Debates of Dec. 9th, 2021

Housing

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am afraid we do not have unanimous consent on that either.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain that if you seek it, you shall find unanimous consent for the following motion: “That the House condemn the failed Liberal housing strategy, including its elections promise, found on page 13 of the platform, to impose a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences.”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

The House resumed from December 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code and Canada Labour Code

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to the special order adopted by the House on November 25, 2021, the House will now use, for the first time in this Parliament, the remote voting application. Accordingly, before proceeding with the vote, I would like to share some information on the process for the taking of recorded divisions that members may find useful.

As per the special order, votes will continue to take place as per the usual process for those in the chamber. Members present in the House must stay in their seats for the duration of the voting period and should not vote via the electronic system.

For members participating remotely using the electronic voting system, the process is as follows: Members will receive notifications informing them of the upcoming vote. Once the vote starts, they will have 10 minutes to cast a vote via the electronic system, indicating whether they are for, against or abstaining from voting on the motion. Members will then be required to take a photo to validate their identity and submit their vote. Members may change their vote during the 10-minute period, but all steps must be completed before the end of the voting period for a vote to be recorded.

After the in-person vote is completed, members may continue to vote via the electronic system if time remains for the voting period. During this time, votes cast via the system will be displayed on the broadcast feed and no points of order or interventions will be permitted.

When the House resumes its business, I will invite any member who encountered technical difficulties to identify themselves using the “raise hand” feature to cast their vote.

In accordance with the special order, I will then entertain any concerns raised by the house officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system. It is the responsibility of members to be ready to respond, should concerns be raised about their photo, failing which, as per the terms of the motion, the vote will not be recorded.

Once these steps are completed, the Table will then compile the results of the vote and the Clerk will announce the result to the House.

IT ambassadors are available before, during and after a vote to assist members if they encounter difficulties with the system or for any technical matter related to the virtual sitting. It remains the responsibility of members to ensure that they have adequate connectivity to fully participate in the proceedings and that they fully complete all steps of the voting process.

It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑3.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #10

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Business of the House

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we see that the Parliament that sits here, inside this building in Ottawa, is working well—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying.

Order. We are trying to conduct business on the floor of the chamber and would appreciate a bit of quiet.

The hon. leader of the opposition in the House has the floor.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I could barely hear myself.

I will skip the preamble. I invite my ministerial counterpart to share with us what we can expect to be working on in the coming days.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who asks an excellent question every Thursday.

This afternoon we will continue debate on the Conservative motion. Tomorrow will be the fourth day of debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Next Tuesday, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will present the fall economic statement in the House at 4 p.m. We will schedule a relevant ways and means vote the following day, on Wednesday afternoon.

Further, we will also focus our efforts to pass two bills next week, namely Bill C-2, an act to provide further support in response to COVID-19, and Bill C-3, which would amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code to provide workers in federally regulated sectors with 10 days of paid sick leave and make it an offence to intimidate or prevent patients from seeking care.

Alleged Breaches of Privilege of Two Members—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 23, 2021, by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent concerning the failure to produce documents. I also want to deal with the question of privilege raised the same day by the member for Barrie—Innisfil concerning the second report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics during the second session of the 43rd Parliament. While they are distinct questions of privilege, the Chair intends to render a single ruling, given the procedural similarities of the two questions.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, the Chair wishes to briefly summarize recent events from the previous Parliament.

Regarding the question from the member for Louis-St-Laurent, on June 21, 2021, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada appeared at the bar of the House to be admonished, but he did not hand over the documents required by the order adopted on June 17, 2021. The member for Louis-St-Laurent then raised a question of privilege concerning the failure to produce the documents. On June 23, 2021, the government applied to the Federal Court to seal these documents.

As for the question from the member for Barrie—Innisfil, on June 10 the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics had presented its second report to the House, which described the problems it encountered during its study, and the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes raised a question of privilege on the matter.

The House then adjourned for the summer on June 23, 2021, before a ruling on these questions was rendered. The 43rd Parliament was then dissolved on August 15, 2021.

When he again raised his question of privilege in the current session, the member for Louis-St-Laurent argued that the government’s application to the Federal Court on June 23, 2021, was unprecedented in Canadian history. While the court challenge ended with dissolution, the member argued that openly challenging the authority of the House before the courts, by attacking its fundamental rights, constituted contempt.

Citing the relevant authority, he pointed out that contempt committed in a previous Parliament can be punished in a new Parliament. He thus argued that dissolution did not eliminate the questions of privilege.

The member for Barrie—Innisfil also mentioned that the House can consider contempt committed during a previous Parliament, referring to the question of privilege previously raised by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. He explained that the committee report, which was not concurred in by the House, described several breaches of privilege. These included that the people summoned to appear had not appeared to give evidence, that the government had interfered by instructing them not to appear, and that the member for Waterloo, then a minister, had given evasive and inaccurate responses in her evidence.

The leader of the government in the House then intervened on the two questions of privilege by responding that all business from the previous Parliament ended with dissolution. He therefore argued that, in order to raise a question of privilege on these matters, a motion or a committee report would be needed in the new Parliament for the House to be seized of them. He later expressed the government’s willingness to work with the opposition parties to find an appropriate mechanism to examine the documents that contain confidential national security information, like what was done in 2010 in the case of documents relating to the Afghan detainees. The member for Louis-St-Laurent countered that he did not believe such an approach was necessary in this case, given the mechanisms that had already been proposed to protect sensitive information.

The member for Winnipeg North also intervened to talk on the question of privilege raised by the member for Barrie—Innisfil. He argued that the quote from the 20th edition of Erskine May, to the effect that contempt can be punished during a different Parliament, does not apply in the current context. Moreover, unlike the members of departmental staff who were summoned to appear before the committee, it is the ministers who are responsible and who are accountable to Parliament.

The Chair has no doubt that the House or its committees can order a witness to appear or order the production of documents, as was the case with the orders adopted in the last session. It is not up to the government to decide what other people should have been summoned or to dictate the conditions for the production of documents.

The order adopted must be respected. However, when the time comes to rule on the matters before us, the Chair must consider how dissolution affects the business of the House and its committees.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, clearly stipulates, at page 397, the following:

With dissolution, all business of the House is terminated....The government’s obligation to provide answers to written questions, to respond to petitions or to produce papers requested by the House also ends with dissolution....Committees cease to exist until the House reconstitutes them following the election. All orders of reference expire....

Consequently, as a result of the dissolution of the 43rd Parliament, the orders of the House from March 25 and June 2 and 17, 2021, have expired. The government and the people summoned to appear are released from their obligations. Similarly, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics have ended, as have their studies. Any report presented in connection with the study involved only the committee from the previous Parliament.

As members have mentioned in their interventions, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 81, as follows:

Instances of contempt in one Parliament may even be punished during another Parliament.

A very similar formulation can be found in a previous edition of Erskine May, the procedural authority for the United Kingdom. As indicated by the member for Winnipeg North, it is not found in the current edition. The circumstances in which such an issue may be raised are, however, more limited than this citation suggests.

In fact, we find very few precedents where questions of privilege from a previous Parliament were raised during a new Parliament. The member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes listed some of them in an intervention on November 24, 2001.

Distinctions must be made between the matter at hand and the precedents cited. When we examine the latter, the House had not expressed itself beforehand, because the incident or problem that occurred during the previous Parliament was brought to the House's attention for the first time in light of new facts. Speaker Parent, in his ruling of October 9, 1997, found no grounds in the absence of a committee report. When the questions of privilege were raised during the second session of the 43rd Parliament, they took account of the orders then in effect.

Dissolution put an end to the business of the House and of the committees and, thus, to the various orders. Since we are in a new Parliament, the issues raised are no longer before the House. It is up to the House and its committees to decide whether it is desirable to adopt these orders once again in the new Parliament. Should that happen, it would be necessary to determine whether the government or the witnesses agree to comply before a question of privilege can be raised.

It is therefore not possible in the current circumstances to seize the House on these questions of privilege arising from the previous Parliament. Thus, the Chair cannot conclude that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank the members for their attention.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Housing Supply

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise in the House and to speak on behalf of my constituents in Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. I look forward to sharing my views on affordable housing and our government's action plans.

In the Speech from the Throne, we focused on two very important issues: ensuring the health and safety of Canadians during the pandemic and building back better to grow the economy. That last point is crucial, and housing across Canada will be a key aspect.

During the election campaign, I heard from people all over my riding who talked about the need for more housing for various groups. I know this is true across the country.

During the pandemic, we became more aware of needs and acted swiftly to better respond to those urgent needs across Canada. That is why we launched the rapid housing initiative. We had to work with the provinces and municipalities to meet those needs as much as possible, and I am very pleased to say that we were successful. We were able to work quickly and build over 9,200 units across Canada in a very short period of time. I must congratulate the municipalities.

That being said, we have to recognize that we still have a lot of work to do. In the past, affordable housing challenges existed primarily in urban areas. We now see that the needs are elsewhere, in rural areas and across Canada.

That is why we launched a national housing strategy a few years ago, the first of its kind in Canada. This clearly demonstrates that we realized how important this issue was when we took office a few years ago. At that time, we issued an action plan to move forward on housing.

The housing strategy is for seniors, the vulnerable, women and children fleeing violence, indigenous people and persons with disabilities. It is for many Canadians.

Our focus is that by 2027-28, we will see the elimination of chronic homelessness right across the country. We will see the construction of over 160,000 homes. We will see repairs and renovations to over 300,000 units. We will remove over 530,000 families from housing needs.

These numbers clearly show that we are getting down to work, and we are doing so in collaboration with the provinces and municipalities.

We launched another fund, the national housing co-investment fund, with a $13.7‑billion envelope, to invest in other levels of housing, which include the renovation of affordable housing that is aging or in disrepair and the construction of housing located near amenities, such as public transit, places of work, schools and families, in order to meet the needs.

I can confirm today that budget 2021 is providing more funding for this critical program.

In addition to all that, we have signed agreements with all 10 provinces and all three territories. That shows just how serious we are about this, how real the need is, and how keen the provinces and municipalities are to collaborate. That stands in stark contrast to the former Conservative government, which did not believe the federal government has any responsibility for housing here in Canada. These agreements are for $13.5 billion over 10 years to help the provinces and territories achieve the goals in their action plans.

I am also extremely pleased to see another targeted investment to accelerate housing construction with municipalities. That means we will not have to work through the provinces quite as much to meet municipalities' needs. We will be able to work with them more directly to address more practical or unique situations, such as in places where problems and obstacles got in the way of this kind of construction.

By that, I mean the construction of new housing. We can invest in the infrastructure to enable construction. We can invest in land to help municipalities. We can invest in hiring many other people.

These initiatives are going a long way toward improving the situation on the ground.

I must also say that young people are in a difficult situation in terms of purchasing power or the ability to buy a new home, because the costs are very high. It is difficult to buy one's first home.

That is why our government is providing its support. It made a promise and will follow through on that promise to help young people with some strategies that give first‑time homebuyers a lot more flexibility. Rent‑to‑own programs are also very worthwhile.

There is the rent-to-own program. The rent people pay contributes toward ownership. It is very important. This includes co-op homes as well. There are all kinds of strategies.

Our national housing strategy is definitely very useful, but we need partners. I want to thank the municipalities, provinces and territories that have worked with us and will continue to work with us to ensure that we can address urgent needs across Canada.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed at the beginning of the speech by the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook and the incredible list of things the Liberals hoped to accomplish in the future on housing. He shared an impressive number of statistics. I am sure the member knows that housing prices in our province have gone up 21% in the last year. That is more than the national Canadian average. The plans that the Liberal government has put forward clearly are not working.

Why should the people of Nova Scotia believe any of those promises on housing when the government and that party has promised a national child care program six elections in a row? If we are supposed to believe those numbers going forward on housing, could he tell me how many day care spaces his six elections of promises have created in Canada?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is from Nova Scotia, as I am, and he is touching on topics of interest to me. Child care is one of the most important investments we can make. I am very proud that in January, we will be moving forward right across the country. We already have signed nine provinces. That is something of which to be proud. That is not talking; that is clear action.

I want to underline to my colleague that in the Conservative platform, the Conservatives wanted to give breaks to wealthy landlords. They were very clear in the Harper government that the federal government had no responsibility for housing across the country. We said that it was not right. That is why things are improving today, because we are on the ground working for Canadians.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that he is proud that agreements have been signed with 10 provinces and three territories. However, he did not mention that it took not one or two but three years for the agreement with Quebec to be signed. In those three years, no new housing could be built and the price of materials went up, which means that it costs more to build now than it did initially. Why is that? The reason is that the federal government decided that it wanted to build affordable housing, whereas Quebec already has expertise in social and community housing.

Would it not have been more efficient to simply transfer the money to Quebec?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for the question.

There is no doubt that housing is very important across Canada. Negotiations are negotiations. We want to make sure that we are meeting the needs on the ground. Whether we are talking about Canadians from Quebec, western Canada or Newfoundland, we have to meet their needs.

Here is something they can count on: Today our government has something on the ground. Both parties are satisfied. If the Conservatives were in power, there would not be any negotiations because they would not be investing in housing in Quebec.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as someone who was on the ground for almost nine years in a municipality struggling with affordable housing, I wish we had seen this passion from the government when we saw money laundering, the lowest incomes, those with the most wealth taking advantage of housing to earn interest and the gentrification of family neighbourhoods.

I want to ask a question about the rapid housing initiative. We know that under the initiative, many applications were denied. I wonder if the member can tell us how many of the rapid housing requests submitted by municipalities were denied. My colleague from Courtenay—Alberni had a community-sponsored one, and it was denied.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that if there is any reason some of the rapid housing projects did not hit the ground, it is the provincial government, not the municipal governments. This had to become a priority of the provincial government.

The good news for the member is that the new accelerator fund for municipalities will help directly. She can go back home and tell her constituents how this program will help her municipality and the people in her riding.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we move on, I will remind a few of the male MPs online that if they want to ask questions, they should be sure to wear a jacket and tie to do so. The dress code in the House is also the dress code for members joining us online.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on our Conservative opposition day motion addressing the topic of housing, which is so important to people in the Kenora riding and across northern Ontario. I am pleased to join my Conservative colleagues, who have done a great job speaking about this issue in their own ridings. I am looking forward to hearing more about what they have to say going forward, including the great member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, whom I am very pleased to be sharing my time with today. She has been a great advocate for her riding in this chamber and especially for women and girls across the country. I thank her for her work on that important file.

Housing is by far the number one issue I am hearing about in the Kenora riding right now. In my riding, I represent nine municipalities and 42 first nations across a very vast, diverse area. There is quite frequently a number of different issues, depending on where we are in the region. However, the one thing that has been unifying is the issue of housing, whether in a municipality, a first nation, or even the unincorporated areas.

Whether I am in Kenora, Dryden, Sioux Lookout, Sioux Narrows, Ear Falls, Slate Falls, Red Lake, Pickle Lake, Bearskin Lake or Kasabonika Lake, I am hearing about the housing issue. I recently had the chance, after the last election and before Parliament reconvened, to visit all nine municipalities in my riding and many first nations as well. I can tell members that municipal and first nation leaders have consistently raised this issue. What they tell me is that it is more than just a housing issue, but it is specifically about housing supply. “Supply, supply, supply” is all I hear across the riding, and I am sure that many members in this chamber have heard similar things at home as well.

The issues we are seeing are touching people from all walks of life, whether they are looking for affordable housing, starter homes or family homes. Even seniors looking to move into a seniors home are not able to find one. The only way we can address that is to increase the supply through, for example, the plan we put forward in the last election campaign, which is included in this motion, to free up and release 15% of federal land for development. I heard on the doorsteps that it was a very positive plan to put forward to help address the root cause of the crisis.

This is especially important in a region like mine. The Ear Falls community, for example, is quite large geographically. After passing the sign that says “Welcome to Ear Falls”, it feels like forever until we actually get to the community. The population is very small and the tax base is very small, and a bulk of the land within the municipal limits is Crown land. That has been a problem not just for residential development, frankly, but for commercial development as well. The community is having a lot of trouble growing because it has had difficulty acquiring the land that it needs for development and to attract people to the community.

Of course, in the last campaign we talked about the economy and our economic recovery from COVID-19. Many people noted to me that we cannot have a recovery in northwestern Ontario or in my riding of Kenora if people do not have houses to move into. That is really the crux of why this is such an important issue.

Another example I like to give is Kasabonika Lake First Nation, a community that some time ago was actually displaced by the federal government. The community is now essentially all on one island in the northern part of my riding. People there have really outgrown the area they are living on. They are looking for opportunities for development and for more housing units, but they have nowhere to go. They have had a very difficult time working with the federal government to access more land and expand their borders.

That is why, specifically on the supply side, I believe the motion we put forward today is taking a tremendous step in the right direction of addressing this housing crisis.

In the motion, we have also proposed to ban foreign investors from purchasing Canadian real estate. This issue is, I guess, a bit bigger in the larger centres. As we know, commonly, foreign investment is coming into centres like Vancouver and the GTA, not as much into the Kenora riding, frankly. However, it is important to note that the effects of market changes and the pressures that are put on rising home prices in the GTA, for example, expand beyond big city borders, as people are now looking to move to Huntsville, the Muskokas and other areas, and are expanding farther and farther away. Eventually, these higher prices will make their way into northern Ontario and rural and remote parts of the country, so I am happy to see that the motion is proposing this.

Something else has become a bit of a topic of discussion today. We are asking the government to commit to never introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of a primary residence. We know this is something the government had flirted with in the past. If I am not mistaken, the previous member for Spadina—Fort York was once a proponent of this. Government members have now gone to great lengths to try to distance themselves from their own platform and from their previous comments. Frankly, I am glad to see they are trying do that, because we know this would only penalize and discourage Canadians from selling their homes, which is certainly not going to help us address the housing supply crisis.

The motion we put forward has a number of very important elements. Is it going to fix the housing crisis? Of course it will not. This is a deep-rooted issue. There are many facets to it and many things we need to do to move forward. However, this is an incredible step in the right direction, specifically the first point I mentioned about releasing 15% of federal land for development. Once again, I cannot reiterate strongly enough how important that would be for the people in my riding.

One thing has troubled me about the debate today. We put forward the plan that we ran on, which many economists and observers said was one of the strongest housing plans put forward in the last election, but what we are seeing from government members is they are digging in their heels and doing a bit of grandstanding. They are saying that nothing is broken, that they do not need to change gears and do not need to sway from the plan they are currently moving forward. The government has made some progress and has been trying to address this crisis. However, the fact of the matter is that housing prices are continuing to soar. I believe they have gone up 30% over the course of this government.

I think it is important that we have a very robust discussion about all the different ways we can address this. We can work together in the House. In my view, that is why we brought forward the motion today. It is so that we can have a discussion, find a path forward and start to build upon the work that this government and all previous governments have done to help address this issue. This is something we have been seeing for a number of years, but it has been exacerbated by the rising cost of living, inflation and many other factors.

I look forward to hearing questions and comments from my colleagues. I am hoping to hear some new ideas and a positive discussion on how we can move this motion forward and ensure that we make housing more affordable for all Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I was really hoping that this afternoon, the discussion on this motion would not be the same train wreck it was this morning. It was all over the place.

We heard this morning the Conservatives try to backtrack on the fact that we were talking about land. They said no, it is not 15% of land; it is 15% of buildings. They meant the buildings on Bay Street in Toronto and whatnot. However, the member just said, “release 15% of federal land”. I would encourage him go to Hansard to check it out. He actually said “federal land”.

Given that we know 97% of federal land is tied up in Parks Canada, Environment Canada and National Defence, can the member please explain to the House which parts of Parks Canada or National Defence he is looking to divest the country of so we can free up the land he referenced?

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member really enjoys the theatrics of this place and likes to contribute to that quite a bit.

To reiterate, we need to be looking at ways we can work together, as I said, to ensure we are increasing the housing supply in this country.

I encourage the member to come and join me on a trip to the northern part of my riding to see how the housing crisis is manifesting itself and why it is so important for the government and this Parliament to work toward that. I hope the member will actually start working with the opposition, with all members, instead of just his political grandstanding.