44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
- May/27/24 11:41:39 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit much, listening to the member. He was the mayor of Huntsville, and he is talking about the costs and the percentage increases in terms of government costs. When he was the mayor, development charges went up 20%.
Mr. Scott Aitchison: That is a lie. That is not true. We cut them.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it will be interesting to see. The member says it is not true, but that is the number I have been provided with. We will find out what is the truth. It might upset him, and justifiably so.
Let us take a look at the bill itself. Imagine the leader of the Conservative Party is trying to give the false impression that he actually cares about housing in Canada. What did he do when he was the minister responsible for housing in Canada, when we lost literally hundreds of thousands of housing units that went from low-income affordable to much more expensive? It was hundreds of thousands of rental units. When he was the minister of housing, and I need two hands on which to count this, he actually built six low-income housing units, and it cost him millions and millions of dollars to do that.
Now he comes in today as if he is going to be the one who fixes the housing issues in the Canada. He has to be kidding. How is that possible? Let us take a look at the record of the Conservative Party. Not only was the leader of Conservative Party a disaster when he was the minister of housing, but the Conservative Party also abandoned housing.
Contrasting that to today, there is a Prime Minister and a government that are working with municipalities and provinces, recognizing the importance of housing and investing not only time but also hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars into housing. We understand it is an issue of fairness. We must think about the millennials and generation X, and ensure that the housing dreams of Canadians will be there and alive into the future.
We have a government that cares about housing, in contrast to a government under Harper and the former minister of housing who is today's leader of the Conservative Party that did not care about the housing in our country. The facts are there. That is the history. Let us contrast that to the billions of dollars when the Prime Minister came up with the first-ever national housing strategy years ago, and the types of financial assistance we are providing to non-profit housing, whether the habitats or the infill homes, as well as supporting housing co-ops and non-profits. These are the type of investments we are putting into housing. That is not to mention working with provinces and municipalities.
There was a time when all political parties did not support housing, whether they were New Democrats, Liberals or Conservatives, in the early 1990s. We would have to go back generations before we found a prime minister and a government that have invested so much energy in ensuring that the federal government plays an important role in housing. We are demonstrating that and have been doing so ever since we tabled the national housing strategy years ago. The housing strategy is more than just paper; we have invested hundreds of millions, going into billions, of dollars.
We are working with governments at all levels, and non-profits, to ensure that affordable housing will continue to be a reality for Canadians. That is something we are doing in a tangible way. That is why I am totally amazed that today's leader of the Conservative Party is trying to give the impression he is.
The leader of the Conservative Party goes around Canada talking about how Canada is broken. He amplifies the fears and anxieties of people in regard to housing. Yes, it is a serious issue. While the leader of the Conservative Party goes around speaking to the extreme right, the Prime Minister has been working with the federal minister, along with the provinces and municipalities. A good example of that happened not long ago, maybe two months or eight weeks ago, when the Prime Minister was in the city of Winnipeg.
In Winnipeg, the Premier of Manitoba, the provincial minister, the federal minister, the Prime Minister and the Mayor of Winnipeg talked about how Manitoba is moving forward in dealing with the issue of affordable housing. The Mayor of Winnipeg, along with me and others, last December, talked about how the federal government is investing and encouraging municipalities to build more homes, not only encouraging but also providing financial support. We have seen cooperation in the province of Manitoba.
It is not just governments but also organizations. I often make reference to Habitat for Humanity, which across Canada does phenomenal work in ensuring that homes are affordable. Individuals who would otherwise never get the opportunity to have a home are getting a home. Over the years in Manitoba alone, we are talking about 600 homes. The contributions it has made to Winnipeg North, I would suggest, are very significant. From a non-profit point of view, they are probably second to no other.
The current government has not just opened its eyes, as the Conservative leader has said, on the issue of housing. We have been dealing with housing for years now, recognizing that it is not just Ottawa's responsibility. Ottawa has a responsibility to lead and be there, to assist where we can and provide resources where we can. We have been doing just that.
Contrast that to the attitudes that come from the leader of the Conservative Party or from the Conservative Party in general and the extreme right. What do they talk about? Conservatives criticize the municipalities. They argue in terms of having money and being prepared to give money, but such-and-such things must be done, and if they are not done, then there will not be any money given. There is no sense of cooperation coming from the Conservative Party, none whatsoever. It is either the Conservative way or the highway when it comes to the development of housing.
It is only in the last two years that I have actually started to hear Conservatives talk about housing, unlike the government, which has been talking about housing in terms of the housing accelerator fund for purpose-built apartments. Conservatives oppose that fund. Talking about the GST, the Conservatives would like to get rid of it. Some provinces like the federal policy so much that they are doing the same thing with the provincial sales tax. The Conservatives do not believe that the GST is a good policy either. Conservatives talk about the federal lands, but we have been talking about the federal lands for years. We have actually taken actions on that.
Think of Kapyong Barracks as an example, in the city of Winnipeg. With respect to development charges, we are funding literally billions of dollars to support provinces and cities while ensuring that the price of housing remains lower than it would be without that sort of fund. Again, we are looking for cooperation. There is $250 million in the budget towards fighting homelessness; of course, the Conservatives are voting against that also.
The Conservatives seem to believe they have a nice shiny plan tied up in the bill before us. Welcome to the game. However, the Conservative Party has no credibility on the issue of housing, and that is the bottom line. As the Liberal government continues to demonstrate that it genuinely cares, the Conservative Party focuses on cuts. That is the difference: Liberals care; Conservatives cut.
1291 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-356 reiterates the Conservative leader's talking points about the housing crisis.
According to him, the municipalities are responsible for the housing crisis by tying up real estate development projects in supposedly needless red tape. One of the Conservatives' proposals is to set a target for increasing the number of housing starts. Beginning on April 1, 2024, the target would increase by 15% each year.
Bill C-356 places the entire blame for the housing shortage on the municipalities, even though the current crisis would not have been this severe had Ottawa not pulled out of funding for social housing under the Harper government.
Bill C-356 would in effect put municipalities under outside control by preventing them from taking measures to ensure a minimum of social housing or from protecting their built heritage, under penalty of having their funding reduced—including funding for the development of public transit.
In my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île, I have met met many times with seniors, families and community associations and that has helped me realize the enormity of this tragedy. Expensive condos are already largely available on the market. What is sorely lacking is affordable housing. The resulting mad scramble for rentals betrays people's growing sense of despair. They feel that the government is doing nothing to help them.
The pressing issue is not to continue encouraging big real estate developers to participate in this frantic race, but rather to address the housing shortage affecting most low-income people. The Bloc Québécois has already made a wide range of proposals and interventions. For example, it is proposing that the federal government reorganize its funding for the various programs under the national housing strategy to create an acquisition fund. This kind of fund would enable co-operatives and non-profit organizations to acquire apartment buildings currently available on the private market, keep them affordable and convert them into social, community or deeply affordable housing units. For example, in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île, Corporation Mainbourg, in association with the Quebec government and the City of Montreal, acquired Domaine La Rousselière. This is a 720-unit complex that will be protected from the speculative market to ensure its long-term affordability will be maintained.
The Bloc Québécois has long said that the provinces and municipalities are in the best position to know the housing needs on their territory. It is not the federal government's place to interfere. I would remind members that housing is exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Since 1973, Quebec law has prevented the federal government from negotiating directly with municipalities, and Bill C-356 would tear up that agreement. It would create a series of conflicts. It took two years to reach the agreement, and we cannot afford another two-year delay that will bring all projects to a halt. All of the interference brought in by Bill C-356 means that this irresponsible bill would create a breach that would foster sustained conflict and certainly paralyze every project, right in the middle of a housing crisis.
I would remind members that we welcomed the $3.7-billion Canada-Quebec housing agreement signed in 2020. Half of that money came from the federal government, but the negotiations took three years. The funding that was supposed to go to Quebec was blocked until the two levels of government came to an agreement. Had that happened in 2017, Quebec could have built and renovated many social and affordable housing projects since then, which would have helped mitigate the current housing crisis.
In closing, the Bloc Québécois deplores the federal government's constant need to spend its money, interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions and tell Quebec how to spend its money. We are asking that the federal government transfer its share with no strings attached. That is why we will be voting against Bill C-356.
676 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:56:28 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. Leader of the Opposition has five minutes for his right of reply.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 11:56:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after nine years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost of housing, which has doubled since he took office. It is hard to believe, but on my last day as housing minister, in November 2015, the average rent in Canada's 10 biggest cities for a one-bedroom was $973. Can members believe that? It is now $1,893.
The average down payment needed for a new home then was $22,000; it is almost quaint. Now it is almost $50,000. The average mortgage payment needed on a brand new home was just $1,400. It is now almost $3,500. It took about 39% of the average family paycheque to make monthly payments on the average home. That number has now risen to 64%, a record-smashing total, meaning that one would not be able to eat, clothe oneself, own a vehicle or do anything other than pay taxes and one's mortgage if one is the average family buying the average home.
The Prime Minister did not care much about any of this until he started crashing in the polls, and then he panicked and appointed a big-talking housing minister to take the helm of the ministry of housing. This minister had already, according to Liberal admission, caused immigration to run out of control. Since that time, we have seen a flurry of photo ops and new government programs designed to generate media headlines. However, predictably, these headlines have not reduced housing costs or increased home building. Home building is down this year. The federal housing agency says that it will be down next year and the year after that. Rent and mortgage payments continue to rise.
That is because the government, under the Prime Minister, is building bureaucracy rather than homes. My common-sense plan is the building homes, not bureaucracies act. It seeks to provide exactly what it says: less bureaucracy, more homebuilding.
In a nutshell, here is my common-sense plan to build the homes: First, we would require municipalities to permit 15% more homebuilding as a condition of getting their federal funds; second, we would sell off thousands of acres of federal land and buildings, so they can be used to build homes; and third, we would axe taxes on homebuilding. In this plan, we would get rid of the carbon tax, the sales tax and other taxes that block homebuilding.
This is a fundamentally different approach than what we see from the current Liberal government. What it currently does with its so-called housing accelerator program is to fund box-ticking. It puts together a bunch of boxes that municipalities have to tick for procedural and bureaucratic reforms. Once the boxes are ticked, the money is sent and we move on. The problem is that, even if those are the right boxes to tick and the municipality ultimately ticks them, when the feds turn their backs, the city can then put in place a bunch of new obstacles. For example, municipalities such as Ottawa and Toronto have actually jacked up development charges after getting federal housing accelerator funds. The City of Winnipeg got federal funding and then blocked 2,000 homes right next to a federal transit station.
That is why trying to manage process will get one nowhere. When one pays for bureaucratic box-ticking, that is what one gets. However, people cannot live in a box ticked by a bureaucrat; they have to live in a home. That is why my plan would pay for results. It simply requires that municipalities permit 15% more homes per year. If they hit the target, they keep their federal money. If they beat the target, they get a bonus. If they miss the target, they pay a fine. They are paid on a per completion basis, just as a realtor or a home builder is paid per home built. We want to pay for keys in doors and families sitting in a beautiful new kitchen, enjoying their dinner. We want families to be housed, healthy and safe, with money in the bank. That is the result we are going to pay for. Now let us bring it home.
699 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:02:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:02:27 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:02:51 p.m.
- Watch
moved:
That in relation to Bill C‑49, An Act to amend the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:03:57 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:05:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can appreciate just how critically important the legislation is to Atlantic Canada in many different ways. It is about economic opportunities. I know my Atlantic colleagues are very anxious to see the legislation pass. I also understand that there are provinces that are waiting for the legislation to pass because of the mere necessity of seeing the provincial legislation ultimately pass.
Could the minister amplify how important it is that the legislation get through sooner, as opposed to later, because we have provincial governments, and even different political parties, that want to see the legislation pass quickly?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is extremely important that the legislation move forward. As folks who understand how the Atlantic accords work would know, we worked on this in lockstep with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador: every word, every period and every comma. It requires mirror legislation to be introduced in both legislatures after it actually goes through the parliamentary process here in Ottawa.
I will quote the two premiers, in terms of their anticipation of this act. Premier Furey said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.”
Premier Houston of Nova Scotia said, “Bill C-49 is a necessary...step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.”
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:07:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of concern from Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Nova Scotia, over the fact that the offshore industry is taking off and could leave Canada behind. We are the only Atlantic nation that does not have an offshore wind industry. We know the United States is moving ahead with substantive investments.
It is essential to get the legislation through, which is why New Democrats have agreed to support this extraordinary move. Throughout the committee hearings, the Conservatives said again and again that they were going to oppose this because it is about clean energy, even though, in Nova Scotia, there is no offshore oil work being done at all. The communities have asked us to get the bill through.
However, without the tax credit incentives to get these projects off the ground, we are not any further ahead. We see that Biden has managed to get the offshore industry up and running and is putting the tax credits in place. The states are going to leave us in the dust if we do not move quickly on this. Could my colleague speak about the ITCs?
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:08:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, for all the reasons that my hon. colleague articulated, it is certainly important that we move forward.
Other countries are moving, and Canada also needs to move. We do not have a regulatory structure to enable offshore wind at the present time. We need to get that in place to enable the development of a hydrogen industry that will help our friends and allies in Europe to decarbonize and improve their energy security. I was recently in Germany and met with the vice-chancellor. We are very hopeful that we will be able to move forward with Germany, but we certainly need to have the regulatory structure in place.
We also need the investment tax credits, and we are certainly anxious to move the relevant bills through the House to ensure that they are, in fact, in place.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:09:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, FFAW-Unifor representatives were at committee, representing 14,000 fishing industry stakeholders in Newfoundland and Labrador and a number of stakeholder organizations from the Maritimes. They wanted a framework built into the bill for meaningful consultation and for compensation where spatial requirements just do not work for the wind energy industry, where it competes against the fishing industry. We worked directly in consultation with Unifor's lawyers and created nine amendments, which put forward exactly what the fishing industry wanted.
Could the minister tell us how many of the amendments made it into the legislation that we are going to be voting on?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:10:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the legislation was drafted in collaboration with both provincial governments. Obviously, they are very concerned about the perspectives of fish harvesters, as are we. Fishing activities can coexist alongside the development of an offshore wind industry. We just need to look at the example of the United Kingdom and many other countries around the world.
Proposed projects will have to go through a regional assessment that is ongoing now. That will certainly include significant input from fish harvesters as part of that process. In the development of the legislation, officials have engaged along the way with One Ocean, which I believe includes the FFAW, as well as the CNSOPB Fisheries Advisory Committee.
The views of fish harvesters are and will continue to be very important, but it is certainly within the bounds of what is being done in many countries around the world that a healthy fishing industry and healthy renewable energy can coexist.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:12:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the riding of Waterloo, there are a lot of connections to people in all provinces and territories, including the Maritimes, the east coast and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to hear from the minister about how the legislation would actually connect to the economic prosperity of Canada today and leading into the future.
This is something that is on the minds of constituents. They would like the legislation to go forward, but it is also important for them to understand how it would actually work when it comes to the economic abilities and prosperity for the country. How would this work with the government's plan?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:12:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, certainly this is integral as part of building an economy that is going to create jobs and economic prosperity in the future. That starts with actually accepting the scientific reality of climate change, which is something the folks across the way seem to have great difficulty doing. At the end of the day, climate change is real; it is a scientific reality. One needs to actually found our economic strategy on looking to seize the economic opportunities that will be enabled through the transition to a low-carbon future. That is net-zero petrochemical facilities in Alberta. That is ultra-low-carbon potash facilities in Saskatchewan. That is nuclear development in Ontario. That very much is the development of an offshore hydrogen industry that would help to ship hydrogen to our friends and allies in Europe. It would be an enormous economic enabler for Nova Scotia and for Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been strongly endorsed by both provincial governments, including the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia. It is time the Conservative Party simply got out of the way and let us build the economy of the future.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:14:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is no surprise to anybody that the Conservatives are blocking, yet again, legislation that would make a difference in the lives of people. We saw them oppose dental care, even though 100,000 seniors have already had access to a dental care program that the NDP forced the government to put into place. They have opposed pharmacare. They have opposed anything that has a net benefit.
It does not surprise me either that the Conservatives are opposing a bill that would provide benefits to Atlantic Canada, because the member for Carleton is on the record making disparaging, negative and derogatory comments about Atlantic Canada. It is no surprise to me either that Conservatives are opposing clean energy. That is really the wave of tomorrow, but Conservatives, because they want to drag Canada back to the 19th century, absolutely refuse to accept any portion of a clean energy strategy that would create potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Therefore, I am not surprised. Is my colleague surprised by the Conservatives', yet again, blocking important legislation?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:15:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am not surprised. As I said a minute ago, having a thoughtful approach to an economy that will create jobs and economic prosperity in every province and territory in this country requires, in this day and age, an acceptance of the fundamental reality of climate change. It requires having a plan to address the climate crisis. It requires, then, looking to seize the opportunities that will be enabled through the transition to a low-carbon future.
Unfortunately, the Conservative Party does not believe in climate change. Its plan is, effectively, to let the planet burn. It has no relevant economic plan for the future. Therefore, no, I am not surprised. Unfortunately, I am not surprised.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 12:16:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the current debate deals with the fact that the House is being muzzled for the work that must be done on an important piece of legislation for the Canadian economy, particularly for the Atlantic provinces.
It should be noted that this bill was tabled a year ago and that the entire process unfolded normally, particularly in committee. I note that there were 12 meetings in committee to study this bill. That means that people are taking this issue seriously, and that it is having a direct impact on thousands of workers throughout the country, especially in Atlantic Canada. Amendments had been proposed hand in hand with the Conservatives and even organized labour. To put it simply, the work was done. Nine amendments were tabled and only one made it into the bill. As parliamentarians we have a job to do, and that job was done in parliamentary committee.
The bill was tabled in the House on May 2, so, about three weeks ago. We were ready to continue our work, but it was not to be. Today, the guillotine was used to shut down debate. It is unfortunate to realize that the government, which has absolute control over the list of political priorities, waited so long before calling the bill. Better still, the government granted itself the power to have the House sit late into the evening, whenever it wants. If we wanted to have a true substantive debate on this issue, the rules should have been followed.
Why is the government invoking closure while the process remains under way? It is our job as parliamentarians to debate in the House instead of being muzzled.
278 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
