SoVote

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/2/23 3:59:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I pledge our wholehearted support for our colleague and his family, who are currently going through a very difficult situation. I believe that all members of the House must support our colleague. The Bloc Québécois will be doing so. I believe that is what each and every one of us would want to see if we were in his position. He can count on our support. We will be there to debate with him. We must get to the bottom of this.

98 words

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

May/2/23 3:59:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to say just a few words, not many. In case Canadians watching this do not know the quality and the integrity of the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills, I want to attest to it here in a non-partisan fashion. This is an exemplary member of Parliament. It is an outrage that any foreign government would target him and his family. I have had the honour of serving here for exactly 12 years today from when I was elected; since then, I have known no finer parliamentarian than the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. For any member to be treated in this way is offensive. Partisanship obviously happens here, but in a non-partisan way, I want to attest to the integrity, character and extraordinary ethical framework of that member and ask that his concerns be addressed with diligence.

148 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

May/2/23 4:01:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is great to get back to what we are talking about today, which, of course, is the opposition day motion. I am going to take a moment to recognize Beatrice Weaver. Beatrice lives in Elmsdale, Nova Scotia, and this past weekend, she turned 109 years old. I had the opportunity to visit Beatrice. While recognizing and celebrating her birthday, I promised her that I would make sure her name and her accomplishment of reaching 109 are in Hansard forever. She is still spry. I am going to have this clip recorded and make sure she and her family can see it. Congratulations to Beatrice. I hear some colleagues clapping. To go back to the matter before us right now, the opposition day motion, I actually agree with provision (b) in the fact that any time we can align all three governments with regard to investment and line this up with residential development, that makes a lot of smart public policy sense. I was surprised to see the motion include these words: “so that young and middle-class people don't need to use cars”. I know the Conservatives have been against the government's effort to help renew the Canadian auto sector. The leader of the official opposition spoke against the partnership with Volkswagen to create 3,000 jobs in St. Thomas. However, I was surprised they did not say something along the lines of the following: “so that individuals can more easily access public transit”. I thought that the fact that they talked about not using cars was a little off brand for the official opposition, and I was quite surprised to see it. I want to make sure that it is there. I also agree with provision (c); in principle, there is merit in being able to use federal resources, in terms of surplus lands. I would note that any time the government can create a more efficient process to deem federal lands surplus, where appropriate, it makes a lot of public policy sense. The lands could then be used for the type of purpose the motion talks about, which is affordable housing. As I have said from the outset, for the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for my remarks before question period, there are merits in this motion that are, frankly, good public policy. There are other areas where I think there are real, considerable gaps. One of these is how to constitute what a reasonable delay is and whether we should be punishing Canadians who live in municipalities that, according to the official opposition, are not necessarily meeting the outcomes that they are arbitrarily putting in place. I want to talk about one element that was not included in the motion, and that is skilled trades and access to labour. I have before me a CTV article from Talisman Gate, a housing project in the Gravenhurst area in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, which is that of the shadow minister for the Conservative Party. There is no mention whatsoever about access to labour. Developers talk about the challenge they have, which is that they are finding it more and more difficult to find the people who are able to build the housing. I can appreciate the hon. member raising this concern around how we can expedite processes. I have some legitimate concerns about the simplification and how they framed this in the opposition day motion. It does not talk about having the men and women to build the houses. This particular project in Gravenhurst has been delayed by over a year because the developer was struggling to find the available labour. Why would the member not have included that? That is a really important point that could have helped round out this dynamic. I will summarize my remarks by saying that there are elements within this opposition day motion that have merit. I thank the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, because I think he is better than others at public policy framing in terms of what he can accomplish. I said earlier in my remarks that it is too bad he did not win the leadership. I think the opposition party would have been in better hands, although this is not to create grenades on that side. However, there are some real issues, particularly around what constitutes a reasonable delay and how we would go about even establishing rewarding municipalities that are doing good work on developing and building housing. There are not a whole lot of answers there. There are a lot of problems identified and simplistic solutions, but there is not a whole lot of nuanced public policy that is going to solve the issue.

795 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC)

May/2/23 4:06:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was not planning on asking a question, but I will tell the member how the town of Gravenhurst is pronounced. Many times in this House I have talked about the importance of the federal immigration system working directly with the provinces to make sure we are attracting the right skills to build the homes Canadians need. I wonder if he can speak to that. Are we actually doing enough to attract skilled trades to this country?

79 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/2/23 4:06:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the good people of the Gravenhurst community in the member opposite's riding. The point remains that I wish that was something the party opposite had put in the motion today. The Minister of Immigration is developing skilled pathways that are specific to regional outcomes, whereby the provinces are able to identify gaps in particular types of labour positions. They can help identify ways we can create skilled pathways for immigrants who might want to come here and bring their trades and the opportunities to build the housing the member talks about. Also, the government is putting a lot of investment in working with provinces, institutions, universities and the skilled trades to get the folks who have the skills to build the houses we need.

130 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/2/23 4:07:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone that the Quebec government wants full powers over immigration. Part of the housing crisis can be attributed to the fact that the construction of new housing has not kept up with population growth. Can my colleague not face the facts and recognize that it would be more efficient and more productive to give Quebec full control over its immigration and, at the same time, that it makes sense to transfer the money to Quebec so that it can plan its supply of new housing for the long term, taking immigration into account, if only to ensure that the housing crisis does not get worse? Since 2016, we should have had 100,000 more new homes than we do now. Does my colleague not realize that the Liberal national housing strategy is a complete failure and that there are human consequences to that?

152 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/2/23 4:08:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, there are already significant devolved and delegated powers for the Government of Quebec in relation to selecting the immigrants who come to Quebec. Our government has been very clear regarding our desire to increase, on the federal side, the amount of immigration that is francophone-based. We know that is extremely important from a linguistic perspective, not only across the country but indeed in Quebec as well. Therefore, I think there is already a lot of devolved power going to the Legault government, the Quebec government, to help it choose. We are working on a regional basis as well to make that happen. I think there are a lot of good existing programs. If the member has concerns about the immigration pathways in Quebec, he should raise that with the Quebec government, which has significant power to choose the immigrants in question.

148 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/2/23 4:09:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, part of the immigration problem is that the government has decided to continue to use temporary foreign workers to address our skilled labour shortage, including in the construction sector. What the government should do is regularize people so they have the status to come to Canada, and ensure that those who are already in Canada have full status. Would the member support the regularization of those without status or those with temporary status who are already in Canada so they can fully contribute to every aspect of Canada's development?

92 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/2/23 4:10:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad my remarks at the end of the intervention have bled into a really important conversation about immigration. Of course, I will remind listeners at home that this is about housing, but I agree that we have to help folks who want to come to Canada to make a difference. My view, given my local experience in Kings—Hants, where we welcome almost 2,000 seasonal agriculture workers, is perhaps a bit different from the member opposite's. It is not that I do not support long-term access to pathways for citizenship in this country. I absolutely do. However, if we talk to some of the workers, they do not want to come to Canada and become full-time citizens. They find that the opportunity—

132 words

Mr. Kody Blois

May/2/23 4:10:10 p.m.
Watch

—to contribute to their family at home is one of the best foreign development programs. The member opposite can try to scream me down in the House, but if she wants to hear my answer, it is simply, yes, absolutely we should regularize the opportunity for folks who want to come to Canada so they can. For those who do not want to, let us make sure there are protections in place to allow their valuable contributions to our country and the ability for them to help support their families at home.

93 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

May/2/23 4:10:10 p.m.
Watch

Many of them do because they don't have a pathway.

11 words

Pathway
Many

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

May/2/23 4:11:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this venerable House to speak on behalf of my residents of the riding I am very proud to represent, which is Davenport, and to speak to the Conservative opposition day motion on inflation and housing. My remarks are going to cover three key areas. The first is the issue of inflation and housing and how it is impacting Davenport residents. The second is what our federal government is doing. The third will be the problems that I see with some of the key statements proposed in the opposition day motion. Unfortunately, I will not be supporting it. The first thing I want to talk about is how inflation and housing costs are impacting Davenport residents. I had the wonderful pleasure of being able to canvass on a rainy Saturday afternoon just recently, and I had a chance to speak to about 100 Davenport residents. I will tell members that the three issues that were top of mind for them were the cost of living, whether they will be able to live in Toronto and whether their kids or grandkids will be able to buy homes, which many were worried about. We spoke at length at the doors, and I talked to them about all of the things we were doing at the national level. I prefaced my conversation with them by saying that for over 30 years, all three levels of government in the city of Toronto spent very little money on supporting housing affordability and creating affordable housing. Thirty years of non-investment has a huge impact. I said to them that I have a lot of confidence that within the next few years, all three levels of government will be working really hard to address the issue. I do not agree with all of the decisions at the provincial level, but we are all seized with the issue of housing affordability and affordable housing, and we are working very hard to try to resolve the issue. I have a lot of confidence that our kids and grandkids will see houses they can buy and can afford to buy, that we will be creating more rental spaces and that we will be creating more spaces for the most vulnerable in our communities. This leads me to my second section, which is about what we have done on housing. I am very proud of our government. Since we came here in late 2015, we have really taken charge of housing and the issues around housing and how to build more housing in this country. I will talk to a few aspects of that, because I think it is important for people to be reminded of what we have done. We have introduced a national housing strategy, and we have allocated more than $72 billion. We have put in a number of measures that will help individuals who are looking to save money to buy their homes. We have recently introduced a new tax-free home savings account to allow Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free to buy their first home. We have also doubled the first-time homebuyers' tax credit to provide up to $1,500 in direct support to homebuyers to offset closing costs involved in buying a new home. We have introduced a whole series of measures to make sure the houses we have here in Canada are for Canadians, and to do what we can to curb speculation, which is driving our housing prices up, particularly in our major cities. I have a couple of things to mention there. We have the two-year ban on non-resident, non-Canadian purchases of residential property to help curb speculation and ensure that houses are used as homes for Canadians to live in. We have introduced a 1% annual underused housing tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential properties that are vacant or underused. We are also making sure that the profits from the flipping of properties held for less than 12 months are taxed fully and fairly. These measures will go a long way to ensuring that the houses we have are being kept for Canadians and that we are doing what we can to curb speculation. We have launched a $4-billion housing accelerator fund to remove barriers and to incentivize housing supply growth, with the goal of creating at least 100,000 net new homes across Canada. We have also launched a $200-million stream under the affordable housing innovation fund to develop and scale up rent-to-own projects, which I know is something that Davenport residents are very happy about. They like their apartments and are looking for opportunities to rent them. This program would allow them to actually own them one day. We have also launched a third round of the rapid housing initiative, which will provide $1.5 billion to create 4,500 new affordable housing units for Canadians in severe housing need. In my riding, we have some of these rapid housing initiatives. They have been life-saving for the most vulnerable in our community. When they are teamed up with supportive dollars from the provinces, it is a game-changer. If they have mental health supports and supports to help them find jobs, in addition to having a safe place to live, it saves lives and helps to produce more productive citizens in our society. Another thing we have done as a national government, which I am very proud of but we do not often talk about, is renewed our co-op housing agreements on a long-term basis. There are a number of co-ops in my riding. They are affordable places for families to live in and are lifesavers for so many people. They allow families to continue to live affordably in our large cities and in the centre of our cities. There are a couple of things that I would love for us to do. One of the key things we can do, which would not cost a lot of money, is serve as a coordinating body to bring all levels of government together. We need to include developers when looking at the inflation issue and ask this: Now that inflation is at a certain amount, how do we make sure that we get things out of the way, whether at city hall, at the provincial level or with any type of regulatory issue at the federal level, so we can expedite things quicker than where we are at right now? A number of non-profits in my community would love to build affordable housing units on top of their community centres. They have asked us to work with CMHC to better facilitate ways for them to work with CMHC to ensure they have the capital, investment, framework and support they need to create affordable housing units. This opposition day motion talks about inflation. We have talked quite a bit in the House about a number of targeted supports that our federal government has put into place, as well as some huge programs that are literally game-changers for families in my riding of Davenport and for all Canadian families across the country. We are talking about the grocery rebate; the Canada child benefit; the Canada workers benefit; old age security, which we have increased by 10%; and the national child care program, which means Torontonians in my riding of Davenport are saving 50% of their costs. There are also some of the newer measures just introduced in federal budget 2022, such as automatic tax filing and dental care, which will be expanded to seniors and all youth under the age of 18, as well as a number of other initiatives. When I go to people's doors and talk about these initiatives, there is a lot of appreciation for them. They are working and they are helpful. We have an opposition day motion, and part of my disappointment with the motion is that it seems to imply the federal government is the reason inflation has reached a 40-year high and that our government, for some reason, has not so much caused our grocery prices to be higher, but has caused Canadians to cut back on their groceries. I think members of this House know that we have high inflation because of the after-effects of COVID, supply chain disruptions, the geopolitical situation we have right now, the war in Ukraine and of a lot of other global economic changes that impact inflation not only in Canada but right around the world. I will end on a positive note. I like the fact that opposition members are concerned about housing and inflation. We should all be concerned about that. I think we should all put forward our best ideas and continue to try to work together so we can support Canadians through this very trying time.

1496 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/2/23 4:21:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things undermining the provision of affordable housing is that when privately owned affordable housing buildings come on the market and are flipped, they often become less affordable for tenants. This is causing us to move in the opposite direction than we need to be moving in. One of the things the government in British Columbia did was create an acquisition fund so that non-profit housing providers could buy housing projects and keep them affordable. It is something we have advocated for on a national level. I am wondering why the member's government has not proposed something similar. If not that approach, what approach does her government see for ensuring that we do not lose existing affordable housing to private developers?

127 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/2/23 4:22:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, at the finance committee, which I have the privilege to serve on, we did a study on inflation and housing. We heard from a number of advocates saying that we really have to look at the REITs, which have a particular mechanism that allows companies to buy apartment buildings. What we are hearing, in many cases but not in all cases, is that apartment buildings are being bought and slightly renovated, and then the apartment rents go up exponentially, so a lot of people have to move out of what were affordable apartments. I can tell the member that our government is looking at that. We are looking at a number of measures that are stopping us from having affordable housing and housing affordability in the marketplace. We are looking at those, and if the member has other—

141 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/23 4:23:08 p.m.
Watch

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

18 words

Rivi
Mille

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/2/23 4:23:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague thinks of the NDP proposal to tie the level of federal funding to immigration caps within each province.

28 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/2/23 4:23:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I totally understood the question, and I apologize for that. However, on whether there is appropriate funding levels to go with immigration levels, I think that maybe the core of the issue is probably that we are bringing in a lot more immigrants and those immigrants need housing. We have revised our immigration policies and numbers, while being very much aware that there is a housing affordability issue across this country. I do think that we keep that mind. Yes, there is a housing crisis in this country, and we keep that in mind as we move forward on our immigration policies.

109 words

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

May/2/23 4:24:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to give the member an opportunity to respond to a little preamble. I appreciate that the member is recognizing that it is a housing crisis, but what is the government doing to actually build housing stock? The patchwork approach the government has taken, the whack-a-mole approach to come out with a new program for its failures, is not helpful on the long term. We need to build more housing, both for Canadians and new Canadians. What exactly is the government doing to get more housing stock on the market?

96 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

May/2/23 4:24:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are doing a lot, but I will mention two key things. One is rapid housing, which is getting a lot of housing for our most vulnerable, for new Canadians, and they are built very quickly. If we talk to mayors right across this country, they will tell members that this is a very successful program, which is why we are about to introduce the third stage. The second thing is the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which is going to help incentivize cities to eliminate a lot of their red tape and a lot of their long timelines to get housing built in the cities. Those are two key things that we have put into place. There are many other initiatives, but I have run out of time.

131 words

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

May/2/23 4:25:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the member raised the issue of REITs, the real estate investment trusts, which allow corporations to intervene and turn homes into investment properties where the prices get spiked and taxpayers lose. I was pleased to hear her say that the Liberals were interested in looking at this. Motion No. 71, introduced by the Green member for Kitchener Centre, deals with it in detail, and I hope the member will support it.

78 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 189