Debates of Sept. 27th, 2018

Opposition Motion—Housing

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did mention that program specifically. It is well under way. We have been seeing it through its construction phases and we in Nanaimo are proud of it. The Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre as the proponent has been fantastic about partnering and finding as much money as it can.

I will note one of the other indigenous housing programs, which created a contest for indigenous housing ideas. It was like a Hunger Games for on-reserve housing. Here I was struck by the comment of Mary Teegee, chair of the Delegated Aboriginal Agencies Provincial Forum, who said:

This issue of housing and poverty is not to be relegated to something as demeaning as a contest in order to win prize money.... I do believe that, while however well-intentioned it may be, it absolutely misses the mark of dealing with the issues, which is really that housing issues within First Nations communities, they're at a crisis point.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noted how much the member knows about where the money is needed in her own municipality, and the same is true for some of the other members who have spoken.

If the government really wants to make inroads on affordable housing and the homelessness issue, it should consult members of Parliament and give the money to the municipalities, because they obviously know exactly where it needs to go.

Would the member comment on that?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, we absolutely want to be invited when government members come to our communities. That would be fantastic.

An interesting piece that has not been a big part of this conversation is the problems that rural areas in particular face. They are not inside a municipal structure, so they do not have that direct link to money. On east Vancouver Island, because of the expropriation of land to build the railway, there is very little public land available.

I want to flag something that I heard from my colleague Howard Houle, the regional director of the Regional District of Nanaimo. He said that the RDN was developing a program they hoped to get assent for, so they could basically create a housing authority within this unincorporated regional government. It could help community organizations facilitate land donations and then the management of housing agreements to ensure that the people who need the housing the most are the ones who get it. If you're outside of municipal structure, you've got a particular challenge and we hope that the voters locally will accede to that and very much bear in mind the need to elect councils and rural regional directors who will say yes to zoning applications in partnership with provincial and federal governments.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Sarnia—Lambton has stood up several times now and said that no money is being spent in her riding. I just want to assure her that it is. In fact, there is $7.2 million spent at the following addresses: 369 Tank Street in Petrolia and 747 Copland Road in Sarnia. Additional dollars are being spent at 16 Watt Street in Forest, Ontario; 1212 Michigan Avenue in Sarnia; 1625 Afton, Sarnia; 115 Victoria Street, Sarnia; 911 Wellington Street, Sarnia; 2444 Jane Street in Brigden, Ontario; 4335 Petrolia Street in Petrolia, Ontario—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Thank you very much. I want to allow the member to respond. I just want the parliamentary secretary to know that the questions are to the NDP member, and I want to give her an opportunity to respond.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, if the member opposite has a similar list for my riding, I would love to see it, because we do not get informed by the government and do not get invited. This is a nonpartisan issue. We need to work together to house those most deeply in need.

I wonder if there is anyone on the government side who would like to work with the people elected by the locals. I am sure we would all do better if we coordinated and communicated together. So far that has not happened.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to this debate.

One of the most telling observations today was the first statement of the parliamentary secretary when he said there had been about 25 years of federal absence. I was here when Paul Martin cancelled federal housing and when the Liberals resisted time after time. The parliamentary secretary was correct that Paul Martin's administration, and even the Jean Chrétien administration, was the one that crumbled away a national housing strategy. They drove the distance between the provinces and municipalities and the federal government to be proactive, to build on our success and to ensure the existing housing stocks would remain viable for the future and that new ones would meet the demand to provide homes for the safety, education and quality of life for so many people today.

We are in a major catch-up scenario because of the 25 years the parliamentary secretary rightly described in his opening statement today. He is absolutely correct to point out where it belongs: the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien administrations not doing the work needed. They were forewarned time after time by the New Democrats and others in the chamber. Each of their governments slashed social services. At the same time, there were massive corporate tax cuts for insurance industries, oil and gas companies and a series of others that made record profits.

Social investment today will give us a stronger economy and will deal with some of the humanity issues we face, such as an opioid crisis and other emerging trends. A safe roof over the heads of people and their families is so important to achieve. That is echoed across the country.

It is also important to note in the motion the role of the private sector. There are a number of different options available for us in the private sector. However, the government continues to make decisions that erode housing options.

The area I represent has one of the highest rates of child poverty. Most recently, not only have we been waiting for investments for federal housing, but there has been an order in council from the government, the cabinet, to eliminate housing from our market. I will get back to that in a second.

I represent the town of Sandwich, the oldest European settlement west of Montreal, where the war of 1812 was fought and where the underground railroad was located. Today, it also has one of the highest rates of poverty. It is an area challenged with immigration supports to ensure people get back to school. There are single one-parent families. It is recognized, even through third-party reports, as being one of the most challenged in the nation, most recently by Campaign 2000 to end child poverty. The riding-by-riding analysis shows, sadly, that we are just outside the top 10.

This area has one-third of Canada's daily trade to the United States? What did the government do? It gave a private American billionaire, Matty Moroun, who has his tentacles through the history of the Liberal Party, permission to build a new bridge and, at the same time, to demolish single-family and multiplex homes for affordable housing, which they bought. If that was not bad enough, the repercussions were already being felt because they bought these homes and boarded the doors and windows. We lost schools, mostly Forster High School. We lost the post office, which was the longest-standing post office in Canada, from the 1800s, at one point delivering mail by horse and carriage. We lost places of worship and businesses.

For those who are not familiar with an order in council, it is essentially a decree from prime ministers and their cabinets that avoids all scrutiny, that is the will of them in their moment, that they know everything and that they issue that law, have privilege, the right without coming through the chamber or even the unelected chamber.

The Liberals gave this billionaire, an American who was sentenced to prison because of his conduct in the U.S., the keys and the process to continue to have homes boarded and locked up, Now he wants to do that to another 30-40 homes. The situation has become so grave that he has decided to erect lawn signs on these properties, calling for their demolition. He had the green light, the special permission and the privileged access from the government to do another border crossing without any terms or conditions. There are not even any terms for community benefits. Ironically the Liberals voted for its private member's motion to do a community benefit project. They ignored advice from their members. I think the motion is buried in some committee somewhere, but it has not seen the light of the day here. It is just another Liberal motion that has gone to another place, probably to show they did something during their four year tenure. We have not seen it come back here.

What is happening right now? We have another war on the city streets of Windsor at a time when housing is at a crisis point.

Although Windsor has had the blessing of lower housing prices than other places and affordable housing has been attainable to a certain level, that has shifted radically in the last five years. Hundreds now are without proper accommodation. The market is increasing. More people are flocking to the city. We have issues over opioids and other social problems, which are multiplying. The perfect storm is taking place at this point in time and more and more people than ever before do not have a place for their families at the end of the day.

The Liberals are very cognizant of this and of their partner, who is destroying these homes and asking for more homes to be destroyed, and we have seen no action.

In the motion is the notation of the private sector. It is the government's responsibility, with its partners, including the Ambassador Bridge and the project that will proceed based on the order in council from the Prime Minister and his cabinet, including the minister responsible for today's debate, to do something about the fact that their actions are eliminating affordable home options in my community.

We literally have single family homes, or duplexes or quadplexes that could provide a safe place for parents and their children. The economic basis for a community to survive is being shut down because of Liberal policies, lack of accountability and the mere fact that the Liberals' promises are nothing less than the broken words.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite raises a critical question and it relates to the right to housing in the human rights framework that we will move forward with to deal with one of the most pressing issues in the country today, which is the economic displacement of low-income communities. It is a real challenge. Some call it gentrification, but there are other issues attached to it. I look forward to the member supporting us as we build into the national housing program a way to protect those communities that get economically displaced by economic forces beyond their control.

The member talks, with disappointment, about the fact that we have spent $5.8 billion in our first year and $6.3 billion in our second year. Is the member aware that the platform he ran on promised to spend $2.89 billion new over four years, $2 billion of which was the housing renewals, which we have already done and is not even part of the figures I mentioned. In other words, only $700 million for homelessness. Would he rather we kept his promise or fulfill our mandate to build housing, which is way more than $700 million, the paltry sum he promised Canadians when he stood for election?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

What a sad question, Madam Speaker. He should go back to his own comments, his own words about 25 years of being absent, including his former mentors Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien and the cast of characters we had in here who denied the fact that there was a problem in Canada. I am glad the member has owned up to that 25 years of absence. That party could take action now to make up for those 25 years.

It reminds me of a quote, “Promises are worse than lies because you make others hope for something that you're not going to do.” That should be the Liberal credo.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned that this motion includes the private sector, given the fact that the preamble talks about the private sector. He mentioned the private sector twice in his speech. However, there is nothing in the motion that talks about incentives to get the private sector involved or reducing red tape to allow the private sector to do its job or reducing development fees.

There are many communities in which the private sector is eager to partner, but the current government is adding continuing red tape and increasing taxes, making us far less competitive. Therefore, plumbers, electricians and all of the people who are able to provide private sector housing are not able to keep their jobs.

I would encourage my colleague to include the private sector and some ideas as to how the private sector could actually be a part of the solution. No one is suggesting the private sector is going to solve all the problems, but it is a great partner that we should be incorporating into our plan.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in fact, a lot of models were very important to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and involved the private sector. The member knows the Conservative Party did not use this excellent asset. In fact drove a wedge between it for some of its good work being done under the Harper administration. That is the reality.

Perhaps we can see a re-emergence of CMHC as part of a proactive approach to including the private sector to accomplish some of those goals. Sustainable and regular funding as well is very important for the private sector, so it knows that its projects will be viable, as they are amortized over a series of years. There are plenty of ways the private sector can be brought in to do this.

It also about job creation and other programs we can do for carpentry and for home building. A lot of the programs and services, which have been cancelled in the past, like the retrofit program the Conservatives cancelled, were very good for local employment and development. They lowered costs for people, saved with energy efficiency, put more money back into people's pockets and employed a lot of local people. Therefore, the re-emergence of those programs in connection with the national housing program is a good way to put people to work and put roofs over people's heads.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, in response to the speech given by a member who proudly represents his constituents and who told us that some of them were displaced because of the construction of a bridge by a private U.S. company, a bridge that has yet to be built, the Liberals decided to revisit the 2015 campaign and events that occurred in 2004. For those watching at home, I would say that it was the perfect illustration of how the Liberals perceive the housing debate.

Can my colleague, who has been here a long time, tell us what the consequences are of saying one thing and doing the opposite?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an important point. It is the missed opportunities of our country, the mediocrity and malaise from the government. The problem is that the Liberals are saying it, but they do not really mean it. They do not put the necessary hard work behind it. The example I provided with the Ambassador Bridge is a classic example of the fact that their actions have consequences. Housing was eliminated because they would not do the hard work that was necessary.

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

It is my pleasure to rise today to take part in the opposition day debate on housing. It is not often that an opposition party gives the government a chance to talk about all its achievements, but thanks to the member for Saskatoon West, we are doing that today.

I am not just going to speak about our record on housing. I am going to talk about what we have done for seniors, for people living with disabilities and for vulnerable Canadians. Most of all, I am going to speak about what we are doing in the fight against poverty, because that is at the core of this opposition day motion. What is the government doing to fight poverty in Canada? The answer to that question is simple: We are doing more than any government has done in generations.

I will start with seniors. We all know that Canada's population is aging. However one looks at it, Canadians are living healthier, longer lives, and with these demographic changes, our country will have both challenges and opportunities. Our government recognizes this, which is why a key focus since taking office has been improving the quality of life for an aging population.

We increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, improving financial security for almost 900,000 seniors and helping to lift thousands of seniors out of poverty. We enhanced the Canada pension plan for the first time in a generation, which will help the seniors of tomorrow with increased retirement benefits, particularly for disabled contributors, widows and widowers. Indeed, in my riding, I cannot tell members how many seniors have come in who are trying to survive on the Canada pension plan, the OAS and the GIS. They struggle. This is a huge accomplishment. Of course, we reversed the Harper government's disastrous changes to OAS and GIS eligibility, restoring the age from 67 back to 65, which will prevent 100,000 seniors from falling into poverty every year.

Let us talk about what our government is doing to promote accessibility and help Canadians living with disabilities. Today, one in seven Canadians reports having a disability, and disability continues to be the most common ground for discrimination complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is why our goal is to make a barrier-free Canada a reality within the federal jurisdiction and why, last June, we tabled Bill C-81, Canada's first-ever national accessibility legislation. Thanks to the accessibility act, our government is taking a proactive approach to get ahead of systemic discrimination across all areas of federal jurisdiction to achieve the progressive realization of a Canada without barriers.

We are also putting money where it matters through programs such as the enabling accessibility fund and the social development partnership program. Initiatives like these support community-based projects across Canada aimed at improving accessibility and safety within communities and workplaces. They get us closer to a barrier-free Canada, where people with disabilities can have a real opportunity to succeed.

We can talk about housing. Our government is proud to have announced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy, our 10–year, $40-billion plan to give more Canadians a place to call home. Thanks to the national housing strategy, we are going to create 100,000 new housing units and repair and renew more than 300,000 housing units. We are going to reduce or eliminate housing needs for 530,000 Canadian families across Canada. We are going to protect an additional 385,000 households from losing an affordable place to live. We are going to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027–28.

It is important to note, however, that our commitment to make sure that Canadians have access to safe, affordable homes runs deeper than the national housing strategy. From the beginning of our mandate, we have been making unprecedented investments in housing. These investments are already paying off. Whether it is eliminating chronic homelessness in Victoria, funding new community housing projects in Calgary or Kitchener, or funding seniors in supportive housing units in St. John's, all across Canada we are helping to create homes for people who need them the most. In fact, since forming government in 2015, we have invested nearly $5 billion in housing, which has benefited nearly one million Canadians from coast to coast to coast. By comparison, the party that initiated today's debate promised less than $3 billion over four years for housing, and those commitments were conditional on first balancing the budget.

Our government understood from day one that meeting Canada's housing challenges could not wait, which is why we have invested from the beginning of our mandate and why we have committed to providing stable, long-term funding to our partners for the next decade. This will bring certainty for our partners over the next decade so that they can plan and start to look forward as to how they can help resolve some of these issues.

Let us talk about poverty. As we outlined recently in opportunity for all, which is Canada’s first-ever national poverty reduction strategy, and there seem to be a lot firsts coming along here, our government has a plan to achieve the lowest level of poverty in Canada's history by 2030. That is millions of people removed from poverty. We are also going to establish the first-ever official poverty line so that we can accurately measure how we are doing in the fight against poverty rather than leaving it up to the government of the day to set its own definitions.

In the committee I sit on, I asked all the witnesses about data. We need that data. We need to understand the baseline. How are we doing compared to where we were? How are we doing in meeting our future goals? That is critically important in executing any operational plan.

Once again, we understand that the fight against poverty is not something that can wait, which is why we have invested heavily in that fight since we took office. To date, we have invested more than $22 billion in the fight against poverty. I am proud to say that those investments are paying off. Thanks to the Canada child benefit, enhanced seniors benefits, and starting next year, the Canada workers benefit, by April 2019, we will have lifted more than 650,000 Canadians out of poverty, including more than 300,000 children. This is an incredible achievement and something we are very proud of.

Our government understands that there is still more work to do. The Prime Minister likes to say, “better is always possible.” However we look at it, by whatever measure we use, we are making real change happen. We were elected to help Canadians in the middle class and those working hard to join it, and through unprecedented investments in housing, seniors, and the fight against poverty, our government is making it possible for more and more Canadians to have a real and fair chance at success.

I would like to add that in my riding, we see these issues being played out every single day. I have sat in on countless round tables and town halls. I have been in some of these consultations with our colleagues. What we have heard and what we are putting down as a plan is what the experts have been telling us we need. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction. We need to have a long-term plan that we can count on so that we can effectively move forward over the next decade.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, while the hon. member is patting himself on the back, homelessness has tripled in Port Alberni in two years under the Liberals' watch. We do not need to talk about campaign promises in 2015. We need to talk about people today. That is our job. That is why we are here in the House. It is to help people right now.

More and more people are ending up on the street. Our economy is struggling. As the member knows, small businesses are struggling to find employees. The Liberals have rolled out a strategy, but the member is talking about 2027-28. Imagine being on the street right now, and for 50% of the people, they are promising to make sure that they are not homeless. That number is skyrocketing. This does not make sense to the person on the street or to our communities.

What we are asking is that the government immediately roll out half the national strategy now. It is needed now. There is urgency now. The Province of B.C. understands it. It is doing it. Why can the Liberal government not do it?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have doubled our investment to $200 million. We can look at the things we have done and the investments we have made to date, This is not a problem that happened overnight. When we look at the past, it did not happen overnight. There has to be a plan to move forward, and this is our plan that will take us where we need to go. We are investing money.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member for Courtenay—Alberni that he had an opportunity to ask the question without being interrupted, and he should provide that respect to the person who is responding, even though he may not like that response.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I was able to hear some of my colleague's speech, and I heard a lot about chronic homelessness. We know that there are multiple reasons for homelessness. There are factors such as mental health, addictions, English as a second language for newcomers to Canada, and the lack of jobs. The economy has a hand in this, surprisingly.

I would like to ask my colleague what kind of tangible change is going to be reached by just throwing billions or millions of dollars at homelessness. How are we going to actually impact people and their mental health or English as a second language? How does the government plan to achieve that?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I started my intervention, I did not start by talking about housing. I started by talking about poverty, because poverty is at the core of all this. When we talk about poverty, we include mental health, because that is an issue. We see mental health issues in my riding. We see drug addiction issues. We see these types of issues all across the nation. There is a big debate: housing first or treatment? We cannot have one without the other. That is the problem.

The previous government rolled everything into a $120-million housing first program. That is not enough when it cut off housing shelters, shelters for youth and shelters for vulnerable women. It is not enough. That is why our plan is directed toward poverty and helping those who need it the most move forward. It is not just housing. It is all the elements that go together to solve the problem.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, one thing we have talked about is investments. If the government is talking about investments, why is the money not on the table right now, and why is the money the Liberals say they are putting into all these programs not rolling out as they say?

[Dan Ruimy, Liberal, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes right down to it, we have partners. We need to be able to work with our partners, and our partners have to be ready and willing to move forward.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am truly very pleased to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Carleton.

Canadians believe that the spending the member considers to be reckless actually represents wise strategic investments that will stimulate Canada's economy and create strong and inclusive communities.

For example, our commitment to spend more than $11 billion on new investments in housing was the largest item in the 2017 budget.

Access to safe and affordable housing is a key issue in practically every riding in the country, including Carleton and, of course, mine, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I am pleased to say that the government has shown unprecedented leadership on this file, which is so important for the health and well-being of Canadian families.

I would especially like to point out that the government went to great lengths last year to consult Canadians on how to improve housing outcomes for everyone. The minister visited my riding together with representatives of affordable housing advocacy groups and associations. He took the time to consult the people in my riding. This was a commitment we made in budget 2016 in order to identify innovative ideas that could be included in Canada's first ever national housing strategy.

At the end of June 2016, a national conversation on housing was launched at the end of a productive meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial ministers responsible for housing. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC, led consultations entitled “Let’s Talk Housing” for four months.

Between June 28 and October 21, 2018, the CMHC and the provincial, territorial, and municipal governments held a number of consultation activities on Canada's national housing strategy. The consultations included online initiatives and live events organized in cities and regions of Canada, during which time a tremendous amount of information was gathered. The opinions, ideas, and points of view of thousands of Canadians and dozens of interested organizations were gathered and recorded.

The consultations had three objectives. First, we wanted to encourage Canadians to actively reflect on the issue of housing, what it means to our communities, and to talk about it. We did that in spades.

Second, Canadians were invited to share their points of view on a long-term vision for housing in Canada. They were also invited to identify themes and significant results related to housing, and to find innovative solutions and approaches to housing. That was also definitely accomplished.

The third purpose of the consultations was to help develop a national housing strategy, which I will get to in a few minutes.

I would like to take this opportunity to summarize some of the engagement activities that took place last summer and early autumn.

Online activities included a CMHC social media campaign called Let's Talk Housing to promote the consultations. Canadians shared more than 1,900 ideas via social media. The campaign was so innovative and effective that it won two MarCom platinum awards from the Association of Marketing and Communication Professionals. The CMHC also won four gold awards in various video categories and honourable mentions in a number of website categories for its “Let's Talk Housing” consultations.

Over 6,300 Canadians also took the time to participate in a nationwide survey on the national housing strategy through the “Let's Talk Housing” website. Over 130 ideas were submitted on the CMHC's idea sharing platform, and over 475 online written submissions were received from individuals and organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the National Housing Collaborative.

The CMHC also organized a total of 22 roundtables to gather input from experts and advocates on Canada's national housing strategy.

Furthermore, 21 focus groups were held with vulnerable populations, including people with lived experience of homelessness, recent immigrants, low-income Canadians, and people with disabilities, to give people who face daily housing challenges a chance to participate in the development of the national housing strategy. This was a worthwhile initiative.

We also conducted public surveys, and some MPs organized town halls in their ridings. I also want to mention that all MPs received information and materials to help them communicate with their constituents. We reached out to indigenous peoples, who often experience some of the harshest living conditions in Canada. CMHC hosted round tables with housing experts on indigenous housing in rural, remote and urban areas, as well as on northern housing.

Meetings were held with national indigenous organizations, and we supported their own consultation forums. The result of all these efforts was a report entitled “What We Heard”, which was released by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development in a Facebook event on National Housing Day, November 22, 2016. I urge all MPs to visit the website letstalkhousing.ca and to read the “What We Heard” report.

For now, I would like to say that a clear and common message came from the consultations, and that is that Canadians want better results when it comes to housing for people in need. Some clear themes also emerged during the consultations. For example, Canadians and housing stakeholders believe that the national housing strategy should encompass the full spectrum of housing while giving priority to those who are most in need. Housing must be incorporated into the other support services that vulnerable people may need. Housing providers need better access to capital to make it easier for them to build more affordable housing units. What is more, most participants favoured policies that enable local communities to propose solutions to housing problems.

More specifically, Canadians want their national housing strategy to reduce or eliminate homelessness in Canada. My riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles covers Deux-Montagnes, Saint-Eustache, Boisbriand and Rosemère, which are northern suburbs of Montreal. We have shelters to help homeless people there. Homelessness is not just a problem in urban areas. It is also a problem in the suburbs. Unfortunately, homelessness is a daily reality for some people in my riding. Shockingly, nearly 1,000 people access homeless shelters there every year.

I want to come back to what Canadians want from their housing strategy. They want priority to be given to the housing needs of low-income and vulnerable people. They also want the strategy to address the unique challenges faced by indigenous communities and the growing housing affordability issues faced by lower and middle-income Canadians, particularly in our larger cities. They want a strategy that will forge inclusive, sustainable communities and that will ensure that our social housing sector remains strong.

Those who took part in the consultations did more than just identify problems. They also identified options, proposed innovative solutions and helped focus on measurable results. All of this information and these perspectives will be taken into account when the government finalizes the national housing strategy's key initiatives.

As the minister said, the purpose of the national housing strategy is not to duplicate or replace existing provincial, territorial or municipal housing plans or strategies. Rather, its purpose will be to better coordinate the efforts of everyone involved, including governments, housing stakeholders, and indigenous and other organizations. We must work together on a common vision and results in a spirit of mutual respect.

First of all, we are taking a whole-of-government approach with the national housing strategy in order to look at housing in a global context and support the social and economic advancement of individuals and families. In addition, in partnership with the provinces and territories, we are working toward implementing a national strategy that takes regional housing needs into account and respects individual jurisdictions.

Key stakeholders have shown strong support for what we are doing with our national housing strategy and the direction we are taking. In my riding, for example, representatives are very pleased with the strategy.

In closing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member is out of time. Perhaps she will have an opportunity to finish her remarks as she answers questions.

I now recognize the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, while I hate to contradict my colleague opposite, who says the government is doing a lot to support housing, a report by an organization called Generation Squeeze indicates that, relative to young people in 1976, it takes two to four times longer for today's youth to save up the 20% down payment needed to buy their first home.

It is therefore much harder for today's youth to get into their first home and start building their lives, especially when they graduate with student debt. This is not to mention the mortgage rates that are two to four times higher in some regions of Canada, which makes it even harder.

My colleague claims that all organizations in Quebec are pleased, but the Regroupement des comités logement et associations de locataires du Québec has sharply criticized the national housing strategy:

The federal government's commitment to invest large sums ($2 billion from the federal government and as much from the provinces) in a Canada housing benefit—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I have to make sure there is time for other questions, so I will let the member respond.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.