouraging the type of builds we need. That is why we have the rental support for new units to be built, anticipating tens of thousands of new units to come on stream over the coming years as a direct result of the federal government's initiative of getting rid of the GST on new builds.
Some provinces are now piggybacking on that particular policy. It is maybe four or five provinces to date. I hope the Province of Manitoba does likewise. It would ensure additional units being built in the future. It is not just Ottawa. In some provinces, the housing crisis is more severe than in others. We feel the pain in all areas. That is why the desire of the government is to try to assist and support local municipalities, not to take a big stick and whomp them over the head, saying that this is what they have to do. It is working with municipalities and working with the provinces. It is recognizing that non-profit groups also have a role to play. I believe it takes a team. The private sector obviously has to play a role; in fact, it will be playing the largest role in terms of overall construction.
The federal government is at the plate in many different ways, whether with the national housing strategy or with implementation through numerous federal budgets, to be there to support Canadians on the important issue of housing. We will continue to be there because we understand that it is an issue Canadians have to plow their way through, knowing that the federal government has their back and that it is doing what it can as a national government to ensure that the issues of affordability, the number of homes and renovations are all being taken into consideration.
2509 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:21:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to that lengthy speech. It was long enough that the member for Kingston and the Islands probably could have put out about three polls on Twitter.
When I listen to the member, I always come back to thinking about the disastrous Trudeau legacy of the seventies and eighties. These guys get a little confused sometimes between the disastrous Liberal legacies, but the legacy of the seventies and eighties led to an economic crisis, a housing crisis and a unity crisis. During the member's speech, he talked about the situation with housing in some provinces being more severe than in other provinces. The other thing that the most severely affected provinces have in common is that none of their residents were given a break on the carbon tax in the recent announcement by the government. It applied to only one part of the country.
After the comments of the Minister of Rural Economic Development over the weekend, I want to know, and my constituents and Canadians want to know, if the member can assure us that housing funding under the Liberal government will not be allocated on the basis of Liberal electoral outcomes.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:25:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member is not incorrect to say that the Conservatives' play is to disrupt this House. They do that all the time. I have been here for eight years, and I have seen them do this consistently. Nothing changes. This is the game they want to play.
I want to ask the member about the housing crisis. The truth, of course, is that part of the problem with the housing crisis is that both Liberal and Conservative governments relied on the market to deliver the kinds of housing people needed. What we know after 30 years is that it does not work. People need the government to invest in social and co-op housing. The Liberals walked away from that in 1993. The Conservatives walked away from the co-op program in 1992.
Will the member call on the government to invest in social and co-op housing like we used to, not what is happening right now under the national housing strategy, which is minuscule in terms of the amount of housing that needs to be developed to address the housing crisis? Will the member commit to that?
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:26:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I will continue to advocate for the benefits of housing co-ops. I personally believe in them. I have had this discussion with many of my colleagues, and so many in this chamber, in particular my Liberal colleagues, are big advocates of housing co-ops.
As the member points out, governments have been lacking when it comes to housing co-ops, but not this government. We have incorporated the promotion of housing co-ops into our budgets, and hopefully will see more of them getting under way. I will continue my advocacy for them.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:27:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the individual who moved this motion, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, has seen a significant number of investments in his riding with regard to affordable housing over the years. I will read the numbers to the House, as I think it is important.
In the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, the national housing co-investment fund helped provide 99 units for a total of $23.3 million. For the on-reserve shelter enhancement program, there were 17 units for $3.7 million. For the rapid housing initiative, there was $2.6 million for seven units. For the SIF and legacy programs, there was $6.7 million to assist with 321 units.
These are just five projects that have been started in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka through this program, yet he is now critical of it, and they have just put forward an amendment to basically wipe the entire report clean of any further investments. This program, which he voted against, has seen significant investments in his riding.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has an explanation as to why the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka would be so against a program that has delivered a lot to his riding.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:29:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague that it is insane how expensive houses are these days. I was in Kelwood going up to the park at a local Legion. It is a community of 150. There was a young mom with a young family who was talking about the cost of housing in a small community like that in rural Manitoba, so I totally get that this is a very important subject.
I have a question for my colleague. To address the cost of housing and heating a home, has he asked the Prime Minister for a carbon tax exemption for home heating like our Atlantic colleagues did?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 4:45:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I too sat through the committee meetings, and the testimony was very consistent across all stakeholder recommendations. We heard from those in the non-profit sector that they needed more support from the national housing strategy. We heard from those in the private sector that they wanted to see more initiatives such as the removal of GST on purpose-built rentals. We also heard from stakeholders who said they wanted more support, contrary to the comments that were made by the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who said today in the House that we should scrap the strategy we have and spend less on the housing file.
I wonder if the member opposite, who also sat through the same committee meetings that I did, can make any sense of those comments, which are contrary to everything we heard from stakeholders at committee.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try my hand at interpretation at this time of the day. All I understood was that there was some question as to whether the national housing strategy was the right measure, and whether it had accomplished its mission after five years.
Personally, I would rather ask the government the following question. There are five years left in this strategy. When we returned to the House of Commons in September, the housing crisis was already bad. The government wanted to respond by introducing Bill C-56, which aims to abolish the GST on the construction of rental housing.
The government is spending $82 billion on the national housing strategy, which includes several programs. That said, a strategy is meant to be adjusted when it is not working. I would have expected the government to ask itself how it intends to resolve this situation or help resolve it over the next five years by supporting Quebec and its municipalities when it comes to social and affordable housing. That is how it is. I do not expect them to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I do expect them to make major adjustments to the strategy so it can achieve its objectives.
213 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
