SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 339 - Sep/19/24

Sep/19/24 10:28:28 a.m.
Watch

The member for Drummond on a point of order.

9 words

Sep/19/24 10:28:32 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague that interpreters have devices in their ears that enable them to interpret speeches, and when members knock on the desk in the middle of their speech, it can cause problems that are best avoided.

43 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 10:28:45 a.m.
Watch

That is a good reminder. The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

17 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Sep/19/24 10:28:50 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-356

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent comment. I apologize. I can be quite intense, and I get fired up with tough subjects like this. I am now seeing homelessness in Lévis, which was never the case. I had never seen it before, but it is there now. We see homeless people. There are young people sleeping in shelters, under bridges or in their cars. That is not normal. It is unacceptable. Our leader introduced Bill C-356, which was defeated. I do not understand how anyone could have possibly thought it was not a good idea. How could they think it was a bad idea? The bill died at second reading. I only have 10 seconds left, so I will end on this note: When we are sitting on the other side of the House, we will get this done.

142 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.)

Sep/19/24 10:29:57 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we can be passionate about the issues, but we have to respect the people who work here. I thank my colleague for his point of order. Where I am from—

33 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 10:30:15 a.m.
Watch

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Sep/19/24 10:30:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments are completely unacceptable. To suggest that my colleague, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, disrespected the interpreters despite the fact that she apologized is shameful, unacceptable and should not be accepted in the House. I would ask her to withdraw that comment.

53 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 10:30:36 a.m.
Watch

I understand. The member has already apologized. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

19 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Sep/19/24 10:30:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my question about—

6 words

8212

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 10:30:54 a.m.
Watch

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Sep/19/24 10:30:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member clearly insinuated that my colleague showed a lack of respect for the interpreters, which is completely false. I would ask her to withdraw her comment.

30 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 10:31:11 a.m.
Watch

I believe the hon. member has already apologized. Another hon. member has a question. We would like to close the matter. The member apologized to the interpreters. We would like to move on. Perhaps the member can apologize quickly so we can move on. The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

53 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Sep/19/24 10:31:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the housing situation, I am very proud of the extremely interesting projects implemented in my riding recently. They were designed and facilitated by community groups with some expertise in affordable housing. These include groups like SOLIDES, the Société locative d'investissement et de développement social, and FROHME, the Fédération régionale des OSBL d'habitation de la Montérégie et de l'Estrie. These groups believe that their ongoing ability to take action is very important to get projects off the ground. I would like to ask my colleague whether she is prepared to support these community organizations or, conversely, whether she is going to cut the budgets, funding, and grants that help these groups get the job done.

137 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Sep/19/24 10:32:31 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to what my colleague said at the start. I am an intense person, but I am also extremely respectful. At no time have I ever said anything in the House that might have been hurtful to a fellow member, irrespective of party. That has never happened. The member is suggesting the contrary. This saddens and pains me. She is absolutely right, I did knock on the desk, but I apologized. I got carried away. I wanted to emphasize that. The member asked if I am going to continue supporting community agencies. A simple search of my background would have shown her that I got my start in the community sector and that I have promoted many community groups. I can assure the members of this House that I have nothing but the deepest respect and gratitude for the work done by community organizations, be it in the field of health, housing, transportation or radio, which is where I started. We are a government in waiting and an opposition that listens to people's views and maintains very close relations with the community sector.

191 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Sep/19/24 10:34:07 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Conservatives for starting this debate, because I think it is timely. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, so I think it only makes sense to talk about housing. That said, my question has to do with the Conservatives' strategy for solving the housing crisis. Not too long ago, I had a conversation with people from the UMQ, the Union des municipalités du Québec. They told me they were concerned because the Liberals' strategy was to say they would invest a bit of money in municipal infrastructure but that they themselves would set the municipal regulations and decide how the cities should manage urban planning rules. The Conservatives' strategy seems almost like a carbon copy of the Liberals'. They say they will dole out money to the cities based on what they build, but the cities will not get any money in the meantime. Cities need money to build infrastructure, however. At the end of the day, it seems like both parties have the same strategy. The Liberals and Conservatives—we might call them a coalition—are both saying that, ultimately, Ottawa will tell municipal elected officials how they should run their cities. What does the member have to say about that? There are people who were elected in Quebec's cities to manage things. There are people who were elected in Quebec City to manage things. Why must it always be Ottawa that decides for the cities?

251 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien

Sep/19/24 10:35:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my colleague. Elections are held, and the democratic will is expressed. That is perfectly true. However, I would note that, when my leader pointed out what was happening in some cities, particularly in Quebec, including homelessness, things started to move a little. Neighbourhoods mobilized, people made decisions and long wait times for permits were shortened. The situation changed. I think those are all good things. When people feel like others are watching, things get moving, and that is helping to resolve the housing crisis.

91 words

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

Sep/19/24 10:36:24 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-66

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting day. Again, we have the Conservatives continuing a tradition that they started virtually since they have been in opposition, and that is to prevent legislation of all forms from passing. We have seen that day in and day out. Today, they are really eager about things of this nature, because they have such a thirst or a hunger for power that they put that over the interests of Canadians. Our government has been there consistently to deal with the issues that Canadians face on a daily basis. We understand and appreciate the concerns, tensions and anxieties in our communities. We are developing public policies, whether they be budgetary or legislative measures, to deal with those real issues. All I have witnessed, sitting across from the Conservative opposition for many years now, is a party that thinks of nothing else but the political far-right Reform-Conservative party. That is its preoccupation, a hunger for power, nothing more. Today really amplifies that fact. It wants to talk about housing as if it cares about housing for Canadians. Let us look at the leader of the Conservative Party. What actions did he take when he was the minister responsible for housing. We only need to use two hands to count how many houses the Harper government built while he was the minister of housing. We barely need the second hand. The former minister of housing, today's leader of the Conservative Party, managed to build six homes. What a powerful record. I suspect even those six would have been by accident. When we think of national housing and addressing the housing needs of Canadians, the leader of the Conservative Party was an absolute disaster. Now he tries to come across as if he is a know-it-all and wants to deal with the housing crisis. Is a part of dealing with the housing crisis to slap the provinces and the municipalities around, as opposed to working with them? Why would the government, or any member of Parliament, give any credibility to the Conservative Party today, when its leader was an absolute failure in delivering housing policy? In fact, had we had a more competent minister of housing back then, the issues that we face today would not be as great. Virtually no programming was put in place for non-profit housing under the Harper government and the then minister. Does the leader talk about the homeless? If members search Hansard, they will see how often he talked about homelessness as minister of housing. I have a newsflash: There were homeless Canadians back then. Where was the leader of the Conservative Party when he had the chance to make a difference on this file? Today is not about Canadians. It is not about addressing the concerns of Canadians. It is more about the Conservatives' hunger for power. They are preventing legislation from passing. On Monday, we had the Citizenship Act. Instead of debating that legislation, the Conservatives brought in a concurrence motion, even though a majority of the members of the House wanted that legislation to pass. We even had one opposition member try to move for unanimous consent to have it pass through to committee. We are talking about citizenship for individuals who should have their citizenship. It is something that should be non-controversial, but the Conservative Party, during that debate, showed its hand, saying that it opposes the legislation. I have been very clear that the only way that legislation would pass would be if we were to bring in time allocation to get it into second reading. However, with today's motion, now that the Conservatives want to talk about housing, what are they interrupting? What legislation are they filibustering today? It is Bill C-66. It is about the Canadian forces. The critic for the Conservative Party yesterday was criticizing the government for not passing the legislation fast enough, and today the Conservative Party is filibustering the legislation. The first word that comes to my mind is “hypocrisy”. How can the Conservative Party, with any credibility whatsoever, try to say that they are concerned about Canadians, when they filibuster important, non-controversial legislation, even the legislation that they support? They do this in order to talk about other issues that Canadians are concerned about, such as housing. We know Canadians are concerned about housing. We do not know need to be told that by the Conservative Party of Canada. We are aware of it because we are on the ground; we are listening to what Canadians have to say about housing. That is why we have developed a number of housing initiatives. I can tell the members opposite that housing is not just the federal government's responsibility. The federal government has stepped up to the plate in dealing with housing, unlike any other federal government for generations, the last 50-plus or 60 years. We have a government that is investing in housing and that has had a housing strategy. If we want to talk about dollars, we are talking about something like $51 billion. The impact of those expenditures and that money that is committed has had a very real and tangible impact on Canadians' lives. An estimated 1.8 million Canadians have directly benefited from this government's commitment to housing. Had the previous government had the type of commitment that we have had to housing, I would argue that the housing issues today would be nowhere near to what they are now if we had had a prior Conservative government actually doing its job on the issue of housing. I do not say that lightly. I was first elected in 1988, and my first parliamentary responsibilities were being the party whip and housing. I have been following the housing file for over 30 years. I understand the importance of housing. All of us should strive to ensure that everyone has access to housing. Municipalities, provinces in particular, and the federal government all have a role to play, not to mention the non-profit sector. When I had left the Canadian Forces, one of the first things I did was participate in the West End residents association. They had a very proactive approach to dealing with housing. We established the West End housing co-op. We lobbied the provincial government to build houses in vacant lots and to take down derelict homes and replace them with infill housing. As a community, we were very successful. At the provincial level, there is a number of things that were actually done to try to enhance things. We should recognize that, back then, there was a population of about 1.15 million people, yet we still had over 20,000 non-profit housing units, all of which were subsidized in good part by the federal government. These are the types of issues that provinces have to deal with. When we think of municipalities building newer homes, yes, there is a bureaucracy there. There is a process that needs to be followed so municipal planning can be conducted in a way that is good for the economy and the environment. As a federal government, we have recognized all of those aspects of housing, the non-profits, the city, the province and, of course, the federal government. Late last spring, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg. I was at that particular announcement, which was out in the Transcona area, and so was the mayor of Winnipeg, as well as the premier of the province. I say that because it amplifies the fact that it is more than one government that has to deal with the housing issue we have today. As a national government, I would challenge any member, whether they are Conservative, Bloc or New Democrat, to show me a government, a national government, in the last 60 years, that has invested more in housing than the Prime Minister and the government. That does not mean that our work is done. We understand that the need is high. That is why, as recently as Monday, we had the Minister of Finance taking a look at ways in which we can continue to support first-time homebuyers, how we can use the rules to ensure that they have more opportunities to purchase a home. There are some releases and information on that. If people are curious, they can look into it and get the details. In virtually every budget, we see the federal government providing programs and incentives. A couple of years ago, we had the one dealing with trying to get more purpose-built apartments being constructed in the country. We have had a huge take-up on that. Thousands of units are going to be built as a direct result of that one federal program. Members can contrast that to anything that Stephen Harper did. It does beg the question. People say that was eight years ago or nine years ago. We do not build a building overnight. Had the Conservatives done their homework, had they worked with the provinces, the municipalities and some of these non-profit organizations, I believe it would have made a difference. Because we have had some of these programs in place now for a number of years, it has had a positive impact. Recognizing that the need is so great, we continue to invest more. As Liberals, we understand the importance of homes. I ask members to think of those non-profits. I have had the opportunity to go to a number of key ceremonies, as I suspect many of my colleagues on all political stripes have done. I am a big fan of Habitat for Humanity. Habitat has done so much in providing individuals that never would have gotten, or in all likelihood would have been very challenged in getting, the key to a new home. It has done so much, not only for the family unit but also for the communities in which they are built. I suspect that, when it comes to Habitat, Winnipeg North is probably in the top 10% of communities that have benefited the most because of it. Habitat for Humanity Manitoba has built homes right from the Point Douglas area, going through the traditional North End into the Shaughnessy Park area, going up into The Maples. From the suburbs to the inner city, it is providing homes for people who otherwise would have been very challenged to be able to acquire one. There are ways in which we can expand housing opportunities. We have a government that says it wants to see more housing co-ops. Housing co-ops matter. They make a difference. People who live there are not tenants. They are residents. For me, that is something we can and should be encouraging more of. That is why I was pleased that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has provided more supports to ensure that we will see more housing co-op developments. We have continued to look at ways we can support different organizations and levels of government to address the issue of housing, which is so very important to Canadians. What I do not support is the manner through which we are having this debate today. I believe that the Conservatives are preventing important legislation from passing. I am talking about the Canadian Forces bill, Bill C-66, which deals with civilian courts for victims within military ranks. I was a little optimistic yesterday when the Conservative critic stood up and said that the Conservative Party supports the legislation. If it supports the legislation, if it wants to see the legislation pass, it needs to allow the debate to occur. Instead of doing so, Conservative members brought in a motion of this nature to filibuster legislation, even though they agree with it. Canadians do have an expectation of a minority government. There is an expectation that opposition parties would also contribute in a positive way in dealing with private members' bills and government bills. As an opposition party, it should not have to be shamed into doing the right thing. As I have said before, the Conservative Party's focus is more on character assassinations. Wherever Conservatives can slap on the word “scandal”, or whatever other negative word, so they can post all sorts of false information on social media, that is what they will do. That is why I say the hunger for power is what is driving the Conservative Party today, and it is a destructive force. It has nothing to do with the concerns of Canadians and their needs, which are what we need to be able to talk about. We need to be looking at and figuring out how we can pass legislation so that the lives of Canadians in all regions of our country will be that much better. As much as the opposition party wants to focus its attention on the negative side of things, the Liberals will continue, as a government, to be focused on Canadians. As the Prime Minister has clearly indicated time and time again, we will continue to be focused on Canadians and improving their quality of life so that we have an economy that works for all Canadians. We will continue to focus attention on our middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, to build a stronger and healthier economy and continue to work on the issues of inflation, which is now at 2%. That is equal to inflation prepandemic. We will continue to build that stronger and healthier economy, which we are going to see in the months ahead. Contrary to what the Conservatives continue to say, coast to coast to coast, Canada is not broken. Canada is the best country in the world to live in and call home. As a government, we are going to strive to make that the case, not only for today, but also for tomorrow.

2339 words

Mr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC)

Sep/19/24 10:56:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just listened, for 20 minutes, to the member opposite talking about the job the Liberals have done over nine years on the housing file in Canada. I represent Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte and there are housing encampments all over our riding now. Nine years ago, these did not exist. Just this week, I read in Barrie Today, there was another fire at a homeless encampment at Milligan's Pond. Please, can the member opposite not admit that over nine years, things have become much worse in Canada, and homelessness is a serious issue now that did not exist nine years ago?

106 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Sep/19/24 10:57:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not fair to say homelessness did not exist nine years ago. Homelessness has been around ever since I was first elected back in 1988. The severity and the complexities, dealing with homelessness as the country has grown, have become fairly extensive. It is one of the reasons, in the number of years we have been in government, that we have more than doubled the supports to deal with homelessness. We continue to recognize that the best way to deal with it is with a united front, by working with municipalities, provinces and non-profit groups in order to minimize homelessness; that is absolutely critically important. We deal with it on a daily basis when working with others, in order to deal with it appropriately.

131 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Sep/19/24 10:58:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my always eloquent colleague for her speech on a topic that is of the utmost importance in the riding of Shefford, for two reasons. I am talking about housing. Granby has one of the lowest vacancy rates of all cities. That is the reality. The city took steps to address that. Now it needs help from the federal government. The problem affects seniors in particular. I was proud to stand beside my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert last year when he unveiled the Bloc Québécois's 12 proposed solutions for fixing the housing crisis. He went on an amazing tour last summer that included a stop in Granby. We suggested 12 compelling solutions, including one that I think would really help, which is to review the budget for the Reaching Home program. Granby has a homelessness problem too, but it is not considered a designated community. Community groups in my riding believe it is crucial that this be changed. More money needs to be earmarked for cities like Granby that are grappling with homelessness for the first time. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this. Did he take the time to read the report and the 12 proposals drafted by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert? What about the Reaching Home program? Granby deserves its share of the budget.

238 words