SoVote

Dec/9/21 5:24:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I support the ban on foreign homebuyers and remain committed to not introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences. This motion is crafted in a way that would allow governments to give up federal land to rich developers essentially for luxury condos. I think the member would agree that is not what we want and that is not what will fix the housing crisis. Would it not be better to ensure that we have public housing, non-market housing or, at the very least, stricter affordability criteria for any development from federal lands? The Conservatives, while they were in power, decreased investments in co-ops and social housing and did not announce any plans to restore or expand the funds stemming from the expiration of operating agreements. Will the member admit that this was a mistake and we need more co-ops, public housing and non-market housing?

158 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Dec/9/21 5:25:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reread paragraph (a) of the motion, which states that the House calls on the government to: (a) review and consolidate all federal real estate and properties in Canada in order to make at least 15% available for residential development; I do not see anything in the motion stating that we will favour one group over another. I think that the motion is quite clear. It says that the federal government should dispose of buildings and land in order to create more housing, and to make housing more accessible to Canadians. I see nothing in this motion saying that we are going to favour one group over another.

113 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Dec/9/21 5:26:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, whose mother is here with us today. When I found out that we would be talking about housing today, the first thing that came to mind was a number since I am an economist. That number was 100,000, which is the number of additional housing units we would need in Canada today for our housing per capita ratio to be the same as it was in 2016. That means that since the arrival to power of the Liberals, who blame everything that is wrong in the world on the Harper government, we have generated a deficit of 100,000 housing units. That is serious. The government blames a lot of things on the pandemic, but the housing crisis existed well before 2016. In 1994, the Liberals under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, in addition to eliminating the deficit on the backs of the provinces, withdrew funding from social housing, which may also happen in Quebec. At that point there was a deficit of 80,000 housing units, which was never filled. The years 1994, 1995 and 1996 were not so long ago when it comes to housing and buildings. Once the foundation for a building is laid, it will last 100, 150, or 200 years. Therefore, the housing crisis existed before the pandemic, and the stage was set for even the slightest shock to raise concerns for our economy, given that there was so much pressure in this sector and that we had a hard time containing it. The shock came in the form of a health crisis. What happened? The health authorities locked down the population and people had to stay home. What did people do? Their preferences and their relationship with space changed. We cannot blame Quebeckers and Canadians for wanting a bigger backyard, a bigger lot or a bigger house. That is how a crisis that was mainly present in our major census metropolitan areas, as shown by the statistics, spread to a first suburb, then a second, then a third, and finally to our farm areas. The result is that, today, it is difficult to find a simple cottage on a recreational lake. It has come to this. We must prepare for the recovery. Foreign students are returning. We want to increase immigration targets. We have problems recruiting workers. We are told and we believe that these immigrants we are welcoming are the future of Quebec and of our economy. However, when we look at housing on a per capita basis, we can see that the Liberal government is prepared to make that future sleep on the street. This is a major problem. Although at the beginning of my speech I showed that things have gotten worse under the Liberals, they are going to tell us that they have tried so very hard and have spent $70 billion on the national housing strategy. Last week I said that I am very fair-minded. Therefore, I checked it out. When we look at the numbers, we realize that the amount is not really $70 billion but rather half of that, because the funding is shared equally between the federal government and the provinces plus other stakeholders. One could then think that there is at least $35 billion left over to help our people, those who are having a hard time accessing housing. However, most of this funding is in the form of loans, not supports or subsidies to those who need it the most. One could then think that at least there is something left, but a closer look at the numbers reveals that 25% of the program funding has not been allocated to date, and that the 25% that has been allocated has not necessarily translated into any bricks being laid. Even worse, only 6.3% of the funding for the rental construction financing initiative has been allocated. In political polling, 6.3% is within the same margin of error as zero. Less than half of the money of the national housing co-investment fund has been allocated. This is a problem. That is better than nothing, but what did we get over three years? Nothing. Quebec wanted to be able to spend and invest that money in accordance with its own model. It wanted the money to be transferred, it wanted things to be easy and fluid so it could help people now while they need help. They went back and forth for three years because Ottawa wanted a cute maple leaf in the corner of each cheque. The government is really focused on being there during announcements. People in Quebec could not even watch those announcements because they did not have a house or a living room where they could tune in. That is what happened. Here is why I will support the motion. I think housing is important, I think we need to talk about it more often and more constructively, and I think there has to be a dialogue. What we are doing today is starting that dialogue. That is why I will support the spirit of the motion. Now, I would like to talk about the Conservatives for a bit. There are some ambiguities in this motion. The Conservatives' definition of inflation, or at least their crusade against “Justinflation”, is characterized by verbal inflation. In homage to the Conservative leader, I might even suggest that they are employing a little verbal “Erinflation”. From the preamble to the motion, it seems as though the Conservatives never wanted to help people during the pandemic. They make it sound like the government took a bunch of Hercules aircraft, landed them across the street at the Bank of Canada, filled them with cash and then gave it to so many people that the price of houses went up. I would remind the House that all parties in this place agreed to help Canadians in a time of crisis in a non-partisan way. Was it done how we wanted and exactly when we wanted? Not necessarily. Were all the amounts right? Not necessarily. Was there the necessary accountability? Perhaps not. Did it go on too long? Did we miss the mark? Maybe, but everyone agreed to it. This suggests that the Conservatives may not be as willing as the Bloc to help those who are most vulnerable. Let us take the example of the federal lands. The Liberals are going to ask me what land we want. We want Mirabel back. That said, when the decision is made to build more housing and to increase the housing supply—because, yes, the supply of housing needs to be increased—it is crucial to begin with those who are struggling the hardest, with those who need it most. Some will say that these housing markets are all interconnected. As an economist, I know this full well. We will hear that when a million-dollar house is built, a million-dollar family moves in, which will free up a smaller house for a less wealthy family. That in turn will free up an even smaller house for another family, and this will eventually free up a three-bedroom apartment for those who need it most. However, it takes a long time for all this housing to trickle down. Meanwhile, people are suffering. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of households in Quebec alone are spending more than 30% of their income on rent. This is unacceptable. Yes, I support this motion, because I think that it is a way for the Conservatives to do some soul-searching, given the enormous damage they did during the Harper years. I support it, and I will say that to the Liberals. Obviously, some action has been taken, but that action has been flawed. In fact, it is much more flawed than they care to admit. This soul-searching is needed, because, with the government dragging its feet, taking too long to negotiate with Quebec, and failing to give Quebeckers their own money back so that there can be a strategy made in Quebec for Quebeckers, too many are left waiting, too many are left suffering.

1379 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/9/21 5:35:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative/Bloc coalition is somewhat demonstrated through this motion. I kind of feel sorry for the Bloc, in that the Conservatives obviously did not share the motion with them before instructing them to support it. No doubt there would have been some changes. We heard from a couple of members of the Bloc that there are flaws in the motion. I am not going to vote for this motion because I believe it is fundamentally flawed. I do not see the positive of misleading Canadians in this particular motion. I do not believe that we should be looking at closing down some of the parklands to provide additional housing. Those are the types of things that are incorporated, along with other misleading information. Does the member not recognize that, yes, the federal government does have a role? I am glad the Bloc has conceded that the federal government does have a role to play in housing, but so do the provincial and municipal governments. We can talk to MLAs and city councillors, working—

177 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/9/21 5:36:37 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, I will have to allow for other questions. The hon. member for Mirabel.

14 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Dec/9/21 5:36:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I knew my colleague was a gentleman, but he surprised me today with his magnanimity. I thank him for his question to which I will respond that of course he has a role to play. I wish that Quebeckers had 100% of their income and that we did not have to beg Ottawa for that money. I am sorry we have to ask for it. Quebec has its own housing priorities. The Quebec government knows its social and community system. Quebec is developing its own strategies, and it is because of the federal government's unwillingness to listen that everything takes far too long with Quebec. The government must transfer the money.

114 words

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Dec/9/21 5:37:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for a very spirited debate. It is just great that we are talking about housing as a whole. Now, I am not sure about Quebec, but in Toronto right now, to start and finish an apartment building is taking about 10 years. That is 10 years with the planning processes, and we are not even talking about the amount of time it takes to talk about it in the House. My question to the member is this: Does it not make sense in this motion that we would be taking the federal buildings that are available now, today, that are up, and talking about their various uses and making them into housing? Does that makes sense?

122 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Dec/9/21 5:38:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. He talked about how long it takes to build a building. As we know, when the government introduced the national housing strategy, we expected it to solve all of the problems in the world in five years, when most of those problems originated under Chrétien in particular and have been around since the nineties, so we need to be patient. We also know that these motions are a way of making proposals to the government, and I think it is quite healthy to take inventory of these properties. The fact that the government does not already have the inventory of these properties at its disposal is worrisome. It is an entirely good thing to take that inventory and then determine what should be done with those properties.

140 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/9/21 5:38:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel. I believe he is an economist. There are not too many economists here. The Conservatives' motion makes no mention of the homeless. My question for my colleague is the following: What does he think is the best way to protect the most vulnerable members of our society?

55 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Dec/9/21 5:39:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois never said that this motion would fix every problem and address all concerns related to housing, in particular for the most vulnerable. I repeat, and I will say it as often as I need to: The Government of Quebec, which is responsible for municipalities, knows its people and its communities the best and is therefore in the best position to develop a strategy. Unfortunately, the money is in Ottawa, which forces us to talk to each other. I would be happy to do so, especially since my Liberal colleague is very kind.

101 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Dec/9/21 5:40:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel kind of gave it away, but I would like to recognize the presence of my mother in the House. It is quite moving to be able to—

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/9/21 5:40:21 p.m.
Watch

Order. The member cannot say who is in the House, even if they are not members. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has the floor again.

29 words

Absence or presence of members

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Dec/9/21 5:40:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize. Instead, I will say that I thank a woman present in the House, who really inspired me, especially with respect to the issue of social housing. My mother was a source of political inspiration for me. When I was young, she participated in the bread and roses march. All these calls to action became part of my young activist DNA, and I salute her. The reality is that families across Quebec and Canada are finding it increasingly difficult to find adequate affordable housing. The demand for housing is high, and the demand for affordable housing is at a crisis level. In Quebec, statistics show that there is a need for 50,000 new social housing units in the next five years to address the current housing crisis. In my region, there is a desperate need for social housing. In 2019, the vacancy rate for housing was only about 1% in certain towns in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. From 2005 to 2013, in towns such as Rouyn‑Noranda, Amos and Val‑d'Or, the vacancy rate ranged from 0.8% to 1%. It gets worse. Sometimes, after a fire, or when a newcomer arrives, homeless families are unfortunately forced to move temporarily into schools. Today, in 2021, the vacancy rate is still hovering around 1%. In Rouyn-Noranda, in my riding, when a decent place to live charging reasonable rent is advertised on social media, it is practically rented in less than 30 minutes. Landlords receive 20 to 30 applications for viewings within the first hour that the unit is advertised. This housing crisis is in part directly related to federal inaction on social housing over the past 20 to 25 years. I believe that every resident in my region deserves safe and affordable housing. That is why the Bloc Québécois supports the Conservative motion, given that action is urgently needed. The current housing situation in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, in Quebec, and in Canada is the result of a deep-rooted problem, mostly caused by the chronic shortage of available housing. This makes it imperative that more housing be built immediately. We know that demand for housing will most likely continue to rise in the coming years. The federal government needs to quickly find innovative ways to encourage the construction of housing, particularly social, community and actually affordable housing. Increased supply will keep a lid on rents for different types of housing. Ultimately, all Quebeckers and Canadians would benefit from lower costs, especially the less well-off. I would now like to say a word about the labour shortage. For the Bloc Québécois, it is clear that the lack of affordable housing is one of the main barriers to attracting and retaining workers in Quebec’s regions, particularly in my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Every day, economic development stakeholders and organizations in various sectors tell us about the seriousness of the housing shortage, which discourages workers from settling in our region for the long term, particularly when some of our businesses are forced to turn down contracts because of a lack of employees. Several municipalities and organizations are working hard to recruit people from outside the region. More and more recruitment campaigns are being organized, but when it comes to actually retaining residents, it is becoming harder for communities to keep them. One of the main reasons for this is the inability to find decent housing. It goes without saying that the recovery and the growth of our communities are also about development and land use. This situation also affects us on a more human level, because several groups in our society, including immigrants and newcomers, do not necessarily have a network of contacts and therefore might struggle to settle here. It also affects seniors with more precarious incomes, young families who cannot find appropriate or large-enough housing, and the less fortunate, who have to put more than 30% of their income towards housing. I would be remiss if I did not mention that, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, in northern Quebec and elsewhere in Quebec, the housing situation is particularly worrisome in our indigenous communities. Housing is a fundamental right, and I believe that the federal government has simply forgotten that. In Pikogan, for example, the community receives funding from the federal government for one and a half houses per year, although, in reality, over 60 houses are actually needed for community housing. In Lac Simon, 90 new houses are needed, while the community is growing in numbers and some households have 15 or even 20 people living in the same home. In those homes, no one ever sleeps. They take three- or four-hour shifts at night, going from the bed to the couch in front of the television. That is not how you create healthy development in a community, given the psychological impact this has. Children in Pikogan and Lac Simon sleep away from their home and community, and stay with friends because there is not enough room. Unfortunately, I dare say this reality is shared by all the indigenous communities in Quebec. The housing crisis has an impact not only on their quality of life, but also on their dignity. Many social problems stem from the lack of space and the overcrowding. According to the statistics, there is a shortfall of 40,000 to 80,000 housing units on the reserves. The federal government knows all that. There is not enough funding to deal with the deteriorating housing stock and the population explosion on the reserves. The government knows all that too. We also have to talk about the everyday reality. I must remind the federal government that the latest report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, entitled “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability in 2021”, indicates that the federal government is not achieving its objective of considerably expanding the affordable housing stock in Canada, even though it invested several billion dollars more in housing. I also want to point out that 84% of Quebeckers consider the lack of affordable housing available for vulnerable populations to be a problem. Statistics Canada reports that 34% of renter households in Quebec spend more than 30% of their income on housing. The federal government has been disengaging from social housing. How did Quebec end up in the midst of the acute housing crisis we are facing today? Negotiations with Quebec surrounding the new national housing strategy dragged on because of the federal government's actions. It took far too long to come to an agreement. The negotiation period lasted three years. In the meantime, no money was disbursed in Quebec, since the funds were frozen until both levels of government found some common ground. Quebec went from being underfunded to having no funding at all for three years. As is usually the case in negotiated agreements, the federal government wanted to impose its conditions. As usual, the federal government's objective was to see its maple leaf logo on the cheques given to Quebeckers. Quebec has been dealing with the federal government's approach for a long time. The federal government holds Quebec taxpayers' money in one hand behind its back, while it dictates conditions and points the finger at Quebec with the other. When I say that the government was holding Quebec taxpayers' money in one hand behind its back, I am referring to disengagement of the federal government, both Liberal and Conservative, from social housing between 1995 and 2016. The government spent more than 20 years withholding a portion of Quebec's money, neglecting needs and diminishing Quebec's rental stock when demand for social housing was just as critical then as it is today. What is more, it is rather maddening to see the Conservatives table a motion that calls on the government to take immediate action to increase the housing supply in Canada given the skyrocketing cost of housing, when they bear a large share of the responsibility for this housing crisis. They are just as responsible as the Liberals for the serious deterioration of the housing situation in Quebec and Canada. The number of housing units subsidized by Stephen Harper's Conservative government drastically decreased between 2006 and 2015. Inaction hurts a lot. The minute the Liberals and Conservatives got comfortable in the seat of power in Ottawa, they disengaged from the social housing file. That had a negative impact on socioeconomic development in Quebec and its regions. In closing, regardless of whether the party in power is Liberal or Conservative, I would just like to remind my colleagues that they are in the seat of power. The Bloc Québécois welcomes the Canada–Quebec Housing Agreement signed on October 6, 2020, for $3.7 billion over 10 years, and it supports the Conservative Party's motion, but the Liberals' decision to delay negotiations in order to impose their conditions on Quebec is bad for Quebeckers. The Conservatives' attempt to balance the budget by further impoverishing the most disadvantaged Quebeckers is bad for Quebeckers. For more than 15 years now, we have only been making up for lost time, and the crisis is getting worse.

1549 words

All Topics

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Dec/9/21 5:50:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the proposal is 15% of those 37,000 buildings. That is roughly equivalent to 5,500 buildings, if we look at it that way. Of course, they would not all be in the same area, but that is roughly what we are talking about. We are not saying the federal government should just give them away. It could sell these buildings and potentially raise hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, which it could leverage into a forward-looking new housing policy. Would my hon. friend not agree that it would be a win-win in this regard?

101 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Dec/9/21 5:51:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I obviously agree. In that sense, I support the motion. However, we will have to take it further. At the time of colonization, and this was a defining moment in Abitibi, there was what we call the “plan Vautrin”. I am not saying that the federal government has to do this, but at some point, it has to give it some thought. We have to drastically speed up housing construction. If we want to lower inflation and lower prices, then we need to build more houses, invest in our domestic market. We are currently going through a softwood lumber crisis with the Americans. Can we take advantage of that and invest in the secondary and tertiary processing of our wood here at home? We would be adding value so we could sell it more directly to the Americans duty-free, and at the same time we could develop our economy and ensure that the wood produced in Abitibi-Témiscamingue is used for building homes in the region and elsewhere. Why not have a Quebec version of IKEA near La Sarre? How amazing would that be?

191 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Dec/9/21 5:51:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, part of the problem is that members do not necessarily know. The example just given is happening today. Civil servants are already looking at buildings with the idea of conversion. In fact the member who asked the question will know about Kapyong Barracks, former federal land now being converted to indigenous-led housing. This motion is fundamentally flawed. There is all sorts of misinformation and the numbers just do not add up, yet the Bloc is cozy with the Conservatives and is supporting it blindly. Would the member not rather support a motion that provides for co-op housing and other progressive measures, some of which the member himself referred to? Why not have that in a housing motion, a motion that calls upon the federal government to work with other stakeholders to make it happen? I wonder if the member would prefer a motion of that nature, as opposed to what he is obligated to vote in favour of today?

163 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Dec/9/21 5:52:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in answer to my colleague from Winnipeg North, what I would have liked to vote in favour of would be a throne speech that made access to social and affordable housing a priority. The government has a responsibility to take action on that file. The Bloc Québécois's approach is constructive. We put forward proposals, such as allocating 1% of the government's annual revenue to housing construction from now on. Knowing that there is money available to build that housing could send a message to the housing construction industry. That is one potential solution. The national housing strategy could also include an acquisition fund that would enable co-operatives and non-profits to acquire housing unit buildings so as to protect that housing stock from speculation and ensure it remains truly affordable. Those are two solutions that I hope the government will implement, and I would be very happy to support them.

159 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Dec/9/21 5:53:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who, like my colleague from Mirabel, gave an eloquent speech. My Conservative colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable referred to the city of Granby, which is in my riding of Shefford. We do have a social housing problem, with one of the lowest vacancy rates in Quebec. There is a desperate need. Granby knows what to do. Ottawa just needs to transfer the money to Quebec and then to the municipalities. We can take care of social housing. I have been listening to the Liberals and the Conservatives arguing today when they have been cutting funding for years. When I took part in a debate on social housing and homelessness in the Eastern Townships during the election campaign, there was no one there from the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party to offer up any ideas. That is what I find particularly insulting. I was proud to be there to offer ideas for the Eastern Townships. I would have liked to see my Conservative and Liberal colleagues there.

183 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire

Dec/9/21 5:54:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her eloquence. This shows how important it is to take action on this issue. It is truly appalling that the last strategy has sat on a shelf for three years. Of course, no one could have foreseen the COVID-19 crisis or the skyrocketing prices, especially for basic building materials. However, the government bears some responsibility in this. I will not go so far as to say that people have blood on their hands, because I do not want to be overly dramatic, but if we had not ignored the problem for so many years, perhaps more people would have a home and a roof over their heads. It is a matter of dignity.

123 words

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Dec/9/21 5:55:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to debate this very serious topic. I will be splitting my time with the member for Bay of Quinte. I am very proud to say that. I suspect every member of this place knows of the housing affordability crisis many Canadians are facing. We all know it, and we certainly know the Prime Minister knows of this. How do we know this? Let us go back to September 9, 2015. On that day, the Liberal Party of Canada released a statement. The headline said, “[The member for Papineau] promises affordable housing for Canadians”. The article went onto say, “We have a plan to make housing more affordable for those who need it the most”. Where is that plan? That was back in 2015. Today, we know that there is no plan. Those were just the usual “say anything” promises from the Prime Minister, who never once himself has faced an affordable housing crisis. Worse, in 2017, the Prime Minister actually raided the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the amount of $4 billion. That money came from CMHC premiums that first-time homebuyers had paid. That money was meant for CMHC to help more first-time homebuyers. Instead, the Prime Minister raided that money for general revenue, which did not help any first-time homebuyers. In 2019, with an election fast approaching, and realizing he had gotten nowhere delivering on the affordable housing that he had promised in the 2015 election, the Prime Minister made another announcement. The first-time home buyer incentive program that the Prime Minister promised would “help 100,000 Canadian families buy their first home”. In 2020, after the election, we learned that only 3,252 applications were made to CMHC and, of those, 2,730 were accepted. This program was not just a failure. It was a total disaster, but wait, there is more. In 2019, the Prime Minister also promised he would take on foreign buyers driving up housing costs, a promise he made right before the election. It is now 2021, and soon to be 2022. I ask members of the House, do we have any measure from the Liberal government to take on foreign buyers that are driving up housing costs? No, we have zero. It is just another broken promise from this “say anything” Prime Minister. Of course, we are not done yet. In the last Parliament, we had another motion come before this place on affordable housing. That motion called on the government to, “examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market”. That is not only a completely reasonable motion, but something that the Prime Minister himself promised Canadians he would do in 2019. Guess what happened? Do we even need to guess? Despite all the opposition parties voting for that motion, the Prime Minister voted against it. Of course, he whipped up his whole caucus to vote against it as well. Let us think about this for a moment. This is a Prime Minister who promised to take action on foreign buyers driving up housing costs, and then, when he had the chance to vote for what he had promised Canadians he would do, he turned around and voted against it. It is literally unconscionable. It is this type of thing that creates cynicism and distrust from everyday Canadians about what goes on here. These are concerns, by the way, that this Prime Minister also professed to care about. Of course, it did not just end there. During this most recent election, an election only called by the Prime Minister because he believed he could win a majority government, he had the gall to say, “Houses shouldn’t sit empty when so many Canadians are trying to buy a home. So, we’re going to ban foreign ownership in Canada for the next two years”. Seriously, this is the Prime Minister who, in the 2019 election, promised to take action against foreign buyers. He then, when presented with an affordable housing motion that would allow him to honour the very promise to Canadians that he made, he turned around and voted against his own promise. In yet another election, just three months after voting against taking action on foreign owners, he promised once again that he would ban foreign ownership in Canada for the next two years. To recap, he made a promise, broke that promise, made the promise again, voted against that promise and then, finally made the promise yet another time. Who does that? No one who is serious about taking action on affordable action would do that. This is six years of demonstrated inaction, failure, broken promises, blatant hypocrisy and total failure. This Prime Minister is the Groundhog Day of failure when it comes to broken promises on affordable housing. Here we are again, debating yet another motion on affordable housing because, of course, this Liberal government has made zero progress on affordable housing. This motion is very reasonable, as was the last one, yet the Liberal government voted it down. The motion, among other measures, proposes to ban foreign investors from purchasing Canadian real estate. Not only did the Prime Minister promise to do this in the 2021 election, but he also promised it again during the 2019 election. Will the government vote for this motion, or oppose it like the government did the last time? This motion also proposes that the government commit to never introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of a primary residence. Once again, this is something the Prime Minister has already promised he would never do, but he also promised that he would never prorogue Parliament. We also know that this Prime Minister really does not care a lot about honouring his promises. However, we can hope this time that the Prime Minister will, for once, vote for a motion that would allow him to keep his word to Canadians. We also know the motion proposes to increase the housing supply in Canada, which this Prime Minister has promised repeatedly throughout his time in government. Ultimately this motion is responsible and reasonable. That is to say, I am not quite certain that this Prime Minister is actually serious about any of his promises or commitments to affordable housing after reviewing the case that I have made, mostly because it is hard to believe a Prime Minister who promised Canadians so much but has delivered so little. I am not quite certain how people could think he would actually be serious about his commitment to affordable housing. We know that this Prime Minister was serious about legalizing cannabis. He got that done, and he got it done in his first term. However, on affordable housing there is nothing but broken promises. In conclusion, I will be voting in support of this motion. What is there to disagree with? We have some members are trying to make much of our suggestion to review and utilize existing federal buildings of the 37,000 that currently exist that the federal government has in its inventory, many of them in urban centres, such as Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, and Gatineau. There is so much there, and just 15% of that could be utilized. That is what we are talking about, not the outrageous claims by the member for Winnipeg North or by the member for Kingston and the Islands. Many of the proposed measures are things this Prime Minister promised he would do, some several times in fact. Affordable housing is important and in my riding, communities like Merritt and Princeton, which have lost housing to devastating floods, are going to need affordable housing like never before. Otherwise, there are some people who will have nothing to come back to. Let us keep in mind that Merritt and Princeton, for many, were more affordable than communities like Vancouver or Surrey. We need to help them rebuild. We need to help this whole country be able to build up and give people a place to call home.

1383 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 14