Debates of May 14th, 2014

Question No. 428

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Library and Archives Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 435

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

With regard to contracts under $10,000 granted by Public Safety Canada since January 1, 2013: what are the (a) vendors' names; (b) contracts' reference numbers; (c) dates of the contracts; (d) descriptions of the services provided; (e) delivery dates; (f) original contracts' values; and (g) final contracts' values if different from the original contracts' values?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Affordable housing

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

moved:

That the House recognize that Canadians are faced with a housing crunch of rising costs and growing waiting lists due to chronic underfunding of affordable housing from 1993 to the present, and call on the government to work with the provinces, territories, municipalities, and with First Nations, Inuit, and Metis, to immediately renew long-term social housing funding and reinvest in the development of affordable housing units.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga.

Canada's affordable housing crunch has been growing, and it has been growing for at least 21 years, since the Liberal government broke its promise and shunned federal responsibility for housing. Canada is the only G8 country in the world without a national housing strategy, thanks to the Liberals, who downloaded the responsibility for housing to the provinces.

Today, three million Canadians live in housing insecurity due to irresponsible housing policies from successive Liberal and Conservative governments. With a growing number of homeless people and long delays in obtaining access to safe and affordable housing, the government must stop ignoring the problem. The Conservatives' blatant disregard for social housing is creating a critical situation where the need for social housing is increasing at the same time as the quantity of affordable housing is declining.

In 1993, the federal Liberals took the position that they would not act on the task force that they had so gallantly put forward in 1990. In fact, it is a classic example of the Liberals indicating that they are going to go in one direction and actually going in the exact opposite direction. They took that task force, co-chaired by the esteemed Joe Fontana, and made the suggestion that the Conservatives, who were in power at the time, were cutting social housing and it should be stopped. In fact, they said that more money should have been spent on social housing and affordable housing. However, their first budget cut was $128 million from CMHC's budget, most of which was allocated to affordable housing programs. That was in 1995. In 1996, the Liberals downloaded the responsibility for social housing to the provinces and territories, effectively ending Canada's national affordable housing program.

Canada is the only major industrialized country to not have a national housing strategy.

The Liberals also slashed transfers to the provinces and territories at the same time that they expected them to take on responsibility for this all important program for social and affordable housing. In 1999, the Liberals announced a bit of money for homelessness programs, but as Michael Shapcott of the Wellesly Institute said, “The federal homelessness funding will make homeless more comfortable, but it won't make them any less homeless”.

Some more money was added in 2002 and 2004, but those agreements and that money did not have any accountability programs. Therefore, the accountability issue regarding the housing money that was being spent meant that although Ontario claimed to have created 46,000 units, after research of the audit was done, only 63 homes had actually been built. There was no accountability for whatever was being spent by the federal government.

In 2005, when the Liberals proposed giving huge tax breaks to corporations, Jack Layton and his NDP colleagues helped to rewrite that budget and divert $4.6 billion in corporate giveaways to important priorities, like affordable housing, training and public transit. It included $1.6 billion for affordable housing construction, including aboriginal housing. This was the first time any real commitment to affordable housing had been made in well over a decade.

Then the Liberals were defeated due to corruption before the funding was fully implemented, but the Conservatives implemented most of that funding. Although the Conservatives voted against it at one point, we still have some of that funding in our supply.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives, for their part, have now announced they will not be renewing the long-term social housing operating agreements or continuing to invest that funding in affordable housing. Essentially, they see this as a budget line item that they can strike out of the budget, and take $1.7 billion out of affordable housing in our country. That $1.7 billion is currently earmarked for assistance to individuals to meet their rent obligations. When that money disappears, those individuals will effectively become homeless. The Conservatives do not seem to care that those individuals will become homeless as a result of their actions.

About 620,000 households were supported by that $1.7 billion, and as many as 200,000 housing units will be lost due to the loss of operating funds or insufficient capital for much-needed renovations.

Despite what the minister said earlier, these are not all mortgage subsidies. Some of these buildings are leased from other organizations, and when the subsidies end, so ends the rental accommodation support that has been going to seniors and other individuals who really need the support.

An example of this lack of strategy is no more evident than in my home city of Toronto, and in particular in my riding of York South—Weston, where as a result of the lack of investment in social housing over more than two decades, and as a result of the fact that when the federal government downloaded the social housing units to the City of Toronto, they inherited a three-quarters of a billion-dollar fix-it bill for those units. That fix-it bill is now being paid for by the City of Toronto by selling social housing units. They do not have the capital to fix these units, and the government is not forthcoming with money, so it is having to get rid of social housing units to be able to meet the demands for the repairs that are necessary in these units. It is like eating our own seed potatoes, as is said in the Maritimes.

The city of Toronto is a great example of what the lack of funding for social housing construction really means. There has been virtually no new social housing constructed in the city of Toronto in the past 20 years. As more and more people find it impossible to afford the ever-growing rents and the ever-growing cost of buying a home in Toronto, they are faced with the prospect of seeking social assistance and seeking to be in Toronto community housing buildings. The wait-list has over 90,000 applications on it. That is 170,000 people who are looking for accommodation and support. There are only 90,000 units in the first place, so there are as many people on the wait-list as there are units. The wait-lists in some circumstances are 10 and 12 years long.

Individuals have to survive somehow, and they survive by moving into overcrowded units, by moving into units that are poorly maintained, and by moving into units they cannot afford. There are individuals in my riding who are paying 70% and 80% of their income for shelter, because the minimum wage in Ontario is so low. It is $10.25. If people who make minimum wage on a full-time basis have to pay rent at today's market rates in Toronto for a two-bedroom apartment, it is 70% of their earnings, and for a three-bedroom apartment, it is 90%. The 90% figure is completely unaffordable. People could not eat or possibly raise a family spending 90% of their income on housing, yet that is what people face when they are on a waiting list for supported housing that cannot possibly be met. It will be 10 or more years before they ever reach the top of that waiting list.

There was a recent study by the University of Toronto, partly in my riding, that determined that 90% of the individuals who currently live in apartment blocks in Toronto that were built between the fifties and the eighties face homelessness in some measure. One-third of those people, which is thousands upon thousands of people, have a critical risk of homelessness. Those individuals could be homeless almost immediately.

What does “homeless” mean to people like that? It means finding a shelter, but there are no shelters. It means finding a friend, relative, or neighbour they can bunk with for as long as it takes to find another place to live, but that means they are now in overcrowded housing. That means they are now in housing that is not designed to support as many people as are expected to live in it.

That is another example of why this is a crisis. It is a national crisis. It is not limited to Toronto. All over Canada we have a growing need for affordable housing that we are just unable to meet.

Today the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said it supports the motion and our continued focus on fixing Canada's housing crunch. The president, Claude Dauphin, said he supports my motion and supports our moving forward to ease the burden by immediately renewing long-term social housing funding, reinvesting in the development of affordable housing units, and reinforcing the role of municipalities as key stakeholders in the process.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my hon. colleague on a number of things he asserted, one of them being about the work we have been doing to help the homeless, such as our homelessness partnering strategy with the focus on Housing First, and the major investments we have made, which I will expand on when I speak shortly.

Here is what I am really wondering. I was before the committee that deals with housing. Mr. Evan Siddall, the president of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, was with me. We were there for a full hour. I did not receive one question from any opposition members on housing. There were no questions about affordable housing, social housing, aboriginal housing, or the FCM's position. I was there for an hour. They could have asked me questions, as well as Mr. Siddall.

Could the member please explain to me why the opposition members absolutely ignored the issue of affordable housing?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not at that committee, so I cannot speak to what happened. I do know that to the many questions we have asked the government, we get glib answers. The government tells us that it is helping a bunch of people.

The problem is that we are not helping enough people. The problem is growing. It is getting worse every year. There were 60,000 people on the waiting list in Toronto when the Conservatives took office. There are now 90,000 people on the waiting list in Toronto. The Conservatives seem to ignore that. They seem to think it is not their problem.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no doubt that we have to deal with a housing strategy across Canada.

For decades, the Liberals put in millions of dollars and developed thousands of non-profit housing units, including subsidized housing, infill housing, housing co-ops, and lease-to-own programs. The Liberal Party did an immense amount of work building our housing stock from coast to coast to coast. We had a housing strategy in place. The Kelowna accord was even in place. New Democrats defeated that.

How can the member say that he wants to see a housing strategy, yet when the NDP had the opportunity to support a housing strategy, that party defeated the Paul Martin government, thereby defeating the strategy?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

We did not defeat the strategy, Mr. Speaker. We just defeated a corrupt government.

The Liberal government of 2005 agreed with Jack Layton that more money should be spent on housing, but it was the first time that had been done by the Liberal government, which was in a majority position for 13 years. All it did was cut social housing. The Liberals downloaded the entire responsibility onto the provinces, territories, and municipalities.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming quite obvious that there is a housing crisis in Canada. My colleague spoke at length about certain aspects of that crisis. There is one aspect in particular that he did not mention, and he and I spoke about it. It is related to the economic boom that certain regions are experiencing.

I would like him to talk about our discussion, to show the other members of the House that there is another side to Canada's housing crisis.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was in Fort McMurray some years ago, when the boom was on, and it is still on, housing was a huge problem. Representatives of the United Way met with me and told me just how difficult it was for individuals who were living on less than the enormous wages that were being paid in the oil patch to have a place to live. They told me about an individual who was making $18 an hour working at Tim Hortons, but all he could afford was to rent someone's couch for eight hours a day. He did not even have a place to hang his clothes. He rented a couch for $600 a month and could only have access to it between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. each day, because he worked the night shift at Tim Hortons.

That is the kind of housing crunch that exists even in boom places. The price of a home in Fort McMurray is upwards of $900,000. That is unaffordable. The rental crisis has gone crazy with it. The government has made no effort to address these issues.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition housing critic, I am extremely honoured to support this motion and speak today about a topic that is very important to me. The people in my riding of Hochelaga often talk to me about this issue, and it should concern every single elected official in the country.

I often say this, but I will say it again: the NDP believes that housing is a right. However, if we are having to debate this motion today, it means that our opinion is not shared by the Conservatives or the Liberals, no matter what they say.

This motion acknowledges the poor decisions made one after the other by previous governments, since 1993 in particular. Of course, I am talking about the Liberals and the Conservatives. These poor decisions resulted in a major housing crisis in Canada, one that is unprecedented.

This motion also proposes a possible solution by calling on the various levels of government to come together and agree on how to renew long-term social housing funding and reinvest in new housing projects as soon as possible.

This is a balanced, pragmatic approach that does not require any new money. It would use existing funding. In the medium and long terms, it would save Canadian taxpayers a lot of money in health care, public safety and emergency services for homeless people.

Regardless of what the Conservatives and the Liberals think, housing in Canada should not be considered an expense that can be eliminated in order to balance a budget. Housing is an investment. Unfortunately, that is not how the two old parties see it. Their actions now and in the past prove it.

At least we know what to expect from the Conservatives. When we asked them to support the Canadian housing strategy bill introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, they were faithful to their ideology and all voted against it. That was so predictable.

With the Liberals, we never know which way the wind will blow. Their position depends on the poll of the week, and, as my leader would say, they tend to signal left and turn right.

When the Liberals came to power in 1993, they cut off federal investment in new social housing projects. In 1996, the Liberal government announced the end of the national affordable housing program.

From then on, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's only purpose was to manage the federal government's real estate holdings. Eventually, it became just another government cash cow, effectively turning its back on years of investment in social and affordable housing.

In the late 1990s, when the budget was balanced and people were busy comparing themselves favourably to other countries, they somehow forgot to mention that they balanced the budget by creating a major housing shortage, a decision that would have serious long-term repercussions on people, repercussions that we are feeling to this day.

The irony is that the person who would become the finance minister under Jean Chrétien and would succeed him in 2003, Paul Martin, had previously co-chaired the Liberal Task Force on Housing. The task force produced a report that was published on May 14, 1990, entitled, “Finding Room: Housing Solutions for the Future”. The report accused Mulroney's Conservative government of abandoning its responsibilities for dealing with the housing problems and the crisis at the time. The report included statistics on the housing situation and homelessness in Canada. It denounced the then federal government for its inaction and for abandoning its responsibilities for housing. It argued that the federal government should be a leader on housing in Canada. It listed no less than 25 recommendations.

Honestly, after going through this document, I agreed with most of the recommendations in the report. The problem is that we cannot trust the Liberals. When they are in opposition they will say just about anything to win votes. However, when they are in power, they drop all the plans they presented to the public. That is called electioneering.

The Liberals can talk the talk pretty well when they are in the opposition, but when they come to power, they never walk the walk.

That is exactly what my leader means when he says that the Liberals signal left and turn right.

Canada is still having problems and more than three million Canadians are still looking for affordable housing that will not cost more than 30% of their income for a roof over their heads because the Conservatives, who replaced the Liberals in 2006, are not any better when it comes to housing.

Unfortunately, as political tradition would have it in Canada, the Conservatives also say one thing and do another.

I would say that the Conservatives do not signal at all and simply turn right.

In a press release dated January 12, 2006, just 11 days before the election that brought them to power, the Conservatives criticized the Liberals for precisely what I was just talking about:

The irony is that before becoming Minister of Finance, Paul Martin had called for an increased federal role in supporting affordable housing. He co-authored Finding Room: Housing Solutions for the Future (1990), the report of the National Liberal Task Force on Housing. The Martin report argued that the housing crisis was growing at an alarming rate while the government sat and did nothing, that the federal government should be a partner working with other levels of government, and private and public housing groups, and that leadership must come from one source and required national direction.

How ironic, indeed. When you are in unfamiliar territory, it may be better to say nothing than to preach.

The Conservatives also broke their promises. Everything that was thrown in place was just smoke and mirrors. Today, one out of four Canadian households spends more than 30% of its income on housing, which is the definition for affordable housing. That is more than 3 million families.

Even worse, 37% of households that live in subsidized rental housing, the poorest families in Canada, live in housing that is not affordable. That figure increases to 40% for market rental housing.

What is the response from the other side of the House? It cuts and cuts some more. The long-term agreements signed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation with suppliers of social housing between 1970 and 1993 have begun to expire. Thus, $1.7 billion of 85% of the CMHC annual budget is slowly being eroded.

The Conservatives say that they are not cutting the budget, but their refusal to renew funding upon the expiry of these agreements translates into reductions. They can play with words, but the people affected, those who could see their rent increase by $200 to $500 a month or more because they have lost their rent subsidy, know exactly what is going to happen and are desperately pleading with the government, which continues to turn a deaf ear.

The figures are clear. They are in previous budgets. A total of $65.2 million was cut in just the past three years: $20.2 million in 2011-12, $21.7 million in 2012-13, and $23.3 million in 2013-14. Furthermore, 18,400 households lost their rent subsidy, and the worst is yet to come.

By 2040, there will be nothing left of the $1.7 billion a year formerly invested in social housing. Nothing. Zero. In Canada, one household in three lives in rental housing. Over the past 15 years, rental housing has accounted for only 10% of new housing stock.

The Conservatives' lack of action on social housing has created this crisis situation. While the demand for social housing is increasing—as demonstrated by long waiting lists—the supply of affordable housing is diminishing. We are still waiting for the government to come up with a plan to deal with this increasingly serious situation.

The NDP proposed a plan, a real national housing strategy. Canada is the only G8 country that does not have a such a strategy. The Conservatives collectively rejected this strategy. They are doing nothing and the situation is growing worse.

Given the increasing number of homeless people and the longer and longer wait times for safe, adequate, affordable housing, the federal government needs to stop hiding its head in the sand and ignoring the problem. We have seen that we cannot count on the Liberals or the Conservatives to do anything about housing.

Housing is a priority for the NDP. Social housing is not just an expense; it is an investment. A roof is a right. I urge everyone who is watching today to visit my “A Roof, A Right” campaign website and sign the petition.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was at the human resources committee just two weeks ago when the minister of state and the president of CMHC both appeared to speak on the main estimates. I think all members of the House know what main estimates are. They are the spending projections for the next year. I noticed that neither opposition party asked the minister or the president of CMHC one single question about housing, not a single one. What is even worse, both opposition parties voted against the most recent budget that renewed the affordable housing initiative for another five years and renewed the homelessness partnering strategy for another five years at the same levels of money as had been invested previously.

Why did the NDP vote against the five-year renewal of those two extremely important housing initiatives?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague's question.

The member for Mississauga—Streetsville was also a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities a year ago when the former human resources minister was there. He will certainly remember that I asked a number of questions about the renewal of housing agreements.

However, I did not get any answers about a committee that is supposed to exist and that is supposed to be looking at the situation to determine which projects are feasible and which are not. We still have not seen a report on this. We do not know anything about it.

With regard to affordable housing, the current minister spends her time saying that this budget should be used to subsidize social housing. That is not what this budget is for. There should be two separate budgets, one for social housing and one for affordable housing, because there is also a lack of affordable housing.

That is why we vote against mammoth budget bills that deal with many different issues and cannot be divided. That is my answer.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to realize that on the one hand she is saying that Jack Layton should take the credit for creating additional monies, $480 million, in the Paul Martin government. On the other hand, shortly after former prime minister Paul Martin put in that $480 million, what did the NDP do? It voted against it, in favour of an election that killed not only the $480 million, but the Kelowna accord. Does she not see some hypocrisy or conflict in some of the statements she is making?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the money would never have been in Paul Martin's budget if Jack Layton had not had the courage to do what he did.

Second of all, it was not the NDP that destroyed the Liberals. Canadians decided that the Liberals were too crooked and that they had had enough. After the sponsorship scandal, Canadians decided to show them the door.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is familiar with the first nations housing situation.

The government is not taking action. That is obvious. On Monday, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples confirmed that no changes had been made to address the housing gap between aboriginal Canadians and non-aboriginal Canadians since the last UN report. In 10 years, no progress has been made on this issue under both Conservative and Liberal governments.

Does the member agree that this is a shameful situation and that the NDP will work with the first nations to fix the housing problem?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is already working with the first nations, and I am as well. We consult them to find out what they truly need. We saw that the situation in Attawapiskat was atrocious. We see this on reserves but also in cities.

For example, in Sudbury, two families lost their social housing at the end of October 2013 because their housing subsidy came to an end. Their rent went from under $400 to over $900 a month. The families did not have the means to pay that. It was impossible. As a result, the families had to live elsewhere, and those two housing units must now be rented to someone else at market price. They may have to be sold, which means that we will lose two social housing units. We are losing social housing, and on top of that, people such as aboriginal Canadians are poorly housed.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Minister of State (Social Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to address the House on the motion that has been presented by the member for York South—Weston.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Brant and I just want to commend the member for Brant for the great leadership role that he has taken on the housing file and talking about innovative ideas on how we can address affordable housing issues and the good things that our government is already doing. I want to congratulate him on that.

I want to state right from the outset that the premise of this motion is wrong. I so appreciate the opportunity to address some of the misunderstanding, perhaps, on behalf of the opposition, in terms of what we are doing for affordable housing.

As I have already stated, quite clearly, I did appear before the committee. I was looking forward to some really thoughtful questions. I was looking forward to talking about our investment in affordable housing and how provinces can use it in the ways they deem appropriate and meet their priorities. I know Mr. Siddall was looking forward to that.

However, we never had the opportunity because, again, the opposition did not ask us any questions. I think that is very telling, I will say, especially given today and the pressure and the scrutiny that the opposition is under with its inappropriate office expenditures. I think, it is a bit telling that it is, all of a sudden, out of the blue, talking about affordable housing.

Again, I am really happy that I can talk about what we are doing, in terms of helping those who are most vulnerable and those who need assistance with housing.

Since 2006, we have invested more than $16.5 billion in housing. This year alone, we will spend about $2 billion, through a range of programs, to help Canadians in housing need.

These federal investments have helped—and this is staggering—almost one million Canadian families and individuals over the past eight years, just since we took government.

Our goal is to ensure that hard-working taxpayer dollars are used wisely. That means ensuring that accessibility and sustainability of housing, including social housing, is there for those most in need. I am very pleased to have been able to do my part, even in the most recent months.

In fact, just two weeks ago, I was in Alberta to meet with my counterpart and sign the renewal of our investment in affordable housing. That was $202 million from the province and the federal government. Before that, I was in Prince Edward Island, where we announced our signing agreement of $15 million and, prior to that, in British Columbia, $300 million to do the same. We have also renewed our agreement with New Brunswick for $78 million.

We are looking forward to finishing those agreements over the next few months and signing them. Provinces are very pleased with what they have been receiving and they are matching those funds. Through our investment in affordable housing, provinces and territories match our federal investments and design and deliver programs to meet their local needs. This has been working well.

I want to talk a bit about how each province uses these funds differently, and my hon. colleague talked about rent subsidies.

As I said, I was recently in British Columbia. Minister Coleman, the housing minister of B.C. said:

The extension of this agreement will help us to create more housing options for British Columbians. Over the next five years, this funding will help build new affordable housing, enhance our rental assistance—

Some provinces choose to use it for rental assistance.

—programs and support partnerships that will contribute to stronger, more sustainable communities.

Minister Dube from New Brunswick, said:

This initiative demonstrates the importance of partnerships—

The opposition talks about partnerships.

—between all levels of government, communities and the private sector when increasing the supply of affordable housing available to the people of our province.

From Alberta, Minister Weadick said:

We welcome this continued partnership to create even more opportunities to develop housing that best meets our provincial priorities and local needs.

From Minister Docherty, in P.E.I.:

We will have the flexibility to design and deliver a range of affordable housing programs to address the housing needs and priorities in our province.

Let me pause there because these are important points. Note the language that is being used by these ministers of housing in a variety of provinces across the country, “needs and priorities of our province”, “flexibility”, “partnerships between all levels of government, communities and the private sector”.

This not just a coincidence. This is a specific design of the investments that we are making because we respect provincial jurisdiction. Ultimately, it is the provinces that hold the responsibility for delivering housing according to their local needs and priorities.

We provide substantial funds, and we renewed our investment for affordable housing of $1.25 billion. On top of that, in previous budgets, we invested $2 billion for new housing and to renovate existing social housing.

To get back to the investment in affordable housing, we allow the provinces to make decisions on how they want to spend that money. We do not dictate where the money goes.

On this whole idea of a national housing strategy, would that not just be great to have more people sitting around desks in Ottawa telling the provinces, municipalities, and towns how to address their housing needs? I can tell members that in Winkler, Manitoba, we do not want Ottawa telling us how to spend housing dollars. The Liberals and NDP can talk national strategy on everything. We actually get to work. We actually work with the provinces to deliver results.

There are parameters within this program, and the provinces must operate within them. However, it is actually a very broad program because we want the provinces to have the ability they need.

For example, when social housing agreements come to an end, these mortgages are paid off. If the provinces decide that some of these housing programs need additional funding, they can use the funding from the investment in affordable housing program to continue subsidies or provide other subsidies.

In fact, when I did the signing in British Columbia, I toured a social housing project that was doing very well and had great management. However, when its agreement came to an end, the management said that some of the subsidies would end. At that point, they were not aware of British Columbia's program to provide rent subsidies, and so they were very pleased to hear that we had just signed the renewal for the agreement.

British Columbia has a rent subsidy program. When this particular social housing unit's agreement comes to end, which is very soon, it can go to the province and use some of that funding. I think there were about six units that would need assistance.

This is the way we are working, and it is working very well. Social housing units are becoming more and more aware of the programs that are available.

Alberta is choosing to use the funding we are providing to renovate, retrofit, and build new seniors housing. That is something they believe is a priority. Again, we respect that.

In P.E.I., the intention is to make homes safer and more energy efficient.

My point is that every province is different. We recognize that, so we have provided substantial funding and historic investments, but we are giving the provinces the ability to do what is within their jurisdiction.

Again, it is disappointing that the NDP does not seem to really want to hear that or acknowledge the investment. I do not understand why those members vote against it. It is one thing to ask for more, but why would one vote against something that is presented, whether it is investment in affordable housing or our homelessness partnering strategy that we renewed with a focus on Housing First? The NDP members could stand up and say that is fine and they want even more, but why would they basically throw out something that is so positive just to make a political point? It is disappointing.

While I am on the topic of the homelessness partnering strategy, I am particularly happy with what we have done with the Mental Health Commission of Canada. It did a very extensive study, pilot project, the largest in the world, on Housing First; what it does and what it can accomplish. We renewed our agreements, our homelessness partnering strategy, with a focus on Housing First.

Housing First puts those who are chronically and episodically homeless into a house, first and foremost, so they have a safe, stable home to live in. They can then receive help, whether it is for drug addiction or mental illness. We know that so many people who are homeless struggle with those issues, and Housing First is an evidence-based method for helping those people. The evidence shows that, after two, three, or five years, 73% of them are still housed.

Therefore, it is very disappointing that when we have something that is non-partisan, a method that works and we renewed the funding, again the opposition votes against it.

We are not going to get distracted. We remain focused on housing, while the opposition is kind of all over the board in terms of what the issue of the day is. We do not have issues of the day. We remain committed to helping the provinces provide affordable housing for the people in their jurisdiction.