Debates of Jan. 31st, 2019

Opposition Motion—Affordable Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, this housing program embraces just that kind of collaboration and co-operation.

There is a great co-housing movement that we are talking to as part of the process moving forward. It does that work of matching people together to create co-housing solutions when people need companionship as well as housing in order to thrive in their housing. The co-op housing sector does it as well, as do other organizations that provide support to tenant groups. That is also included in the complexity and all-encompassing reach this housing strategy has put in place.

The co-investment fund also brings together and rewards collaboration. We look for those partnerships in particular with municipal governments and service providers.

We have a great program for veterans coming out of Bala, where a Legion surrendered its parking lot to a housing program. It is building units of affordable housing for seniors, and also accessible housing for injured vets. The Legion is volunteering time for service, the city is waiving development fees, and we are providing financing and a grant to get that project going.

It is exactly the kind of collaboration that was unavailable to housing providers under the Conservatives, who did not like co-operation and collaboration. In fact, they would pull CMHC funding if there was veterans' funding on the site. That was their approach. We are rewarding that approach and making sure it happens.

I want to take this one opportunity to tell the leader of the Green Party that she failed to mention the environment. I am shocked.

One of the ways to making housing more affordable is to make it so that it reduces its greenhouse gas emissions and consumption of energy. We have a great program in Nanaimo that saw 36 units of passive housing built under the innovation fund by an indigenous friendship centre, outside the indigenous housing program but as part of our program. That particular housing program has supportive housing for youth and aging out of care. It has places for elders to live and families to live, with common rooms and supports, in a community setting. It is beautifully designed in the west plank tradition, but get this: Because it is passive housing, the heating and cooling costs are $20 a month. It is better housing, cheaper housing, and it is reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

When we embrace complexity, we get brilliant solutions. When we open up the housing policy to everybody, including indigenous partners, who have some brilliant ideas, we get the best housing this country has ever produced. That has come out of the national housing strategy.

If the member for Durham would like to come and visit some housing programs as opposed to talking about the language I used, I can show him projects from coast to coast to coast that would take his breath away and maybe even make him decide to reinvest in housing if he ever got back into government, which is not going to happen soon.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

[Member spoke in Dene, interpreted as follows:]

Today I rise to support the motion that my friend, the member for Saskatoon West, has put forward to create an immediate and necessary response to the housing crisis in Canada. I am glad to be speaking today as a follow-up to the important call to action that the NDP put forward to the Liberal government to immediately address the crisis in housing in on-reserve and northern homes.

As a northerner, I see the crisis. We need a lot of housing in my community of La Loche. Walking the streets of La Loche, I see people who are struggling without homes and without water and do not know where they are going to get their next meal and where they are going to sleep. When I go to La Ronge, in front of the shelters like Scattered Site in La Ronge, I see people who are trying to get a meal.

It is important to see that the homeless people do not just sit on the streets all day.

I want to say more here about people who do not have houses. They do not have much with them. They do not have clothes or food or shelter or anywhere to sleep. People who are struggling with addictions, with alcohol, need housing too; they do not have housing. Youth and students who are away from their homes to attend school do not have homes when they are attending schools or university. People who are low-income wage earners who make money and single mothers who are often with young children and babies are people who do not have homes, and they are struggling too. Men of all ages are struggling as well. Those people do not have homes, and they are struggling too.

Elders and seniors across northern Saskatchewan are more likely to be abused, and they are less likely to report the abuse they experience. They will not tell the RCMP, because they feel the RCMP will not help them. The cost of living is higher for seniors and the costs of medication and transportation to see a doctor are increasing. Even food is expensive. Money is scarce, and they do not have much. One elder I know from Montreal Lake is living in a shelter. The federal government and provincial government are ignoring her. She is forgotten by a system where nobody wants to help her.

People with low incomes and people who make lots of money are struggling to buy and maintain homes in the north. To borrow money is hard for them too. The cost of supplies and to transport lumber to the north is expensive. Maintenance costs are only increasing for the average person in the north. The cost of food for everyone is increasing. For those earners who have children, the cost of food, clothes and education is up too.

People who are working are in poverty too. What people in the north want is different from what the government is providing.

In my own community of La Loche, I see homeowners where I am living. I am a renter. I feel like I am living in a homeless place, because there are no places to go.

It is hard to talk about these kinds of things. It is kind of embarrassing too.

People on reserve have a tough time too. They try really hard to talk to the government about how to build houses and how to put money away for housing issues. It is difficult to do that too. In Saskatchewan, sometimes people get evicted and lose their houses. In Sandy Bay, dozens of families are victims of the cost of living. They do not know where to go. The government took the money and could help the people of the north. Furthermore, people who are struggling with housing and also people who have houses, whether working or not, still need a lot of money for housing and property.

The Conservatives, when they were in power, cut off funding for a lot of people, and there is no more money for that. The Liberal government is the same, cutting the funds for housing. It is hard for people in the north to ask for help with funding. They need a lot of money for housing.

People wait quite a bit for housing, at least 10 years. For people living in housing, on reserve and in municipalities, many of the houses are in bad condition with, for example, mould and they get diseases from that. None of the government departments is providing answers or hope.

It is kind of confusing for people, young or old, to find a house, to just try to live. They need funding for housing. They cannot buy property without money. That is why I am proud today to support a motion today that provides a measurable goal that means something to people, because funding formulas are always changing and confusing Canadians' measure of the success of housing. I am happy to be here to talk about this.

Speaking Dene about housing issues is a huge thing for me. People living on reserve, Métis people and far north people need money for housing and to be supportive of them and the way they think about housing. We need the government to reach out to the people who need housing. When government thinks about the funding, it thinks about what is best for them.

Kids are going to suffer, and when they get older they will not know where to go. To also think about those kinds of things, we need the government to help the Dene people. That is why I am here to talk about housing for the people. That is why I am standing here today asking.

[English]

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

Mr. Speaker, in the most humble way possible, I would like to thank the member for the words delivered in her language. They communicate to us not just the elegance and the beauty of her culture, but also the importance of the issue we are debating today. I am proud to stand in the House and in a country that has moved toward accepting those words with that voice in the House. It makes us all better.

As someone who has clearly not chosen their words in their own native tongue this week very well and who struggles with French, saying meegwetch would be just the beginning of the way to say thanks to the member, but it is chi-meegwetch in the language of part of the country I represent.

I know the member is a fierce advocate for her people and for her riding because of the question she asked on the floor of the House just before we rose in December. The question was about getting supportive housing and a housing project for women, who were fleeing very difficult circumstances, built, supported and installed. We worked together to get that money. People should not have to ask questions in the House of Commons to get housing or funding. Governments need to provide those dollars systematically, fairly and equitably across the country.

The question I have for the member opposite is a simple one. There is no specific carve out for indigenous housing in the NDP motion. Could we expect a better promise from the NDP than in the last campaign where it only put $25 million into indigenous infrastructure on an annual basis? Could we expect a comprehensive approach to indigenous housing on and off reserve in remote and urban settings before the next election so we can all understand, from the member's perspective, how we can do better?

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

[Member spoke in Dene, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, whatever the member asked me, I am asking him the same question too. Why the policy his government made for people in the north, on reserve people, Métis people and northern Saskatchewan people? It seems like the government did not do anything to understand how to make houses, to put funding away for housing. It seems like there is not enough money over there. It seems like the government is waiting at least 10 years for that and people are poor there most of the time.

Why will the government not help them? Stop waiting and help them. It is the way the government speaks about helping people. To speak Dene is the way I speak and to help members.

[English]

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her advocacy on behalf of the people she represents not only in Saskatchewan and across Canada but also with my colleagues. As our housing critic, she has helped to remind me of the issues that need to be included when we talk about housing. We have moved from somewhere to somewhere better, but all members, all caucuses, all parties have a way to go to acknowledge and really work in partnership.

My colleagues have brought forward the need for a distinct strategy for indigenous people in rural, remote and urban centres in Canada quite separate from a housing strategy on reserve. It was my understanding that it would be part of the conversation today when we talked about building more housing, moving investment sooner. It was my understanding that they would be an integral part of what we talked about.

I wonder if the member would comment on what might be included in such a strategy.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

[Member spoke in Dene, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada where we live, this is what I think. We need to talk to people who are living in the north, people who are living on reserve and people who are living in the communities, indigenous people, Métis people, about housing as a whole and about where the funds are going, how to help people deal with the housing crisis. That is the way we can help people.

[English]

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure members in the House that there is a separate and distinct approach to indigenous housing that is under way with this government, with $1.5 billion in the last budget. It is a specific approach with the Inuit, a specific approach with the ITK, a specific approach with the Assembly of First Nations and a specific approach with the Métis nation.

We also are embarking on a distinction-based approach to indigenous populations living outside the treaty system, outside not just urban centres but also in the north. Members will see work on this in the very near future.

We also have invested and changed the way in which the homeless partnership strategy, now called “Reaching Home”, reaches into indigenous communities and the north. Robert Byers, who was an indigenous housing provider in Saskatchewan, has said that there is no reconciliation without housing, and we take that wise counsel seriously.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise in the House to support the motion moved by my colleague from Saskatoon West urging the government to invest—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I apologize, but I forgot to recognize the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River for her reply to the question.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

[Member spoke in Dene, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, the way I understand this, the government is not telling us the truth, the people who are living in the north. The way he is talking about it, the people are in charge. The way I understand this, the government is doing that for the people who are living on reserve. The people who are voted in, they talk for them. Also people who are living in communities, people who are leaders talk for their people. We can talk to those people too about housing, how the funds are distributed and how to ask the government for the funds. Why can they not do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, everybody makes mistakes. All is forgiven.

Again, I am very proud to rise in the House today to debate and support the motion moved by my colleague from Saskatoon West. This motion deals with a very important issue, the housing crisis in Canada. The motion calls on the government to do much more than it is doing right now. We are in a crisis situation. Many people are living on the streets and are forced into homelessness because they cannot afford housing, when that should be a right.

Canada is experiencing an unprecedented housing crisis. We are seeing skyrocketing house prices, rising rents, rental shortages, long waiting lists for social housing, and a rise in homelessness.

An RBC study shows that the average cost of home ownership in major cities amounts to 48% of a household's income. Half of the household income goes to housing. Generally speaking, for housing to be affordable for an individual or a family, they should be investing a maximum of 30% of their after-tax income. The study shows that on average, households spend half their income on housing. That is truly exorbitant. It is very hard to get by. In Vancouver, that number spikes to a whopping 88%. People in Vancouver have a hard time surviving when housing costs nearly 100% of their earnings. It is therefore not surprising that far too often, many graduates and young workers can neither buy a home nor find a decent place to rent.

Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze, which is based in British Columbia, conducted a study in 2016. He found that while the cost of housing had doubled across the country since 1976, and tripled in metro Vancouver, incomes had fallen for younger Canadians. After adjusting for inflation, full-time earnings for a typical Canadian aged 25 to 34 had fallen over $4,000 since 1976. This drop in earnings makes it even harder to buy a home, especially in major urban centres.

In the 40 years between 1976 and 2016, the rate of home ownership among young Canadians dropped 24%. Between 1976 and 1980, it took five years of full-time work for a person aged 25 to 34 to save a 20% down payment for a house. Because wages are down and housing prices are so much higher, it now takes younger Canadians nearly 12 years of work to save a comparable down payment. In short, it is becoming harder and harder for young people to put a roof over their heads, even working full time.

Immediate action is needed to combat Canada's housing crisis. The lack of social and affordable housing is deeply troubling. In a country as rich as ours, it is unacceptable that so many people are desperately searching for social or affordable housing.

I want to remind members that housing is a right and that Canada signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or ICESCR. The first paragraph of article 11 reads as follows:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.

As a signatory to the ICESCR, our country has a duty to take concrete action on this right to housing. This means that the government is required to provide a sufficient number of low-cost housing units and to guarantee access for the poorest citizens. This is absolutely not the case right now, since 1.7 million families are living in inadequate, unsuitable or unaffordable conditions. The problem with the national housing strategy proposed by the Liberals is that 90% of the money allocated will not be spent until after the next election.

The money was announced two years ago, but 90% of it will not be spent until after the next election. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for people living with stress, anxiety, depression and addiction issues, because the funds are not flowing. The government is handling this crisis as though it is no big deal, as though it is not even a crisis.

Even government members, following the Prime Minister's lead, boast about making housing available to vast numbers of Canadians. The harsh reality is that there may be as few as 15,000 new units and about 100,000 repaired units. All of the money that has been spent had already been earmarked. That is not tackling the crisis; that is just maintaining the existing housing supply.

The member for Spadina—Fort York grudgingly admitted that the Liberals inflate figures to rhetorical advantage. That is absolutely scandalous. We know that families and children are suffering because of the nationwide housing shortage. What should I tell Claude, a constituent of mine who is having a hard time making ends meet while he waits for housing? The Liberals just see housing as something to be used to rhetorical advantage.

I will outline the situation in the biggest city in my riding. There is a desperate lack of social and affordable housing in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield. A family making less than $21,000 must spend between 40% and 70% of its income on rent and hydro. Thousands of people back home in Salaberry—Suroît are in that situation.

Claude, whom I mentioned a moment ago, is a young man in his 40s living with an illness that has kept him from working for the past two years. He gets some assistance from the provincial government, but nothing from the federal government. His monthly income is a little over $1,000, which is not very much. Half of his income goes to his rent and hydro. After he pays all his bills, he has only $80 a week left to buy food and clothing or to get a haircut. He has requested subsidized housing, but since he just moved to Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, he will have to wait for several months before he can even apply. Even once he does apply, he will be on a wait list that is between three and five years long.

In a country as rich as Canada, why do our vulnerable citizens have to wait so long just to get a roof over their heads, when housing is a right?

This has been going on in Canada for decades. The Conservatives and the Liberals have let the situation deteriorate. No, the right to housing should not be fodder for rhetoric. We are talking about the lives of millions of Canadians, among them thousands of people in my riding. Anyone who does not believe me can talk to people working on the ground, like Christina Girard, the coordinator of the Comité logement Beauharnois, who says that there is an urgent need for new social housing units.

This housing crisis is particularly hard on women, whether they are by themselves or have children. Salaberry-de-Valleyfield has a very high rate of single-parent families, or 32.4%, compared to all of Quebec, with about 25%. Women are strongly affected by not being able to afford rent or the possibility of ending up on the street, which can cause mental health or addiction issues. The most common solution to this instability is to provide single-room housing, in spite of the health risks associated with this type of housing. The bathrooms and kitchens in these buildings are shared and are rarely in good shape.

A study shows that the rising use of single-room housing, where the other rooms are shared, exacerbates women's inequality. The authors of this study observed various types of abuse against women in this type of housing, including lack of security, difficult living conditions, paternalistic rules and even employees demanding sexual favours in exchange for providing access to the women's mail. Abusive acts coupled with women's unstable situations make them more vulnerable to eviction and force them to challenge such abuse.

In 2015, in the Suroît area, 8.6% of families with children between the ages of 0 and 17 lived below the poverty line, after taxes. In Salaberry-de-Valleyfield alone, the average cost of housing is $678 a month. The Valleyfield housing committee intervened 533 times in 2017. In 2018 there were 366 homeless persons and 1,176 people at risk of becoming homeless in the Suroît area.

The situation is so urgent and alarming that housing issues are part of the social development plan of the Beauharnois-Salaberry RCM. Reeve Maude Laberge invited me and other municipal and provincial elected officials to discuss a strategy and to ensure that housing, among other things, is a priority. When a rural area is not a priority, as is the case with our area, it is difficult to obtain funding for affordable housing, since we are not a major urban centre. All the money is spent in major urban centres, and regions like Salaberry—Suroît are left with the crumbs. We have the data to prove that rural areas have a desperate need for housing, and it is about time that the minister woke up and changed the funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talked about generation squeeze, which is an idea that has come from an academic in British Columbia who is particularly focused on the inaccessibility of private housing to first-time buyers on the west coast. The average home price in Vancouver is $1.6 million. That requires a down payment of $320,000. To put that in context, that is more expensive than the condo I own, and I live in Toronto. Quite clearly, there is an impediment to first-time buyers getting into the market.

New Democrats have promised to spend $125 million to subsidize people who have $320,000 to put on a down payment and can carry mortgages of $1.3 million, which is beyond any of our salaries. Their priority for homebuyers in their election promises being made in the by-election is to get an extra $750 into the hands of millionaires as a way of solving the housing crisis.

I am wondering if the member opposite is concerned about generation squeeze. Why would New Democrats spend $125 million on people who have $320,000 in their pockets now to get housing, as opposed to using that $125 million to build housing for people who need it?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I were him, I would not laugh so hard at the NDP's proposals.

The Liberals invested $4.5 billion in the Trans Mountain pipeline. According to the report we received, they overpaid by $1 billion for a pipeline that is going to pollute the planet even more and contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions instead of reducing them. All those billions of dollars could have been invested in the housing crisis.

We are trying to find solutions to ensure that young people, seniors, indigenous people, vulnerable persons and women can find housing and escape poverty. There are solutions on the table. The government has consulted enough organizations that work on the ground with the homeless and people living in poverty. At some point, the Liberals will have to take a look in the mirror, try to come up with solutions, implement those solutions and invest money where it is needed. We cannot wait another 10 years or until after the next election to invest 90% of the money allocated where it is needed on the ground. I think it should be invested right now. That money should have been invested years ago.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member was talking about the pipeline and how it affected the environment and everything else. If it was not going to be built or added on, how does she expect those homes to be heated? How does she expect the material to build those homes to be delivered to them? How does she expect the materials that come from our forest industry to be developed? How does she expect this whole thing to happen without having a pipeline to supply fuel so that those products can be delivered to be built, etc.?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the housing strategy, and, indeed, a lot of investments are needed. The Conservatives should not really talk either. When they were in power, they cut $119 million from the housing strategy. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths today.

A number of experts would be prepared to collaborate with the Conservatives on the development of sustainable energy sources if only the Conservatives believed in climate change, if only they were not climate change deniers, and if they were prepared to find solutions for the transition. According to many experts, Alberta is the ideal location to develop solar energy to heat homes and businesses. I am no expert, but I meet with experts who are able to provide figures, strategies and plans, which the government currently does not have. A number of experts are saying that we are at an impasse, because there are many targets but no way to achieve them, since national departments have no plan.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, Veterans Affairs; and the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Environment.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time today with the amazing member of Parliament for Lethbridge.

Notionally, I support the bill. Who would not support better housing for those who cannot afford it? We have a housing affordability issue in Canada. We have an issue regarding too many regulations, which are adding costs to housing and slowing down the development of housing. Local municipalities are limiting the amount of supply. We have higher interest rates, which are pushing people out of the market. We also have an affordability issue, period, in Canada.

We have a Liberal government that sits smugly, day after day, telling us, in the face of all the evidence, that everything is fine, the economy is great and not to worry. It reminds me of the black knight in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. He has and arm and a leg chopped off, but he is bouncing around on one leg saying that everything is okay and that he is fine. It is the same denial that we hear from the current government.

Meanwhile, we have investment fleeing from our country at record rates and interest rates are on the rise. Just recently we heard that almost 50% of Canadian families are just $200 a month away from not being able to pay their bills. We are creating fights with our international partners: America, China, Australia and Japan. Despite what the government says, evidently we are not okay.

Let us look at how the government is making things unaffordable.

It is killing jobs. I want to talk about Alberta. The Prime Minister has stated again and again that Alberta needs to phase out the oil sands. The Liberals are doing a great job on it. They killed northern gateway, which would have brought Alberta oil to the northern B.C. coast and then to overseas Asian markets. Let us not be fooled by their claims that this was done by the courts. This was killed by a government order in cabinet.

Despite the member for Edmonton Mill Woods, a senior cabinet minister from Alberta, being at the table, he did not raise a complaint when the government killed northern gateway. Before he was punted from cabinet, the member for Calgary Centre stated that he would pound on his desk at the cabinet table to make sure a pipeline got built, yet he sat quietly and did not say a thing while northern gateway was killed. Just a couple of weeks ago, the member for Edmonton Centre stood in the old place to say that he was proud of the pipeline-killing Bill C-69. He was proud of the government for banning tankers off the northern B.C. coast only carrying Alberta oil. He was proud of that record.

The Liberals killed energy east. Do not be fooled again by their saying it was a business decision. They killed it with regulatory changes that made us consider upstream and downstream emissions from that pipeline.

Did they make the same requirements for the Saudi oil coming in? No, they did not. This is the same Saudi Arabia that the foreign minister was bashing on Twitter regarding human rights. Nevertheless, the government can bring in the oil no problem without the same regulations as are in Alberta.

What about Venezuelan oil? Were there any issues? Of course there were not. The government is happily bringing in oil from Venezuela without the same regulatory requirements or emissions testing as exist for Alberta oil.

The government put Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain project into a coma and then nationalized it. Members have to ask themselves, who in the world, with such immense oil reserves, has the problems that exist in Canada and has to nationalize oil? It is Venezuela and no one else.

The government nationalized it to the tune of $4.5 billion, and we just heard form the PBO that it overpaid. It was published in the paper that the Liberals overpaid by $1 billion. That is $1 billion if it gets built. If it is blocked, which is what I am sure the Liberals want, the existing pipeline would only be worth $2 billion.

In response to an earlier question, the finance minister told us to read the report. I would suggest to him that he read the report himself so that he can see how much he overpaid.

The loss of revenue from the pipelines ranges from $40 million to $100 million a day. Scotiabank says it is $40 million. The Government of Alberta says it is $80 million. GMP FirstEnergy says it is $100 million. The lowest of those numbers, from Scotiabank, works out to $15 billion a year in lost revenue, lost wages and lost resources for the government. We have to ask ourselves what we could do for social housing with that $15 billion.

There are two sides to the housing issue. It is not just a lack of available housing but a lack of good-paying jobs, and the current government is killing those jobs.

The Liberal government is forcing through a carbon tax. The government's own report shows that it needs to go to $300 a tonne to be effective. That works out to about $5,000 a year for a family in Alberta, and it is higher in Saskatchewan. On top of that, the Liberals eliminated the sports credit for children, the arts credit for children and the public transport credit. Here they want more public transport, but they eliminate the credit for low-income people to take advantage of public transport. They eliminated income-splitting for families. They cut the tax credit for text books. Of course, they are hiking the CPP. They like to say that they are providing for the future with the CPP, but we are paying a tax now that will not benefit us for decades. Of course, there is the middle-class tax cut. Those making between $90,000 and $170,000 will get tax break of $2.50 a day. However, people who are low-income, those making less than $45,000 a year, who are hurt by the lack of affordability will not get penny from the Liberal government's tax cut.

I want to talk further about the carbon tax. We are very blessed in this country. I am very blessed in my riding of Edmonton West. We have a phenomenal number of churches, charities and not-for-profits that deliver services to the needy. We have an incredible food bank with an incredible number of volunteers, but they expect the carbon tax to hit them with between $25,000 and $50,000 a year. I am sure people opposite are confused when they see banks raise their rates, but a food bank cannot pass costs on to its clients. The churches cannot pass on the cost of the carbon tax. These are churches that go out and provide help for the food banks and help to the needy.

One of my favourite organizations in my riding is called the Elves Special Needs Society. It looks after Edmonton's most disabled and disadvantaged people from ages one or two up to 55. It cannot afford the added carbon tax. Some of its clients cannot feed themselves, breathe for themselves or care for themselves. Members of the Elves Special Needs Society had to go the food bank and beg and borrow to get adult diapers for some of their clients, as it is so stretched for money, yet the government wants to add a carbon tax on top.

I want to talk about the fast and loose numbers for the Liberals' housing program. The Prime Minister said in this place that the government has already helped one million people find housing. However, here is the truth. The government's own document from the department shows that they have actually helped 7,500, not a million. The government's own document said 7,500 last year, which dropped from the previous year and the year before that.

The Liberals said they have spent $5 billion this year on housing. A report from the former Parliamentary Budget officer, Kevin Page, says that they have actually only spent $1.3 billion over the last couple of years. The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy said:

This all begs the question: Where is the proposed $40 billion National Housing Strategy funding? By following the funding throughout the years and tracking what is “new” money, we have painted a picture of what the NHS looks like apart from the glossy document that accompanied its announcement. And unfortunately, for now, the NHS is virtually nowhere to be seen in the federal fiscal framework.

Once again, for the government, I give it an A for announcements, but Canadians give it a D for delivery.

We have an affordability crisis in housing and day-to-day living in this country, and the Liberal government is making it worse, as I made it very clear. Heaven forbid the Liberals get re-elected. They are going to jack up taxes and make it even worse for common, everyday Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Conservatives talk housing policy is like the Monty Python sketch with the parrot. They insist it is a housing policy. No, it is not. They say, “Yes, it is.” No, it is not.

If someone says to Conservatives that people are on the street or that people are being de-housed because they have cut subsidies to co-ops, they say, “No, they are not". If we say that they are not building any housing, they say, “Yes, we are.” They are not. It is not funny, but that is the Conservatives' approach to housing.

They do not have a housing program, do not think they need one and do not want one. In fact, over the last 10 years, they actually evicted people and grew the number of homeless people on the street. They grew the backlog of repairs in public housing while they refused to co-operate with provinces, municipalities and indigenous governments to deliver housing programs.

I will give credit to the NDP members. When they talk about housing, they are talking about housing. When the Conservatives talk about housing, they are talking about pipelines. On that issue, they also get their numbers wrong. When more than 700,000 Canadians are subsidized and the affordability of their housing is sustained because they may have disabilities, may not be able to work because of mental health or addiction issues, or may have income issues because they are veterans and are on fixed incomes, which they cut, by the way, and the subsidies are not sustained, which are real dollars helping real people, people are evicted, homelessness is created and affordability is taken away. Are the Conservatives not sorry for cutting the operating subsidies for seniors residences in Alberta, which is one of the biggest cuts they made?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving the opportunity to the hon. member to continue misleading Canadians. It is funny. I offered to table a document in this House showing that since the Liberals came to power, seniors poverty has risen. Just a couple of days ago, they stood in this House, hand over heart, saying how much they have done for seniors. The Library of Parliament has shown that under this government, seniors poverty has increased.

The Prime Minister said, “We invested in a national housing strategy, which has already helped nearly one million people find housing”. This is the Prime Minister stating that they have helped almost one million people find housing. It was not “assisted”, not “upgraded”, not “helped out with some renovations”. They “helped nearly one million people find housing”.

The following is from the departmental results report from the hon. member's own department. The minister is actually in the room. He probably signed off on it. I am sure he did not read it. It says that the target for the number of people placed in more stable housing through the program was 15,000, and what they achieved last year was 7,145. The government cannot be trusted on anything it says in this House or outside this House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

A reminder to all hon. members not to invoke either the presence or absence of other hon. members in the House.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question about housing for indigenous people.

In my opinion, it is clear that the needs are enormous. During question period, the NDP showed several times how concerned it is about this problem.

We are seeing a real housing crisis both on and off reserve. For example, mould is a big problem. That is a serious health concern, particularly for indigenous adults and children and first nations people living on reserve. A national household survey showed that almost 40% of homes in indigenous communities need major repairs, and close to 35% are not suitable for the family's size. In some Inuit communities, the proportion of unsuitable housing exceeds 50%.

Does my colleague agree with me that indigenous people living both on and off reserve are experiencing a real housing crisis and that the government needs to take immediate action to address this very harmful situation?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is an issue that has to be addressed. I would like to point out that two years ago, the budget actually included more money from Canadians for subsidized charging stations for Teslas for wealthy Canadians than money put aside for first nations housing up north. That is the hypocrisy of the Liberal government. It stands again and again and says that nothing is more important than that relationship, but when it comes time to deliver anything, it is nowhere to be seen. The hypocrisy must end. We have to start looking after Canadians, and not just have announcements from the government.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it. All people across this country, from coast to coast, should have the opportunity to have a roof over their heads, food on the table and a warm and comfortable place to call home. People should feel secure in that place and should be proud to live in that place.

The motion before the House has an excellent intent. It highlights the need that exists in our country. We know that there are vulnerable populations that currently do not have access to housing. We know that there are others who live in housing that is perhaps not to the standard it should be, so the intent of the motion is certainly very good. I would highlight that first and foremost.

There is some excellent work being done by organizations across this country to help those individuals who do not have access to housing. I wish to take a moment to commend them for the incredible work they are doing, whether that is churches or not-for-profit organizations or individuals in our local ridings across this country, because they are doing some phenomenal work with those who need their help.

That said, there is a larger question being asked here, and that is with regard to overall affordability and access to housing. We know that the majority of Canadians wish to own a home. Rent is okay, but home ownership is the ultimate dream for most individuals. We know that with it comes a sense of pride, a sense of accomplishment and a sense of autonomy. It is an honour to own a piece of property, a home or a shelter, a place to build a life.

In my parents' generation, it was common that a couple could purchase a home at approximately age 20 to 25 and perhaps then have children and outgrow that home. They would then be able to purchase a new home after the sale of the smaller one and would continue working their way through the housing market.

Unfortunately, this is not the way things are today. Instead, people in the millennial generation still have the dream of owning a home. They want that sense of pride, that sense of autonomy and that sense of accomplishment. They want that place of security to establish a life for themselves. Sixty-four per cent of young people recently surveyed by Abacus Data said that the federal government should place emphasis on housing affordability. They said that it is a dream of theirs to own a home. That said, it should be highlighted that they face a very different scenario than my parents' generation faced.

For those between the ages of 25 and 34 looking to purchase a home in 2017, the average price of a home was $510,000. The average salary of an individual in 2017 was just under $50,000. This equates to a ratio of 10:1. The cost of a house was 10 times annual income. In 1976, the scenario was very different. The average price of a home was about $213,000 in this country, and the average salary was about $54,000, so it was a ratio of about 4:1. We can see that in the 1970s, we were dealing with a ratio of 4:1, and as of 2017, we are dealing with a ratio of 10:1, which makes it incredibly difficult for young people to save up and afford a home and realize their dream. As a response to this, then, young people are actually giving up on this dream. There was a recent survey done that highlighted that more than half of Canadians who once dreamed of home ownership have actually put that dream aside.

Interestingly, this just happened in 2017. Why did it happen in 2017? I would like to take this opportunity to explain why that was such a significant year. It was a year after the current government put some very significant changes in place with regard to the mortgage rules. The Liberals are making it very difficult to save for a home to begin with, because a first step is being able to put a little money aside each month after working long hours.

However, people are having a hard time doing this because they cannot even afford to pay their basic bills. Forty-eight per cent of Canadians are within $200 a month of not being able to pay for their basic necessities, including food on the table, fuel in their vehicles and a roof over their head, let alone being able to put aside money toward a mortgage. It is here that we have to start: just the basic place of being able to save toward that dream.

The second place we need to look is at the stress test that was implemented by the current government. It is a mortgage change and it makes it incredibly difficult for a young person or anyone who is looking for a first home to purchase. In fact, 20% fewer people are being approved now than before the stress test was implemented.

The rules that have been put in place are now unfairly hindering people from purchasing homes and they are depressing the market at the same time. This means that for those who already own a home, the value of those homes is depreciating, which is discouraging for them because many are looking to their homes to provide for their retirement.

Fewer people being able to qualify for mortgages means many of them are putting the dream aside. However, for some who are fortunate enough to have parents who might be willing to sign off on the mortgage with them, it means this is happening more and more. These parents are signing on the dotted line. For parents who sign their children's mortgages, it impacts their personal financial well-being, security and ability to retire. We can see the detrimental impact of just the stress test.

Individuals who purchase a home not only have to save for the home and then qualify for the home with the application and the stress test, but then they have the ongoing payments to keep that home. To be able to make these payments, life needs to be affordable in general. It is not just the house but there is the fuel in their vehicles, the home heating costs and the food on their tables. All of these things are part of the cost of living.

Growing interest rates make mortgages more difficult to pay, which is a challenge for many Canadians and will continue to be so. Also, there is the simple math of the margin, a person's income versus what a person needs to spend to be able to live. We know that margin is getting slimmer. We are seeing that. We are watching as the current federal government is making life less affordable for everyday Canadians. We are watching as the Liberals are putting policies in place that are punishing Canadians rather than rewarding them for their hard work.

One of the big things that has come up in the House recently is a government document that shows the carbon tax and what it would do to Canadians. The Liberals have said that they are going to implement a carbon tax. That is going to come into effect right away. They have tried to assure Canadians that it is not going to be a big deal. They even like to use the line that Canadians will get more back than they pay. I would love to know how that works, but I do not think I ever will because the Liberals are not able to give a straight answer.

Here is what we do know, because here is what the government documents show. Following the election, which is interesting, the carbon tax will increase by about 15 times and will cost a family of four about $5,000 a year. That is a ton of money. It might not be a lot of money for the Prime Minister, who has a trust account, a family fortune to rely on, but for all other Canadians across the country who are dreaming of home ownership and stability and who are working hard to realize their dreams, their future and their desires, $5,000 a year is a lot of money.

If we want to talk about housing affordability, let us talk about the grand picture that is taking place here, and that is Canada's overall economic well-being: the ability to bring investment into our country; the ability to create jobs; the ability to sustain ourselves as a nation economically on the world stage; and, more important, the ability for everyday hard-working Canadians to make ends meet. This is the grand picture at stake here and it all needs to be considered when we talk about the affordability of housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for a very detailed explanation of how the private housing market is moving away from first-time buyers. Government policy has played a role, but inflation and scarcity have played a role. It is a complex issue, but it was a very good dissertation as to what some of the challenges are.

She kind of lost me at the end though when she complained that our government had not made life more affordable for Canadians. She knows that Canadians are $2,000 a year better off now than they were under the previous government. Things like the child benefit, the changes to EI, the GIS improvements, CPP improvement, as well as the 850,000 jobs that have been created, are all creating a sustainable and prosperous way of life for Canadians.

We know that 85% of Canadians get their housing needs met through the private market. That is a good thing, we support it and we have to ensure that market does not collapse. That is why some of the stress tests are there. However, she failed to mention anything about the 15% of Canadians who cannot. I am curious as to what policies are put in place beyond a suite of tax credits that do not apply to people who do not have the income to get tax credits. How is she proposing to support people who are homeless, who cannot afford to even find a place, let alone dream of home ownership?