SoVote

May/2/23 5:24:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find that rather brutal. We are five years into a 10-year strategy. In my speech, I talked about how we are meeting different objectives. I would like continue my answer to that question by continuing my answer from before. We have increased the funding available through the CMHC. We need capital to build housing. When we are talking about social housing and affordable housing, that capital needs to come from public funding, which we all share so we can help each other equally.

87 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/2/23 5:24:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this day has not been easy. All day long, the Liberals have been playing us the same tune about how things are not so bad and the situation is not so dramatic. We do not agree with the Conservatives' motion, but at least they brought this debate to the House today. I thank them for it because it is truly an important debate. I would like to set the record straight on the situation in Quebec. A CMHC economist I talked to recently said that we need to build 1.1 million housing units in the next 10 years. The private sector will build 500,000 that the government will not need to get involved with. To safeguard affordability and allow people to have access to housing they can afford, the governments need to step up directly or indirectly to build 600,000 housing units. It is believed that in the past five years, under the great strategy, 115,000 units were built. When will the government really get to work for this society's less fortunate?

180 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

May/2/23 5:25:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can simply answer that I agree that the federal and provincial governments must work together. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, we have worked very well in the past with the Société d'habitation du Québec, and we continue to work with that organization and with the municipalities.

59 words

Quebec
Soci

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC)

May/2/23 5:26:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are talking about a very important topic today. We need homes for families. We need homes for dignity and homes for a purpose. The Conservatives want to bring homes for those reasons. Under the Constitution, and we know the federal government and the provincial government know the roles, but it is the provincial governments that create municipalities. They are a creature of the provincial government. The Liberal government, in its programs on housing, has not worked well with all the levels of government partners, which has been mentioned by the Liberals. For example, there is the big city mayors' group out there. I do not remember the city mayors' group being here in Ottawa to work on this crisis, so there are partner problems. In eight years of the Liberal government, housing costs across Canada have doubled, and Canada has the fewest homes in the G7 but the most land to build it on. We have a lot of land. However, the regulatory burdens, the impact assessments and the red tape have increased delays and costs over the last eight years. Municipal people tell me about the number of forms they need to fill out. When I was mayor, we hired a grant writer, a grant finder. Even being a small community of 15,000, we hired a person to try to find the grants and then fill out the forms. The red tape has increased for housing, so there are greater barriers. There is more staff in Ottawa, but dealing with applying for grants in the programs the government has set-up has not become more efficient. There are a couple of problems. There is not a clear definition. We see the words “affordable” and “attainable”. Affordable housing refers to it costing less than 30% of a household's income before tax. Attainable housing has a few more points to it and applies to a broader population in our country. Attainable housing refers to being adequate in condition, which means it is not on that renovation show where they are fixing up a house that is falling apart. It is a house that is liveable. It also means it is appropriate in size, with the number of bedrooms, the kitchen or whatever living space is needed. Also, it is accessible to services, meaning it is located in areas where people can get the services they need. Attainable housing is available in a range of housing types. If some of the pieces for attainable housing are missing, then we have a problem. We are not just building for affordable, we are building attainable housing. Under the government, and because of its policies on a range of files, the principles of attainable housing have been out of reach for so many Canadians. I can remember when I was mayor we developed certain kinds of lots. I was speaking at a conference with developers, and I told them we were going to have 60-foot lots in the community. The planners were going nuts and saying that we needed 30-foot lots. I told them how things worked. If one builds a bigger lot, people would build a bigger home on that lot instead of going out and building on an acreage. If one builds that more expensive house in one's town, the domino effect is going happen, where that person moves out of a more affordable house, leaving it for someone else, into a bigger house. Attainable includes a whole range of items. The whole range is needed, and municipalities can do that if one works with them. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, within CMHC's national housing strategy programs: ...there is no standard definition of affordability. Rather, each program uses its own unique definition, which can lead to the construction of units presented as “affordable” but which in reality may require households to devote more than 30 per cent of their income to housing. That is problematic. There are organizations that really need more partnerships. Many people in the House know what Habitat for Humanity is, and it is one of those great non-profits out there that does a great job of providing housing through working with families and communities. For example, I was just at an opening of a project, where the town donated the land, paid the fees and put in the servicing. The company these people work with supplied a lot of help, such as manpower, to work with the family. Habitat for Humanity is a great example of a non-profit. That is the kind of partnership that needs to be developed. Those work because the people are very much involved with them. Another one that I have run across in my riding is called Life at Key. It is an innovative program. Instead of increasing the down payment, which we often see as a huge barrier, this model works with a payment that requires only 2.5% to 5% initial payment. It involves co-ownership, equity in the property and making additional payments at one's own schedule. That is an innovative process. That is now happening in three or four communities in Alberta, and it is moving east with this proposal. That makes housing attainable, and we need those kinds of programs. I have a community in Taber, with a housing initiative, that went out with a piece of land. They have great land in their community. They built a lake, pathways and then modular homes that they purchased, or homeowners could purchase modular homes. There are large lots. They have worked at this. It is another step for attainable homes. They have done a good job of that. I have communities such as Standard and Arrowwood. They have gone out and built serviced subdivisions within an hour of Calgary. The demand is now there. Those communities have gone out and built those service lots and roads, and all of the things. That is what municipalities could do if the federal government worked with them. Somebody mentioned the concern about a clause that says there is a penalty. Well, if they have worked in municipal government, they have gotten grants that may have been for one year, maybe two years. Sometimes those projects are complicated, and in two years it has not gotten done. There is a mechanism to go back to the grant funding and say, “We are this far through it, but we need an extension for a year.” Absolutely, but that is working with partnerships, and that is what we are talking about doing. Municipalities are the partnerships that need to be worked with, but the government has to be a partner in the room to get it done. When we talk about some of the challenges that municipalities have, it is getting harder to do all the things they need to do for approvals. For example, to change a culvert under a road, it used to be that there could be a plan to go ahead and do it. It would take so much money, and if they had the equipment, they could go do it. Now, there has to be an environmental study one year, and the culvert cannot be replaced until the next year. It is those kinds of costs that keep increasing on the municipalities. There is a challenge that the bureaucracies keep building above them. It makes it problematic for municipalities to do what they need to get done with the money they get in grants, and that is why the federal government needs to work with them. What we need to do is spend money in the right direction. This is a crisis. Earlier, the crisis in Nunavut was mentioned. In 1942, somebody built the Alaska Highway in a very short period of time because there was a crisis. They got that highway built from Dawson Creek all the way to where they needed to have it in Alaska, over territory where they said nobody could build a road. How can we not get housing materials to Nunavut now? This is problematic. I listened to our MP for Nunavut talk about the housing crisis they have, and we cannot figure out how to get materials there at the appropriate time to build the appropriate housing they need. This is a crisis. We have the capability to do those things. We are not getting them done because we do not view it as a crisis. This is problematic. Let us look at the flooding on the Lower Mainland that occurred recently. It wiped out bridges. It wiped out roads and railways. How was that fixed? They got all the construction people together from municipalities in a month. It was a crisis because we needed the rail, the roads and the bridges going. In a month, they had those things repaired to have things moving. When it is a crisis, we need to get all the people in the room. The federal people need to get the big city mayors in the room. The municipalities and provinces need to be in the room. They need to be in the room, and they can resolve it. It is not just building programs and shipping it out. We want homes for people. This is a crisis. We need it now.

1565 words

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.)

May/2/23 5:36:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member opposite knows this, but his leader, today and for the last number of months, has been blaming municipalities, small town mayors and big city mayors. He has been critical of mayors and councillors across the country for not doing their part as it relates to assisting with the affordable housing supply, and the housing supply in general. Our government, as members know, has taken a more collaborative approach, working with municipalities to provide support in building supply. I wonder, as a small town mayor, whether he feels that a more collaborative approach is better than the one that his leader is taking, which is to demonize municipalities that are, in large part, trying to help all levels of government with the challenges we face.

133 words

Mr. Martin Shields

May/2/23 5:37:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one thing municipal people know is that the red tape that comes from both levels of government above them, provincial and federal, is huge. That is the red tape we are talking about. That is what we need to free up so that municipalities can get done what they need to do. They can do it, as in the example I mentioned before. We need to get that done. If we can get rid of the red tape, it will free those people up. Major cities, for example, have staff getting projects shovel-ready in hopes that the federal government will put something out they can apply for. What a waste of resources that is, but it is because of the bureaucracy of the federal government.

128 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/2/23 5:37:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative motion accuses cities of being gatekeepers that are blocking construction. It is absolutely ridiculous. Part of the collateral damage of the federal government's withdrawal from housing in 1993 is that we have seen the emergence of something called the financialization of housing, in other words, big national or international conglomerates owning large apartment buildings. This is problematic. According to one study, in 1996, just a few years after the federal government withdrew from housing, the rate was 0%. The ownership of large apartment buildings by big corporations did not exist. As we know, these groups are not interested in the right to housing. They are only interested in making a profit. The same study noted that, by 2021, 22% of the rental stock in Canada was owned by large groups. This poses a serious problem in terms of affordability and accessibility. Can my colleague suggest any solutions to this major housing problem in Canada?

159 words

Mr. Martin Shields

May/2/23 5:39:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have one great solution. Across the street from where I live is a 15-storey empty building that the federal government left years ago. If we put federal government buildings on the market, it would drive prices down since we would have more buildings on the market. This is instead of building National Defence headquarters out on Carling Avenue, where there is no rapid transit, and leaving empty buildings in the core. That makes no sense.

79 words

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

May/2/23 5:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Bow River talked a lot about working in partnership with municipalities, yet I think many municipal partners would be quite shocked that their infrastructure funding would be clawed back by this Conservative motion. Has the Conservative Party consulted with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities or any of the provincial associations? If so, what was their response to this policy proposal?

65 words

Mr. Martin Shields

May/2/23 5:40:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I used to be the vice-president of AUMA. We worked with them all. Partnerships work and we would do that.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/23 5:40:22 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:40 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion.

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/23 5:43:35 p.m.
Watch

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

48 words

Cariboo

Mr. Todd Doherty

May/2/23 5:43:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote please.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/23 5:43:54 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, 2022, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

30 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

May/2/23 5:44:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-321

moved that Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

30 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/23 5:44:28 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

16 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/23 5:44:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just so we are on safe ground, I suspect that leave might have been required for us to go to private members' hour. If that is the case, I suspect that you have unanimous consent to do so. My apologies to the member for interrupting the beginning of his remarks.

52 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/23 5:45:02 p.m.
Watch

Do we have unanimous consent to go to Private Members' Business? Some hon. members: Agreed.

15 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

May/2/23 5:45:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-321

Madam Speaker, I am truly honoured and humbled to rise in this House to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-321. However, before I go further, I want to send, which I think I do for all parliamentarians, heartfelt condolences and well wishes to the friends, families and colleagues of the two firefighters missing in the Charlevoix region, who were doing what firefighters do: putting themselves in the line of danger. It appears that they were swept away by the floods in that region, so all of our thoughts and prayers are going out to those families. Bill C-321 would amend the Criminal Code to require courts to consider that when a victim of an assault is a health care professional, a health care worker or a first responder, it is an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing. In preparing for delivering this speech, I agonized over what I was going to say. How do I adequately convey the messages, convey the pain, convey the fear and convey the stories that I have heard from the nurses, paramedics, first responders, police officers and firefighters who have written to me and shared with me their personal stories of violence, assault and terror? When did it become acceptable to punch or kick a nurse when they are administering care? This is a real question. Nurses have the highest rates of violence in our nation. Ninety-two per cent of nurses have indicated they have experienced a form of violence in their workplace. They live in fear. Two-thirds of those nurses have said they have considered quitting. Firefighters, police officers, correctional officers, nurses and doctors put on their uniforms each and every day to serve us and our families. They do so knowing they are going to experience human tragedy. They do so knowing and expecting that they are going to face violence. They mend our wounds. They bandage our cuts. They heal our hearts. Firefighters run into burning buildings. Police officers run toward bullets and run toward danger when others run away. They hold our hand when we take our last breath. Who protects them? For the past few months, Canadians have been horrified to see the increasing rates of violence against our first responders, our nurses and our health care workers. This is splashed across our social media and splashed across our news feeds, and we cannot escape it. We are becoming desensitized to it. In the last number of months, 10 police officers have been killed, ambushed. Shaelyn Yang in Vancouver was an RCMP officer delivering life-saving naloxone care when she was viciously stabbed and killed. Police, paramedics, ambulance attendants, nurses to some extent, and health care workers go into these domestic scenes to save people's lives and care for Canadians in their most trying times. Those scenes in those moments are very dangerous. They live in fear. Just a month ago, Canadians were shocked to learn of the ambush of two Edmonton police officers as they responded to a domestic 911 call. They did not have a chance. I fear I will not do their words justice. The motivation for this bill was a message sent to me two years ago through Facebook. It was from a paramedic who relayed to me a story of how she attended a call with her partner in a domestic scene. While they were attending to the victim, a family member of the victim picked up the paramedic and threw her down a flight of stairs, and then proceeded to stomp on her and break her ankles. She was thrown down a flight of stairs. How, as a society, have we fallen so far that this is normal, that we allow this? A paramedic wrote to me to explain that she was sexually assaulted by a patient in the back of her ambulance. She pressed charges, yet that perpetrator was out less than two days later, and less than three weeks later was back in that paramedic's ambulance again. We have fallen. I do not understand. Since the beginning of the year, there have been reports of paramedics who have been shot at with pellet guns, threatened with machetes and stabbed with needles. The day-to-day physical and verbal abuse that they endure is growing. It is time we sent a message. There are 338 members of Parliament in this House. It is time that we sent a message to our health care workers, to our first responders and to our public safety personnel that we have their backs. We need to send a message. This violence leads to fear. It leads to compassion fatigue. It leads to morale and recruitment issues. Currently, there is a group of nine applicants going through the RCMP depot right now. Why would someone want to become a police officer? Why would someone want to be a firefighter, a paramedic or a nurse, when they know this is what they are going to face? What protection is there for them? Some 92% of nurses have experienced physical violence in the course of their jobs. Our health care workers and our first responders are ready to answer the call without hesitation. We dial 911, and they come running without hesitation. If we show up in an emergency ward, they are there to help us or our loved ones in our time of need, yet because they are there, they put themselves in a vulnerable setting. They can be walking by and get punched in the face or kicked on the floor. Who helps them? Oftentimes they are left alone with no one to attend to them. They need to know that someone has their back. Unfortunately, while providing this essential care to our communities, our frontline heroes are being assaulted. They are being belittled and forced to confront a growing epidemic of violence against them. The statistics are alarming. They are not made up. Those workplaces, simply put, are not safe. When did violence in a workplace ever become the norm? A recent internal survey by Region of Peel paramedics said that 97.5% of medics have all experienced physical and verbal abuse, forms of intimidation. Eighty per cent have been physically assaulted. Sixty per cent have been sexually assaulted. The International Association of Fire Fighters reported growing rates of acts of violence when responding to structural fires and reported acts of violence during medical calls. What are we doing to help those who help us? A firefighter was punched while rescuing people from a burning building and a nurse was thrown down while she was administering care in a hospital emergency room. There is nothing enshrined in Canadian law that deters violence against them. The sole purpose of Bill C-321 is to provide those who serve us, those who protect us, protection. Whether they are a nurse, a personal care worker, a paramedic, a firefighter, a correctional officer or a psychiatric nurse who is performing their duties, they are facing increasing rates of violence, and we need them to know they are cherished and that someone has their back. We need them to know there is someone fighting for them. We as parliamentarians are fighting for them. That violence being perpetrated against them is unacceptable, and we will not stand for it. We will stand against it. Our health care workers and first responders should know and be assured that if they are attacked, there is a legal mechanism in place, and that the perpetrator will be tried and convicted with the full force of our Canadian legal system. As it exists today, many of the health care workers and first responders who are assaulted while performing their duties do not get support from the legal system. Often they are told it is part of their job. They are told that it is part of their job description. It is a culture we are fighting to change. Getting abused at work is never acceptable. The response to tabling this bill has been overwhelming. Hundreds, if not thousands, of paramedics, firefighters, police officers and nurses have written to us to share their stories. Nobody wants to get involved when this happens. Everybody stands by the wayside and just watches. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in society that we sit and watch that. When did it become okay to hunt RCMP, to hunt police officers or to hunt paramedics? The stories are horrific and heartbreaking. I honestly could spend the next year sharing the stories that we have heard. At the natural resources committee on March 10, Carmen Santoro, senior executive of Eastern Canada's International Association of Fire Fighters, testified before the committee and said this: Before I close, while I have the floor, I want to say that I've been a firefighter for 37 years. For most of it, I was a supervisor or a captain. What a lot of people don't realize is that we are one of the few professions that do not have the right to refuse unsafe work. They do not have the right to refuse dangerous work. He continued, “Every emergency scene is unsafe work, and we rely on all of you,” parliamentarians, “to include safety measures,” and for us to consider their safety. Let that sink in. They do not have the right to refuse dangerous work. If a simple assault charge was enough of a deterrent, this debate would be irrelevant, but clearly there is nothing right now that is acting as a deterrent for the increasing rates of violence experienced by health care workers and first responders. That is why the International Association of Fire Fighters has come out and supported this. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the Paramedic Association of Canada, the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia, the Ontario Paramedic Association, the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada, the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs, the Saskatoon Paramedic Association, and the British Columbia's Nurses' Union have all lent their support for this legislation. It is obvious there is a need for this because there are so many provincial, national and international organizations that have come on board. Big city mayors are talking about the increasing rates of violence and the need for deterrence. We need to do more as parliamentarians. This is not the first time this has been brought up in this House. It was studied at the health committee in 2019. Its recommendation was that the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that if the victim of assault is a health care service sector worker, that be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. That is exactly what Bill C-321 does. Members know the work I have done in this House with respect to our first responders, and those who serve our country and our community. I carry a challenge coin with me all the time to remind me of the sacrifices they make. These brave men and women put their uniforms on, and they fight each and every day. They get up each and every day knowing they are going to face dangerous circumstances and their lives are going to be put in jeopardy. They live in fear. We always talk about honouring them. I think there is no greater honour for the hundreds of thousands of public service workers, health care workers and public safety personnel than to pass Bill C-321. That is truly honouring their service.

1932 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/2/23 6:00:02 p.m.
Watch

I know the coin means a lot to the member, but I remind him that we cannot use it in the House because it is considered a prop. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

40 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 189