44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 30, 2023 11:00AM
- Oct/30/23 5:26:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
I will start where that last question left off. I find it very unfortunate to hear that the Leader of the Opposition would make such a claim when it comes to co-operative housing. As I indicated in my question, co-operative housing, at least from the limited experience that I have had in seeing the operations of it, is clearly one of the best ways of delivering affordable housing.
If my Conservative friends need some education on it, I welcome them to come and tour Kingston Co-operative Homes in Kingston with me. We have different individuals living together. Some are paying market rent. Some are paying below market rent. Some are contributing in hours toward the co-operative.
For the co-operative to be successful, it genuinely needs people contributing to it in different manners. We need people paying market rent. We need people who are contributing in other ways, like through the hours being contributed to the co-op. It is wildly popular, at least from my perspective, as a form of delivering affordable housing.
I heard the member who spoke before me make the comment that the federal government is not advancing co-operative housing. That is incorrect. I took some time, after I first heard her make that comment earlier, to look into this, and the truth of the matter is that this government is making the largest investment to promote and expand co-operative housing in over 30 years, with $1.5 billion to expand and promote co-ops. Included in this investment is the launch of the new co-operative housing development program. Not only are we putting money into this, but we are developing a program for co-operative housing specifically.
It truly is one of the best forms of affordable housing, from my perspective. My first introduction into politics, before I was even a city councillor, was when the City of Kingston put together an affordable housing development committee. Ironically enough, that was set up as a result of the provincial government in Ontario having to go it alone in supporting housing and building affordable housing because at the time, the Harper Conservative government had completely abandoned any investment there.
Let us go back and talk for a second about that, because I find it very interesting. Usually when a concurrence motion comes forward, I speak at great length as to why Conservatives do that. We know why they are doing it. They are trying to delay the government's agenda. Even my NDP colleague pointed that out earlier. It is a matter of fact. If members want to hear why, they can review one of my previous speeches on this to get all of the details.
I will focus my comments more specifically on this particular committee report. The mover of the motion, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, was very critical of the government. He was very critical of the government investing in affordable housing, but a number of projects have already happened in his riding. I will tell members about those projects again: $23 million from the national housing co-investment fund, $3.6 million from the on-reserve shelter enhancement program, $2.6 million from the the second stream of the rapid housing initiative, $6.7 million from the SIF and legacy programs and $2.7 million through the various different subsidies going into his riding. A lot of money has been spent in Parry Sound—Muskoka.
I cannot help but wonder how the Conservatives invested in his riding when they were around. Of course, Tony Clement pops into my mind. One of the most notorious things about Tony Clement, for all of his contributions to the House, is that unfortunately part of his legacy is the building of a gazebo. That gazebo was from redirected money. According to the Auditor General, he had misled the House in indicating where that money was coming from.
The other one was a fund set up regarding what was the G8 at the time. It was a $50 million fund that was intended to go toward projects that had to do with the G8, which was taking place in Canada at the time. Somehow, Parry Sound—Muskoka ended up building a gazebo in the member's riding with money that was not intended to go to that. I do not know if the G8 leaders went and sat around the gazebo, and that was one of the events, but it clearly was not a project that was intended. That is not to say that Stephen Harper did not invest in infrastructure in the riding of the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka; he certainly did. He invested in gazebos, which were apparently more important than actually building affordable housing.
As we look to and specifically talk about the work we are doing, the government has put forward policy and real money behind building housing and expanding housing opportunities throughout the country. There is no doubt that there is more work to be done. That is obvious, and it is something that continually gets brought up in the House.
The concurrence motion we have, which was sent to the Minister of Housing, received a reply from the minister. I read the reply while we were entering into this debate. If they took the time to read the reply, members would probably not be surprised to see that there are a number of initiatives the report had identified that the minister and the government agreed with. Specifically, these relate to supporting vulnerable populations. The minister agreed with the committee on the critical importance of prioritizing the needs of vulnerable populations through the national housing strategy's program.
He indicated:
Though the [national housing strategy] addresses needs across the housing spectrum—including the need for more housing supply overall—housing for those in greatest need is identified as one of the priority areas for action of the NHS. When it launched in 2017, one of the NHS goals was to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027-28. Budget 2022 went further and committed to ending chronic homelessness by 2030. This will require an all of government approach. Much of this work is undertaken in partnership with the provinces and territories ... through bilateral agreements under the Housing Partnership Framework....
When we talk about housing and solutions, as I have heard from some of my Conservative colleagues during this debate, it is not just about the federal government but also about how we work with the various different partners and municipalities specifically. We would love to work with provinces, but at least in my province, we know that there is very little interest from Doug Ford's government in doing that. That is why we are seeing the government actually going right into communities. This is the federal government dealing directly with mayors and city councillors, talking about how we reduce the Nimbyism, as was mentioned earlier by one of my Conservative colleagues, and deal with the fact that there is too much red tape in the process of building more housing. Ultimately, we see real agreements coming forward and real action being taken directly with municipalities. We have seen where a number of municipalities are coming to the table. Most recently, last week, there was Brampton, but there were a number before that as well,
Conservatives offer nothing in this regard. As a matter of fact, all they are doing is taking the housing accelerator program that I just announced as a partnership with municipalities and trying to rebrand it as though it is something they would do. It is literally something we are already doing. The idea here is that the municipalities will deal directly with the federal government, which will reduce red tape, encourage growth and encourage more housing. As a result, the federal government will help them to make sure the process can happen even quicker and faster through various different monetary incentives.
I really hope that, after we get to the end of this debate and vote on this, we can get back to the government legislation we were supposed to debate today before the concurrence motion was brought forward.
1393 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/30/23 5:42:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always great to rise to speak on behalf of my constituents of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, and it is always great to rise on the topic of housing, something that is near and dear to my heart.
I am one of probably a handful of people in the House who have lived in social housing, and that was through the 1970s with my family. I have that perspective of being a tenant. My perspective of living in a social housing unit is probably a lot different than my mother, who had two small kids in tow when we moved into the unit on Oriole Crescent.
It is important, when we talk about the financialization of housing, that we focus on what many have talked about today, and in other debates, and that is the perspective of the tenant and the challenges they face in trying to make ends meet in a very challenging market. That has happened historically. We have heard that through the decades. We have seen the rise and fall of interest rates. We have seen housing challenges with supply issues. Those challenges, of course, are back today. There is no denying that we have a crisis today.
Being a municipal councillor for so many years, I had the opportunity to serve on our municipal non-profit. CityHousing Hamilton was the largest non-profit housing provider in the city of Hamilton. We managed 7,000 of the city's 14,000 affordable housing units. I worked with an incredible team, including people such as Tom Hunter, Sean Botham, Leanne Ward, and Adam Sweedland, who is the CEO now, who are the front lines in providing support.
As my friend and colleague just mentioned, for those who are on the front lines providing support to tenants who are in need and those looking to find an affordable place to live, there is really no issue of who the government is or what political stripe they are. What housing providers are looking for, in this case for units that were owned and managed by the municipality, is financial support and policies that protect tenants, as well as policies and legislation that would make investments in housing.
When I think back to my time serving for over a decade on our municipal non-profit, and for the last seven years before my election here, I served as its president, I look at the challenges that we faced at CityHousing Hamilton, and the other housing providers that we worked in consultation and co-operation with. They were people such as Jeff Neven at Indwell services and his team, who provide incredible support, not just in Hamilton but in southern Ontario as well. There are the organizations such as Mission Services with Carol Cowan-Morneau and her team there, including Sue Smith and others, who do tremendous work in assisting some of our most vulnerable Canadians and Hamiltonians.
Another organization is Good Shepherd. I had the opportunity to speak to Brother Richard the other day at the ONPHA Conference in Toronto. At the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association Conference, Brother Richard was talking about projects Good Shepherd has on the horizon.
All of those groups and organizations look to all three levels of government for support. As has been referenced earlier today, and I have relayed this point many times in the House, for 30 years, non-profit housing providers have been left to their own devices. Back in the 1990s, the federal government decided to exit the sector. They passed on and downloaded that responsibility onto the provinces.
In the province of Ontario, when that was downloaded, Mike Harris and the common-sense revolutionary guard in the Legislature decided to pass those services and the costs for social housing on to municipalities. Municipalities have struggled to not just provide quality services for those services that were downloaded onto them, but they have struggled to get at the affordability housing wait-list. Those units I mentioned earlier, thousands of them, were passed on to city hall with the keys and no resources attached.
Here we had thousands of post-war units that were providing support for tenants, a safe place to call home for many, and the municipality was then left to its own devices in trying to incorporate the costs of repairing and renovating those units in their municipal budgets, which is unheard of. It happens nowhere else in Canada, except the province of Ontario, where a Conservative government would see fit to download those services to the municipalities.
As members of CityHousing, we had to find unique ways to make ends meet. We were land rich and cash poor and looked to our holdings of land to provide opportunities for development. We went out to the private sector and found unique partnerships to try to encourage the private sector to build on properties that we owned and to provide new units. The units people were living in were post-World War II units, for instance, where the windows were leaking, the roof was leaking and maybe the elevator did not work in a medium- or high-rise building. We needed partners who had resources, and we allowed access to our lands in order to provide density and new units, trying to get at that 6,200- to 6,400-unit wait-list we had.
When I look at the national housing strategy and what it does, it is providing support to housing providers. I just listed a handful of many dozens in the city of Hamilton. The national housing strategy was a game-changer. Municipalities, since the early 1990s, had asked consecutive federal governments for resources for renovation and repair. Many of the units that stakeholders and housing providers managed in the city of Hamilton could not pass a property standards inspection because of the state of disrepair. They asked for resources to get at the wait-list. Some of our most vulnerable Canadians sit on that list, including seniors and persons with disabilities. We know that indigenous people make up a greater percentage of those on the wait-list than the general population in Canada does. We looked for ways and means to renovate, repair and build units on our own, but we just could not make it work.
The national housing strategy, when it was announced early in the first mandate, was a game-changer for municipalities. It was a program that provided opportunity and hope for housing providers that there would be resources and that we would not have to continue to try to make ends meet on our own.
I look at the investments that have been made. I will use Hamilton as an example. The co-investment fund meant that we had tens of millions of dollars in federal resources available to get at our oldest units, to get at energy efficiencies, to reduce greenhouse gases and to make our units more accessible for people with disabilities.
I look at the rapid housing initiative. It pulls people out of encampments and seeks to address the issue of women fleeing domestic violence. The rapid housing initiative, of course, came at a perfect time. It came during the pandemic, when municipalities were struggling to build new units with supply chain issues. When I look at the resources that were passed along there and look back to my participation on our board, I would say that irrespective of what one's partisan stripe was on city council or who participated as board members for a municipal non-profit, we were just thankful that a government recognized the need and recognized that municipalities and housing providers had their challenges.
I look to the Canada housing benefit. It provides a portable rent supplement to people who are looking for a market unit to live in. It also provides a top-up for them to go out and find an affordable place to call home.
I look at the housing accelerator fund, which we have talked about extensively here, and the assistance it is providing in working with municipalities as our partners and working with stakeholders in municipalities across the country. Instead of casting blame on municipalities, small-town mayors and councillors, we are working with our municipal partners.
What I have heard is interesting, because many of the people on the opposite side of the House in the Conservative Party are former municipal representatives. Every time the Leader of the Opposition gets up and chastises the gatekeepers, this fictitious bogeyman entity to blame for the housing challenges we have, members who were municipal councillors get up and encourage him to do more and say more to chastise municipalities.
It is important to recognize the inroads we have made with the national housing strategy. It is a fluid document. Members are going to continue to see changes. The GST waiver is an important initiative that we just announced. They are going to see movement on the co-op file. They are going to see other initiatives that have been called for. I am hoping for an acquisition strategy at some point in time. We know our rural partners need additional supports.
For me, these are all important initiatives and they prove that the federal government is listening to the stakeholders. It proves that we are providing those investments contrary to what we have seen for the last 30 years.
1572 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
