SoVote

Dec/9/21 1:05:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my closing comments, I spoke of this. If members generally believe what they are saying, one of the most important things they can do is talk to their provincial counterparts, city councillors, mayors, rural reeves and so forth. If we allocate the money and some of that money is tied to provincial and municipal participation and prioritization, that is partnerships. I suspect that not all of the money will be spent, but at least, for the first time in generations, we have a Prime Minister and a federal government saying we have a role to play. We are going to play that important role in dealing with housing in all regions of Canada.

116 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Dec/9/21 1:06:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member waxed eloquently about how his government was doing such a great job in addressing the housing crisis. I wonder if the member knows that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, just prior to the election, indicated that under the Liberals' watch Canada lost over 180,000 units of social housing because the federal government did not provide the necessary subsidies or renew their operating agreements in time to save those units. We are losing more units than we actually are creating to ensure that people without houses have access to safe, secure, affordable housing. Does the member even realize that?

102 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/9/21 1:07:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing I realized early in politics is that statistics can be easily manipulated. The member is trying to leave the impression that 150 or a thousand or so housing units that were being subsidized are no longer being subsidized. I would have to look into that a little more. Maybe she can provide that information for me. I would be more than happy to take a look at it. One only needs to take a look at the national housing strategy. Never before, in the history of Canada, has such a dollar commitment been seen—

99 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/9/21 1:07:41 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

6 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Dec/9/21 1:07:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the topic of the national housing strategy, in 2019, the PBO identified that the same strategy reduced the amount of funding for those in core housing need. I heard the member speak about 1993 in his speech. I am curious if he would like to share more about the need to invest in building new co-op housing. I heard him talk about supporting co-ops. Could the member reflect on the fact that he is in government and is in a position where he could influence the need to build new co-op housing?

98 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/9/21 1:08:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when I was with the Weston Village Residents’ Association, one of the things we did was establish the Weston residents co-op. Very early after leaving the military, I understood and appreciated the true value of housing co-ops. Shortly after coming to the government benches, we provided the assurances to many co-ops in Canada in regard to the mortgage issue that would have caused a great deal of relief for the future of co-ops. Many members within the Liberal caucus are very strong advocates for housing co-ops, because it is an excellent form of housing. We need to expand upon it.

108 words

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Dec/9/21 1:09:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion calls on the government to look at freeing up 15% of federal real estate. The member opposite keeps talking about parks. We are not referring to parks in our country, which all Canadians treasure and want to protect. We are talking about real estate like the federal government building at Front and Bay Street in downtown Toronto. It is a five-story building right next to Union Station, some of the most prime real estate in the country. It is across from the Royal Bank towers, which are 41 stories high. If that building was repurposed and redeveloped to allow for a condo to be built of some 40 or 50 stories, it would create additional supply in one of Canada's hottest real estate markets. That is the kind of real estate we are talking about in our motion and not our national park system.

150 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/9/21 1:10:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am sensing some writer remorse over on the other side. If you do not like it and you want to keep the parks open, then my suggestion to you is to delete paragraph (a). While you are deleting paragraph (a), please—

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/9/21 1:10:17 p.m.
Watch

I will remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that I did not write anything.

13 words

Members' remarks

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/9/21 1:10:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I should know better. My advice for the Conservative opposition members would be to delete paragraph (a) and then they do not have to worry about taking away parks from Canadians. While they are doing that, please delete paragraph (c) as well, because paragraph (c) says “commit to never introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences.” That is just a silly thing to say, because we have been saying that for a long time.

82 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/9/21 1:10:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola is curious about why we are talking about 41 million hectares of land, he should really go back and pay closer attention to the speech given by the member for Edmonton Riverbend. He is the one who started with this number earlier today. I will go back to another comment from the member for Edmonton Riverbend. He accused me, in my previous role as a municipal politician, for not building enough affordable housing, as if to say it should have been the responsibility of city councils across the country. Here is the interesting thing: When I was on city council, the Ontario provincial government was investing in affordable housing and housing more generally in Kingston and throughout the province. Who was not? Stephen Harper. The member has been around for a while. Could he reflect on Stephen Harper's legacy as it relates to affordable housing?

158 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/9/21 1:11:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is one of the reasons I was surprised to see the motion. I sat in opposition when Stephen Harper virtually ignored the housing issue. In my comments, I made reference to the fact that all levels of government have an important role to play when it comes to housing in Canada. That is why I am very proud of the fact that for the first time in generations, we have a Prime Minister and a national government that recognizes that importance and has not only put the money on the table, but is working diligently with organizations and different levels of government to improve our housing stock and supply.

112 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Dec/9/21 1:12:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carleton. I am pleased to rise in debate today to talk about today's opposition motion. Prior to 2015, I was in the mortgage brokerage industry. I spent 21 years in the residential mortgage brokerage business, so access to housing, home ownership and mortgage credit are issues that have been dear to me for many years and are also dear to my constituents. There is clearly a crisis in affordable housing in Canada, and in affordability generally in Canada. The average home price is now a staggering $717,000. Even if we subtract Vancouver and Toronto, the average is still $561,000 across Canada. People have generally thought for a long time this is a peculiarity to two markets, maybe even especially Vancouver, but it is no longer the case. Affordability is a crisis across Canada. The average weekly wage is just over $1,000, so if the average worker saved 10% of their wages, it would take them almost 10 years just to save enough for the minimum down payment on the average house in Canada. Even that would be futile, though, because at that income level they would not come even close to qualifying for the nearly $700,000 in mortgage debt they would need to take on to buy this average house with this average weekly wage. Generations of Canadians have achieved a degree of financial security and independence through home ownership by buying a home probably around the time of family formation and then paying it off over a generation. Today's young people have simply given up on that dream. As with all questions of people's unlimited wants and needs, this really is a question of supply and demand. Canada's increasing population has always fuelled demand for housing, but since this pandemic, Canadian interest rates have been artificially suppressed through quantitative easing, wherein the Bank of Canada buys the Canadian government's debt in order to facilitate the staggering national deficits triggering inflation. This inflation is nowhere more obvious than in our housing market, where we have seen an extraordinary increase in the price of real estate amid an economic contraction. Let us think about that. During a once-in-a-lifetime economic contraction, housing prices actually went up. During a crisis where there is a massive collapse in economic activity, real estate has gone up. The effect of interest rates being artificially suppressed has clearly added to the demand for housing while doing nothing to address supply. What about housing supply? A recent report says that Canada lacks 1.8 million homes; that is the deficit in housing supply. Developers have complained about delays in bringing new land under development. Regulation and red tape from all three levels of government cause delay and uncertainty that restrict development. These issues are not new, and we were approaching crisis levels long before COVID. The government now takes enormous credit for its national housing strategy, which includes its signature program first announced just before the 2019 election: the first-time homebuyer incentive. I want to talk about this program, because as recently as during these past two weeks, the beginning of this Parliament, the Prime Minister has cited this program in question period in response to questions from the opposition about inflation and housing affordability. This program was designed to help first-time homebuyers struggling to access mortgage credit under the government's so-called stress test. The stress test was actually put in the first place to try to cool the housing market by restricting access to mortgages. When the government realized the people who were being punished the most by the stress test were first-time buyers in real estate markets other than Vancouver and Toronto, it announced this program and called it “transformational”, claiming 100,000 Canadian families would achieve the dream of home ownership through the program. Under this program, a would-be homebuyer must be an absolute top-tier borrower in terms of credit eligibility, employment and whatnot. They would had to have saved 5% down from their own resources, and they may apply to have the government supply another 5%, which would have the effect of very slightly reducing the amount that they need to borrow from the bank and therefore slightly reduce their monthly payment. The borrower can repay the government later, either when they sell the home or by paying out and discharging the government's interest in the property based on a future appraised value. This was the government's 2019 solution for access to home ownership. This solution is to offer something to people who would have qualified anyway and would have had access to mortgage credit. By giving them the chance to have the government be an equity partner with them in their own home, when the homeowner eventually sells the property, the government gets half of the profit, but if the property goes down in value, the taxpayer shares in the loss. This was the Liberals' solution to access home ownership before the 2019 election. They are still talking about it now as if this is somehow part of their solution to the current crisis that we are in. This program was launched just before the election, and it is now entering its third year. As of July, only 9,000 Canadians had accessed this program; this “transformational” program, they claimed. Last night, during committee of the whole, I asked the Associate Minister of Finance for an up-to-date figure, because that 9,000 figure was from July. He had several, very capable Finance Department officials around the table, but he chose to ignore that question, and so the July number is the most up to date one we have. However, there is no question that this program has been a complete failure. It has not really addressed anything. It is hardly “transformational”. The problem of affordability and home ownership being out of reach for so many Canadians has gotten much worse since this program was announced. Today, Conservatives are proposing meaningful solutions that will actually address some of the limitations on housing supply while assuring existing homeowners and prospective homeowners that owning a principal residence, we believe and the House affirms, is an important foundation for stable families and communities, and that the government will not tax the primary residences upon sale. The Conservatives are proposing that the federal government review and consolidate federal real estate properties and make 15% available for residential development. We heard today that the federal government owns tens of thousands of buildings. These buildings are in various states of repair or disrepair, with wildly varying degrees of functionality or obsolescence. Many of these buildings may not be worthwhile and may not be in the public interest for the Crown to continue to hold them. Commercial buildings have a life cycle, and the highest and best use for land varies over time. We ask the government to take a serious look at whether it is in the public interest to continue to own many of these properties. With large amounts of land and thousands of buildings, surely there are some that the federal government can use to add to the supply of housing to do something to arrest this out-of-control, continuing inflation in real estate. Another factor limiting the supply of homes is the existence of unoccupied homes in Canada. Conservatives are proposing to prevent foreign investors from parking their money in Canada as a place to sit money in a vacant property. For many years now, it has been widely known that Canada's real estate market has been a prime destination for wealthy foreigners to, at best, take advantage of Canada's relative stability and rule of law as a hedge on their foreign wealth or, at worst, use as a haven for money laundering among the world's kleptocrats. It is time for meaningful action. No foreign national should be permitted to buy a home in Canada just to have it sit vacant while Canadian families give up the dream of ownership. To conclude, I will add that the Liberals have sent out mixed signals on the issue of taxing capital gains. In a recent interview with a former CEO of CMHC, he talked about and affirmed his support for such a tax. We know that Adam Vaughan, who was this government's principal spokesman on housing issues, favoured such a tax. We also know that this government will eventually have to reckon with the debt and deficits that have accumulated, and were accumulating long before the COVID crisis. Its instincts will always be to pass on these costs in new taxes.

1468 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/9/21 1:22:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to see how this day is going. We started off with Conservatives talking about 41 million hectares of land in the first few speeches and now, suddenly, since holes have been blown into that argument, somebody back there is scratching out “41 million hectares” in the speeches and writing “thousands of government buildings that exist”. We have heard it already said in this House, and the member put forward what I think is a good idea, that we should declare surplus land available for various purposes, but it already exists. As we heard the parliamentary secretary say earlier, it already exists in the form of a land bank through the federal lands initiative. Can the member comment on why Conservative speeches in the House have suddenly adopted this tone of making thousands of buildings available when this already exists?

148 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/9/21 1:23:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is the member asserting that the Liberals are successfully managing, as I think I heard in the speech by the member for Edmonton Riverbend, 37,000 buildings, that they have succeeded in ensuring that buildings that have reached the end of their life cycle, that are no longer functional for their intended purposes, meet the best use of land and that they are succeeding in transitioning these lands for private development? Is that his assertion? I would suggest that he vote in favour of this motion and commit to 15%.

92 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Dec/9/21 1:24:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the motion itself does not mention social housing, but it implies that the ultimate objective is to increase the number of available housing units, which are currently lacking. Could my colleague clarify whether the official opposition's motion includes social housing?

43 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/9/21 1:24:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when a motion is put forward, it is always tough when we talk about all the things it could have said in addition to the things that it actually says. The member is correct in terms of drawing attention to many of the deficiencies of the government on housing. This motion and my remarks on this motion primarily address the failure of supply and the role that the federal government can play in increasing the supply of real estate available for development and for sale for Canadians to buy.

91 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

Dec/9/21 1:25:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague said he had a background in real estate. The Conservatives refused to accept the NDP amendment to this motion that specifically asked for non-market housing, for affordable housing. As an example, another Conservative just brought up an example of a building we could use in downtown Toronto, right across from Union Station. I am wondering if the member could opine on what a condo in such a building would cost.

75 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Dec/9/21 1:26:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a new development in that particular location would add to the overall supply and put a damper on the endless increase in demand. The condo building that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills spoke about would add to the supply throughout the market and would have a positive effect on affordability. This is the problem. Demand is being fuelled in part by the government's deficits, which are being facilitated through quantitative easing. We need to get past that. We need to increase supply and quit pouring gasoline on demand.

93 words

Mr. Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, CPC)

Dec/9/21 1:27:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I often watch House proceedings on TV or come into the chamber and I feel sorry for the member for Kingston and the Islands. Today again he tied himself directly to the Kathleen Wynne government. I would ask the Prime Minister to please throw him a bone and help him. He is sitting on the backbenches and continues to heckle. What I want to address is something that the member for Winnipeg North mentioned about the motion, which was to remove clause (c), the piece on a capital gains tax. I have not heard the member for Vancouver Granville speak yet today. I wonder what he thinks of that.

111 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 14