SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 268 - Dec/14/23

Dec/14/23 6:26:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge rightly identified that it was the Liberal-appointed chair of the billion-dollar green slush fund who not only moved the motion, but also voted for the motion to give herself hundreds of thousands of dollars. She put it into a company and then withdrew a salary for $120,000 from that company, at a time when Canadians are struggling to feed themselves. That is what the minister is defending. That is what the parliamentary secretary is defending. It is indefensible, and we need common-sense solutions such as Conservative Bill C-234.

101 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:26:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what an ironic situation to be standing in the House talking about concurrence in a committee report dealing with strengthening food processing capacity after we just spent an hour of private members' business talking about a Liberal private member's bill that is going to shut down an entire portion of Canada's agricultural economy. It is bizarre to stand here today and talk about food security in the context of the greatest food insecurity time that we have ever had. Since food banks started recording information in 1989, there has never been more demand at our food banks than right now. We have had eight years of the Liberals, now propped up by the NDP, making bad policy, bad law and bad budget after bad policy, bad law and bad budget. We find ourselves in a scenario where inflation, caused by the doubling of our national debt, all previous prime ministers combined, came to a little over $600 billion. For the current Prime Minister, it was $600 billion in just eight years, making the cost of everything go up. The Liberals' proudest moment was when the Prime Minister stood in this House and announced he was going to implement a carbon tax, a tax that we as Conservatives said would be a tax on everything. Here we are. Canadians are choosing between heating their homes and eating. Seniors are moving back in with their children. Children are not even able to move out of their parents' house. Parents are wondering if they are going to have their kids and parents living in their house. There are a lot of people asking themselves those questions right now. The agriculture committee studies food processing. That is part of the entire supply chain, so let us take a look at how we get food here. Liberals would have us believe that Canada cannot produce its own food, that we somehow need to support other countries around the world in order to have food here. That is not true. We are one of, I believe, only five nations in the world that are net food exporters. That means that Canada can make more than enough food for ourselves and can export food around the world. That is what we do with beef, grain, oilseeds, pork and hopefully still horses if there is any sensibility in the room. Imagine the arrogance of a government knowing what people should be able to choose on the shelf. Imagine it being so knowledgeable that it can do people's shopping for them right here in the House of Commons and tell them what they can and cannot have. We see that all the time with the government. It is not just with respect to the food we eat, but the energy we can use for our vehicles and homes, the modes of transportation we can use and the firearms we get to use when we decide to go hunting. A lot more people are hunting these days. Madam Speaker is from a riding with a lot of hunters in it. That is not necessarily because they want to, but out of necessity because of the cost of food. There is a lot of uptake in hunting, which is a good thing. I am a hunter. I like that. This is all premised on the notion that the Liberal government has no trouble berating its own industries that it does not like. It berates our oil and gas sector, even though we have one of the cleanest oil and gas sectors on the planet. It berates our agricultural sector, even though we are one of the most advanced societies relying on technology. We have to be innovative. We only have four or five months of a growing season in the year to grow crops. If we were not innovative, we could not compete with countries that can grow grass 12 months of the year. We would not keep up with them. We need to be innovative with greenhouses. In my riding of Red Deer—Lacombe, we have great greenhouses. Guess what we do to increase the efficiency of food production in a greenhouse. Does anyone have any idea what we might pump into a greenhouse to make plants grow faster and help the crop be more productive? It is carbon dioxide. That is what we put into a greenhouse. What goes into fertilizer? It is natural gas to create urea. We need this so we can use our innovative farming techniques for single pass. When I was a kid growing up on a farm in central Alberta, we used to have things like rod weeders and all kinds of other equipment we would use. We would even contemplate summer fallow, which is leaving the ground empty for an entire growing season just to deal with the weed problem. We do not have to deal with that anymore because we have so much innovation making our land more productive and reducing our input costs. How do we reduce our input costs? It is by using the innovative technologies I just talked about, which all depend on things like natural gas for the creation of fertilizer. However, now that is taxed. We are talking about Bill S-234 right now. It was in the Senate. It was passed by this place so that farmers could have a bit of an easier go when it comes to drying their grain. Some years they can take it off dry; some years they cannot. They do not get to pick and choose. Farmers in my riding are showing me their carbon tax bills: $18,000 a year to dry 90,000 bushels of grain and oilseed. Where are they going to recoup that cost? Are they just going to pass it along to the consumer or the next purchaser? They are already paying more for their fertilizer because there is a carbon tax on that as well, before the inputs even get there. With the shipping of new farm equipment to their farm, like a new truck, tractor, cultivator or harvester, now there is a carbon tax. It is not only on the creation of the machinery but on the shipping of the machinery. Before they even get a kernel of grain or raise a cow, they are already paying the carbon tax on the items that were brought to the farm. Now they go through their growing season and are harvesting, and everything they do is taxed. They get a few little exemptions on farm fuel but it is taxed. Then what happens? They put grain in the truck and take it to wherever the market is. They are marketing it to the grain terminal or taking their livestock to the auction market, wherever that happens to be. There is a carbon tax on that fuel and a carbon tax on that vehicle. Then it gets purchased by a buyer and gets shipped someplace else in the world. There is a carbon tax anytime the stuff moves or changes hands. Hopefully it ends up at a processor, which is what this report is all about. By that time, it has already had a carbon tax applied two or three times directly or indirectly just to get enough grain over to a terminal, where it is sent to a processor. Now that processor is paying a carbon tax on the electricity being used in the building and for the shipment of all the boxes and everything other type of thing they might have. Their entire production line is going to consume energy, which means a carbon tax. Is it any wonder that we have seen the price of food go up? We have not even gotten to the grocery store yet. How do Canadian farmers, shippers, processors and grocers have a chance when they are taxed to bring us the food that the consumer ends up having to pay the bill for? They cannot do it. It is time to axe the tax. We want to help innovation for processors. Let us get out of their way, axe the tax and make it affordable.

1364 words

Alberta

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:36:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Just today I was alerted to something that was really unfortunate with two people in my riding. I found out that two family members of a family that I grew up with had recently passed. On Tuesday, Allen Nordick passed away. May perpetual light shine upon him. Unfortunately, the day following, his mother, Maybelle Nordick, passed away at 93, so there were two deaths in the family within 24 hours. It is very difficult to see a mother and her son both pass away. May perpetual light shine on Mabel Nordick as well. I will be attending the joint funeral on Monday. My deepest condolences go out to the family. To my colleague, if he could change one thing that this Liberal government could do in light of his speech, what would that be?

154 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 6:38:06 p.m.
Watch

I also want to extend my condolences on behalf of myself and this House to your constituents' family. The hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

26 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/14/23 6:38:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, obviously the issue that my colleague brought up is a difficult one, and I send my support and sympathies as well. I thank him for the question. It is really quite simple. The carbon tax is a tax on everything, because energy is what we use to do everything we do in our lives. The entire economy rests upon our ability to have energy. It powers us in everything we do: work, play and our quality of life. When we tax our quality of life, our quality of life goes down, which is what is happening. Our productivity is going down, our affordability is going down, our cost of living is going up and Canadians are struggling. It is time to axe the tax.

126 words

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:39:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe and his hard work on this file in representing large agricultural areas, as I do. Both of us are farm kids and have first-hand experience. We witnessed here all fall the Liberals refusing to give a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers. The Liberals are creating food inflation and they are creating food insecurity. As they bring in more and more of their environmental restrictions—and now we are looking at methane and looking at reductions in fertilizer applications across this country—these restrictions will drive down production significantly, will drive down profitability of our farms and will increase the price of food to consumers. These Liberals would rather import food from other countries that do not have the same regulatory standards and environmental standards that we have here in Canada, plus pay the cost of transporting all of that food to feed Canadians, probably at even a higher cost. That, to me, is ridiculous. Now these guys like to talk about making sure that we are protecting Ukraine. That is something that is very near and dear to my heart as a Ukrainian-Canadian, but these individuals, instead of helping Ukraine by sending it more weapons, are actually allowing detonators to go in land mines that wreak havoc in those fields and are actually killing Ukrainian farmers. My question to the hon. colleague for Red Deer—Lacombe is this: Does he believe these Liberals are undermining food security in Canada and around the world?

264 words

Mr. Blaine Calkins

Dec/14/23 6:40:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely. My colleague for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is exactly right. He knows very well how things work from the farm gate right to the grocery store. It is really sad to see what is transpiring in this place with the accusations from the government about support for Ukraine. If this government were actually truly supporting Ukraine, it would make absolutely certain that no products leaving Canada would ever be used against our friends in Ukraine. We see that with detonators. We have seen that with the turbine. We have seen the humiliating incident right here in this chamber when the government hosted President Zelenskyy and we had the unfortunate incident that led to the resignation of the previous Speaker. Hopefully there will be the resignation of the current one. We will take no lessons from the chaps on the other side. It is time that we actually had a new government in this country to restore our credibility and reputation internationally and to restore some hope to the Canadian public.

174 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise. I am not going to speak at length about the report. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, presented on Wednesday, February 2, 2022, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with instruction that it amend the same by adding to Recommendation 5 of the report a call to the government to discontinue the carbon tax, given that over 100 first nations communities have taken the government to court because it is violating the rights of First Nations with the carbon tax on rural and remote people and the recent request from the Premier of the Northwest Territories, who joins other premiers, for an exemption from the carbon tax”.

159 words

Agriculture

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 6:43:13 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. There being no further members rising, pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and recorded divisions are deemed requested. Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded divisions stand deferred until Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

59 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:45:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the government when it would rein in its inflationary spending and balance the budget to bring down inflation and give Canadian homeowners interest rate relief. The parliamentary secretary took a cheap shot at the Conservative Party leader, but the main meat of his response needs some unpacking. He referred to his government supposedly working with the City of Calgary, and that point needs correcting. In this case, the minister the parliamentary secretary speaks for wrote a threatening letter to the mayor, demanding that city council take a vote on a specific proposal or lose housing accelerator funding. They were not working with the City of Calgary; they were threatening it. It is a classic “my way or the highway” type of move. Sadly, it is one that they have also undertaken with other municipalities. I would like to contrast that approach with the building homes not bureaucracy act, the housing plan that has already been partly tabled in the House of Commons by the Conservative Party's leader. Under this plan, the federal government would tie municipal funding to outcomes, but not by sticking its nose into municipal government's business. Instead, a Conservative government approach would respect municipal decision-making. It would simply tie national government funding to national policy objectives; increasing the national housing supply is a critical policy imperative. The question that I asked remains unanswered. Under the NDP-Liberal government, interest rates have gone through the roof. Even the government's own experts and all kinds of random Liberals have affirmed without any doubt that the government's spending and borrowing are contributing to inflation. Former Liberal finance ministers, such as Bill Morneau and John Manley, have clearly said that the government is losing the battle against inflation because it keeps pouring gasoline on the inflationary fire. Current and former governors of the Bank of Canada have also weighed in with concern about how the government's spending and deficits make inflation worse. The finance minister herself even admitted earlier this year that her government was going to have to rein in its spending to fight inflation. However, she then tabled a fall economic statement with more spending, taxes, borrowing and deficits, which means more inflation and higher interest rates. Inflation has been called the cruellest tax ever. It robs workers of the value of their wages, it robs savers of the value of their savings and it robs seniors of the value of their pensions. Inflation is crushing Canadians and lower-income retirees with higher interest rates. Moreover, higher interest rates threaten mortgagors and threaten to suppress housing construction. They even threaten the entire financial system because of the weight of mortgage asset balances. Canadians cannot afford the homes they already own, in many cases, because they were forced to buy at peak prices that were bid up by a lack of supply. Now their mortgages are maturing at shockingly high rates. Under the government's watch, some were even forced into fixed-payment variable rate mortgages, because at the very peak of prices, qualifying calculations actually made it more advantageous to do so. People were just trying to put a roof over their head, and they had to take on these riskier mortgages just to get into a home. Now they have negatively amortizing mortgages, where the balance owing is increasing. Thus, they are having to either make giant payments of principal or face huge increases on their payments, but they do not have any extra money. People are desperately worried that they are going to lose their homes, and observers worry that the banking system itself is at risk. Therefore, I ask again. When will the government rein in its deficits, reduce its wasteful spending and get inflation under control so interest rates can come down, Canadians can afford to keep a roof over their own head and builders can afford to build?

660 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 6:49:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the challenges we are facing are complex and multi-faceted. There is no simple solution. This is a nationwide issue that can only be solved with close co-operation between partners in every sector and all levels of government. After decades of absence at the housing table, this government has stepped up and assumed a leadership role. To this end, I am happy to remind members what the Government of Canada is doing for Canadians and the solutions we have put forward for Canadians to find homes they can afford and improve communities across the country. On housing, we are taking a practical approach to increase the supply of all types of homes. We have to look at the housing challenge holistically. As I said, this is multi-faceted with a range of factors that requires participation from all concerned. We are talking about shelters, transitional housing, community housing, affordable rental housing and more. Each of these comes with its own unique set of challenges. With that mind, we are attacking it from all angles. To get more homes built, we are working with partners directly or indirectly involved in the housing sector. That includes provinces, indigenous governments, municipalities and private and community sectors. Thanks to various programs under the national housing strategy, many projects have been started in my colleague's city of Calgary. One such example is the Sheriff King Home women's shelter. By working with the Government of Alberta, we were able to double the number of available spaces. Another example is the Templemont Place and Gardens residence, which opened last spring. This 120-unit affordable housing project for seniors provides 50 affordable housing units and 70 supportive housing units, where residents have access to on-site doctors and nurses. This housing complex was made possible thanks to contributions from the national housing co-investment fund, the Canada-Alberta National Housing Strategy Bilateral Agreement and the seed fund program. No doubt, this initiative demonstrates the success that comes through a concentrated approach and this is the approach we are taking to get more homes built more quickly. This government invests to ensure greater equity across the country that is essential to making a difference for all Canadians.

373 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/14/23 6:51:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary still has not answered my question. When are the Liberals going to rein in the spending, rein in their deficits and get inflation under control so that interest rates can come down and Canadians can get on with living their lives and not have to deal with the catastrophic effects of the inflationary and high-interest-rate environment that they have created? People's payments, in some cases, are doubling. It is normal now for a maturing mortgage to add $700, $800 or more a month to people's payments. They cannot afford it. They cannot afford to keep the homes they are in. I did not hear an answer to my question. I heard him tick off a couple of announcements of funding and openings, but that comes amid the need for millions of new housing construction in the years to come. The answer I got is not going to cut it for the needs of Canadian housing and certainly will give no relief to existing Canadian mortgage holders, which is the substance of the question that I had asked.

186 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Dec/14/23 6:52:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have lowest deficit in the G7, we have a AAA credit rating and all the member wants to do is cut. Last week, he and the Conservative leader voted against measures that are creating 86,000 new apartments for Canadians, including over 15,000 deeply affordable homes. They voted against emergency shelters for women and girls. They voted against veterans experiencing homelessness. All the Conservative Party wants to do is cut. Conservatives were absent when they were last in government and they think cutting more will build more houses. They are absolutely wrong. We are in strong financial shape and we are going to invest in Canadians. They are reckless. We have Canadians' backs.

117 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Dec/14/23 6:53:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canadians just found out that the environment minister charged taxpayers $140,000 for his trip to China this year. The minister's trip to China was only two days long. That is a cost of $70,000 a day. The environment minister was just in Dubai for two weeks. How much money did he charge taxpayers for his high-carbon trip to Dubai?

65 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 6:53:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is disappointing when members, and it is their right to do so, change the topic of the question they have. I believe the hon. minister was there for four days. What this underlines, and it has been the bent of the Conservative Party this entire Parliament, is its “let it burn” philosophy for Canada. It is to let the country burn and to deny climate change. That hon. member ran on a price on pollution. He ran on it. Just moments ago, in this very place, he mocked that the government is concerned and that Canadians are concerned about carbon dioxide. He laughed at a joke his hon. colleague told about carbon dioxide as a problem for Canadians. They are climate deniers, as he sees fires and floods in communities just like his across the country. All he will come to do is choose to remove environmental spending and choose to fight against Canadians' fight against an existential threat to our country, an existential threat to the world. They are not serious on climate change. Their questions show, day after day after day, that they are unserious about this. When billions of dollars are racked up for farmers, communities and infrastructure, and the cost of climate change is real, what do they do? They do nothing. They just let it burn. It is disappointing. Conservatives do not care. They are reckless. It is truly unfortunate.

240 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/14/23 6:55:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-234

I would like to make sure that everybody is on the same page because the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned that it was not the right topic. The topic that is before the House is regarding Bill C-234. The question that was asked was: We know why the Prime Minister is blocking the carbon tax carve-out for Canadian farmers. It is because his environment minister has threatened to quit if Bill C-234 passes. The environment minister does not care about Canadian farmers. He is jetting off to Dubai for two weeks. The hon. member's question was relevant to the question that he had brought forward. I just want to make sure that the hon. parliamentary secretary is aware of that. I am not sure if the hon. parliamentary secretary received a different question. The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

146 words

Mr. Dan Mazier

Dec/14/23 6:56:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there we go. The government did not answer my question. I will give him a second crack. My question was simple: How much did the environment minister spend jetting off to Dubai?

34 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Dec/14/23 6:56:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, what this member does not want to say is that he is denying the impacts of climate change, and he will use any opportunity. It is the same with the members of his caucus, to deny, to stick their heads in the sand on the most important thing facing Canadians. It is truly shameful that speaker after speaker for the Conservatives do not wish to address anything meaningful in climate change, when, just two short years ago, that member ran on a price on pollution. Now he is running away from Canadians. It is truly unfortunate. They are reckless.

102 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Dec/14/23 6:57:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the cost of living is past the breaking point for many people in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam and the government's lack of action to build affordable homes is pushing more people to be homeless this winter. Many shelters are at full capacity across the nation and Canadians are unable to find adequate housing solutions in their communities. Sequential Liberal and Conservative governments turned their backs on affordable homes across Canada for 40 years. Some 800,000 affordable homes were lost under the former Conservative government alone and the Liberals did not replace them. In the greater Vancouver area, homelessness just continues to go up under the shadow of luxury condo towers, many used as investment vehicles and Airbnbs. The inequity and injustice of this reality is a result of Liberal and Conservative bad policy decisions. In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, luxury towers continue to reign and those people whose affordable housing has been displaced by the insatiable appetite of luxury condo builders are struggling to find new homes. They simply cannot afford a place to live because of unchecked corporate greed. Market-driven policies that the Liberals and the Conservatives before them started and perpetuated are not working for people. People cannot afford housing. Seniors are feeling the affordability gap more and more. The average 70-year-old, who is dependent on their well-earned government benefit, spends about 78% of their income to rent a one-bedroom apartment in B.C. This leaves them with very little at the end of the month. Many seniors are left to choose which one they can afford: groceries, rent or medications. The same is happening with persons with disabilities and anyone on a fixed income, who simply cannot absorb these enormous rent increases. With increased renovictions driven by corporate profit and greed, my community members are suffering. Not-for-profit organizations are pleading with the federal government for better investments in affordable housing. The government must act and invest in housing solutions that meet people's needs now. Will the Liberals front-load their investments into purpose-built rentals, including more investment in co-op housing and immediately match the B.C. rental protection fund to save affordable housing in the most expensive region of the country?

384 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.)

Dec/14/23 7:00:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for her question and for her concern for the well-being of those who are unable to find an affordable place to live. The Government of Canada shares this concern. Far too many Canadians are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, and those particularly affected are our most vulnerable neighbours. That is why we have urgently addressed this issue. Identifying and implementing effective solutions to Canada's housing crisis is our top priority. We are already making deep investments in affordable housing through the national housing strategy. This $82-billion plan focuses first and foremost on providing housing for our most vulnerable neighbours, such as women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, indigenous people, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, veterans and young adults. The rapid housing initiative, for example, is expected to create more than 15,500 permanent affordable homes across the country. These homes are being rapidly built to address the most urgent needs of those experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Several cities in my colleague's province have already benefited from this funding, including Vancouver, Surrey and Burnaby. The national housing co-investment fund is another program geared to helping the most vulnerable populations. It provides low-cost loans and contributions to non-profit organizations to build affordable housing. It has already committed funding to build close to 40,000 new homes and repair more than 126,000 existing homes. At the same time, our new housing accelerator fund is an incentive for municipalities to make the regulatory changes and planning commitments they need to get more homes built faster. The federal government also recently announced GST exemptions for rental construction and additional financing available through Canada mortgage bonds. All of this will help cut out the red tape and make the math work for our partners across the country so we can quickly get shovels in the ground. We know that increasing the housing supply alone cannot be the only lever we pull, especially when too many of our most vulnerable neighbours are presently experiencing homelessness. It is unacceptable that anyone in Canada has to go without a place to call home, but there is no magic solution to addressing this challenge. It requires all hands on deck to deliver innovative solutions and change how we tackle the crisis. Since its launch in April 2019, Reaching Home, Canada's homelessness strategy, has helped connect over 122,000 people with homelessness prevention supports like rental assistance and mediation, and has helped place almost 70,000 people in stable housing. In the Tri-Cities areas of Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody, Reaching Home is supporting the SHARE Family and Community Services Society. SHARE delivers homelessness prevention and client support services focused on tenant advocacy. This non-profit organization has received $100,000 in funding from Reaching Home from July 2022 through March 2024. Through Reaching Home, we are also supporting The Link, which is a continuum of care for homeless or at-imminent-risk youth from foster care living in Coquitlam and nearby municipalities. Reaching Home is also providing nearly $854,000 in funding to support housing placements, prevention, shelter diversion and client support services. This housing first program ensures youth in great need can enter difficult rental markets and develop essential life skills. I invite my colleague and all members of the House to work with their communities to make the most of national housing strategy programs and other initiatives.

596 words