Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2022

Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member described the problem with excellence, but his allocation of fault may be a little faulty. I was wondering how the hon. member thinks that the Government of Canada has much to do with the supply of microchips to make cars go. I have made the same observation that he has. Car lots are empty.

Members should know that the hon. member is quite an outstanding mechanic, and had won several awards for his work prior to being an MP. However, I am not sure that his speech is actually such an outstanding description of the issues.

Could the member tell me what the Government of Canada has to do, for instance, with the issue of supplies, or input costs, or grain or other necessities? These are just issues that are worldwide, and we are the unhappy recipients of that reality.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the basic issue that we are dealing with is that the government has pumped a huge amount of cash into the system, and that has inflated the prices that people are receiving for their goods. All that has happened, though, is that everybody has taken advantage of the increased prices that they are getting for their products. Then the folks on the bottom end are saying their costs are going up as well, so they have to increase their prices.

Basically, if my grain is sold for X dollars, and my fertilizer company sees that the farmer who was getting $10 a bushel last year is now getting $20 a bushel, it will probably increase the price of its product and still get paid for it, because it thinks that farmers are now flush with cash. That has a domino effect down the economy.

A host of government policies are driving the costs up in both directions.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Peace River—Westlock.

He raised the issue of the supply chain and cars, and I would like to come back to something the member who spoke before him said. That member said that it is important to invest in better windows but that the government should not necessarily be investing in electric cars by providing credits to further encourage the electrification of transportation, for example.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this issue because I think that, if we want to get away from oil and move toward a much greener economy, electric vehicles are the way to go.

What does he think about providing credits for electric cars and making an investment in that industry?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I guess I am not a big fan of picking winners and losers. I am a big fan of things that work well and things that do what they are intended to. For that reason, I am excited about the electrification of, for example, the new Ram 1500, which is like a mild hybrid. It gives a 13% increase in fuel economy without sacrificing any of the other capabilities of that pickup truck. I am amazed and impressed by it.

I would just push back a little bit to say that the environmental impact of electrification is not zero. There is an environmental impact of electrification. If someone is getting their power from a hydro dam somewhere, the CO2 emissions might be reduced, but if they are getting their power from a coal-fired power plant, electrification does not help us at all. That does not say anything about mining for the cobalt and the things that go into these batteries, and the copper for all the wiring that we need for these kinds of things.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of inflation, I do not think we will see more inflation or a better example than that of prescription drugs, which have gone up every year for years and years. In fact, it is the single fastest growing product in insurance services. We know that with pharmacare, with bulk buying, with streamlined administration and with cost-related non-adherence, we can save over $4 billion a year and produce drugs for every Canadian at a reduced cost.

I am just wondering if my hon. colleague can explain why the Conservative Party is opposed to universal pharmacare, when it will help reduce the cost of drugs.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer this question and I thank the member for asking it.

There is no other industry that is more tied to government spending than the pharmaceutical industry. It is 100% driven by the government pouring money into it. The fact is that they put huge, bold letters on the bottles of pharmaceuticals to show how much these items cost so that the consumer knows what the cost is. That is how they drive down the costs of these things.

Government spending on specific things traditionally raises the price of them and drives inflation, and there is no better example than in the pharmaceutical industry.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to give my maiden speech in this 44th Parliament. It is an honour to continue to represent the wonderful riding of Scarborough—Agincourt, and I want to thank my constituents for placing their faith in me and re-electing me once again. A note of appreciation goes to the many volunteers and donors who gave great support.

Despite the pandemic and disruptions outside, I am here in the House today to speak about Bill C-8, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a problem with the interpretation and it is creating a lot of confusion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are going to check a few things.

We are going to try again.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, through Bill C-8, we are continuing to provide much needed support to Canadian workers and businesses through the implementation of tax measures, including tax credits. Targeted tax measures can help make life more affordable. Through Bill C-8, we hope to create a number of tax credits that would benefit Canadians, such as a ventilation tax credit to improve air quality for small business owners and an expansion of tax deductions for travel expenses incurred by residents of northern Canada, and tax credits for teachers and early childhood educators who spend their income on school supplies, and for farmers by returning fuel charges and involuntary backstop jurisdictions.

Furthermore, in Scarborough—Agincourt, we have many schools that are older and could benefit from a top-up from the safe return to class fund, which the bill seeks to provide. It has taken a pandemic to highlight the fact that many of our schools rely on aging infrastructure and that there is a need to bring it up to current ventilation standards for safe indoor air. Although education is a provincial matter, this Liberal government has stepped in to ensure a safe learning environment is possible. The original funds provided $2 billion to provinces and territories, and this top-up of $100 million will help increase outdoor air intake and/or increase air cleaning in order to help reduce the transmission of COVID-19.

I could see a lot of schools benefiting from the repair or replacement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning units and increasing maintenance of the existing systems. In my riding's local school board, this fund has not only been used to address HVAC recommissioning deficiencies, but it also went toward purchasing over 10,000 additional HEPA filter units across 314 schools, many of the high schools in the riding who do not have full air conditioning or have poor circulation of air.

With older schools, installation of operable windows would be helpful. Some of the interior classrooms that do not have windows, such as a computer lab, would benefit from portable air filtration units. By providing this top-up, schools across Canada would be able to make those necessary renovations and repairs while also funding critical programs that would support student mental health and nutrition.

While we are on the subject of schools, the teacher and early childhood educator school supply tax credit would also greatly benefit students in Scarborough—Agincourt and beyond. It currently stands at 15%, but with the passing of this bill, it would be increased to a 25% refundable tax credit. What is new is that it will no longer require that the school supplies be used in a school or a regulated child care facility. This will enable students to bring home the supplies to do homework or even to use those supplies on field trips.

Using technology can further engage students and help those who are in special education classes. Some of these eligible goods, such as external data storage devices that increase a system data storage capacity or wireless pointer devices and printers, are practical, but other goods, such as electronic educational toys, puzzles, video streaming devices and multimedia projectors can take learning up to the next step, open up new worlds and be fun. This can make learning a much more interactive and engaging experience for students.

Housing is another area of focus our government is targeting to make life more affordable. Part 2 of Bill C-8 introduces the underused housing tax act, which will support the work of our national housing strategy, reduce homelessness and create affordable housing. We have all heard housing is becoming increasingly out of reach for many people, and this is one way to discourage vacant or underused homes while generating revenue. The underused housing tax act would only apply to foreign owners of residential property who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents to pay their fair share of Canadian tax by filing an annual return. Residential properties are exempt if they are rented out for at least 180 days, or about six months in a year, so there would be no short rentals like Airbnb.

While this alone would not solve our housing issues, this would help on the peripheral in that it would reduce foreign ownership and penalize those who use Canada as a place to passively store their wealth in housing. Taxes on capital gains do not apply to principal residences. Part 3 of the bill touches upon the Canada emergency business account loan, which has provided over $49 billion in interest-free partially forgivable loans to nearly 900,000 small businesses affected by the pandemic.

Many of the small businesses in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt have been finding the roughly four lockdowns in Ontario difficult and have asked for an extension on their Canada emergency business account loans. This loan has helped a variety of businesses, from restaurants to manufacturing companies to fashion wholesalers. Our government listened. The time period would be extended from December 31, 2022, to December 31, 2023. If a business repays its loan by December 31, 2023, up to a third of the value of its loan, up to $20,000, would be forgiven. Loans not repaid by this date would convert to a two-year term loan starting January 1, 2024, with 5% interest per annum.

Part 3 of this bill would set a limitation period of six years for debts due under the CEBA program to ensure that CEBA loan holders are provided consistent treatment, no matter where they live. The proposed limitation period is also consistent with other COVID support programs, such as those covered by the Canada Recovery Benefits Act.

This past January, with the surge of the omicron variant, came a corresponding need to obtain rapid tests. The government had already purchased and shipped over 180 million rapid tests and has signed agreements to secure over 460 million tests in total.

Part 6 of this bill would allocate an additional $1.72 billion to the Minister of Health for the procurement and distribution of rapid antigen tests to provinces and territories. Many seniors have called my Scarborough—Agincourt constituency office worried about leaving their homes to get a rapid test, but still wanting one. This is why this bill is so important. It would give people the peace of mind that they can access rapid tests during difficult times where then could be a possibility of testing positive. Our recently introduced Bill C-10 authorizes the Minister of Health to make payments of up to $2.5 billion out of the consolidated revenue fund to purchase COVID-19 tests. I know many seniors will be less anxious, knowing they have something at home that can easily be administered and distributed by local organizations they can trust.

Bill C-8 has many practical parts, whether it is helping small businesses and schools or bringing families peace of mind. I hope we can all agree and pass this bill to a second reading.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about investments in housing. Although there have been some investments, I would have to say that more needs to be done. Under consecutive Conservative and Liberal governments, we have had decades of underfunding in affordable housing with rents geared to income. In my riding of Winnipeg Centre, we have a housing crisis that is literally costing lives.

I wonder if my colleague agrees with me that more needs to be done to deal first of all with this problem. Does she agree that her government continues not to do enough?

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will agree with you that all of us need to do more for housing and housing affordability for everybody. However, our government, through the national housing strategy, which is a 10-year program, will be investing $72 billion. I feel that is something that Canadians can rely on and will understand that our government is there to support them, whether they are first-time homebuyers looking to go through the new housing accelerator fund, working with the municipalities, hoping to see some fairness in a real estate action plan that is going to forbid blind bidding or looking at home inspections and making sure there is transparency in the history of recent house sale prices.

I believe that the Prime Minister's recent announcement of investing in 10,000 new homes for Canadians is on the right track.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member that she is to address all questions and comments through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, over the past few months, we have noticed that the housing construction programs have created certain problems, to say the least. For example, subsidies were given to private companies that ended up charging $2,200 a month for housing, which is not affordable. That is worse than a mortgage plus taxes, electricity and heating.

What concrete action will be taken to ensure that these problems, which seem to benefit some companies and some segments of society more than others, never crop up again?

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, as part of our national housing strategy, we have a rental construction financing initiative. We are providing low-cost loans to encourage the construction of sustainable rental apartment projects across Canada. We will also be providing some low-cost funding to all eligible borrowers in the most risky phases of project development of rental apartments.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak about the CEBA loans. Can the hon. member explain why CEBA loans were important for the small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, especially in Scarborough, which is home to many small businesses? How have those CEBA loans made a difference for our small businesses in terms of keeping their lights on during the darkest days?

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, the CEBA loans have been so instrumental in saving many small businesses in Scarborough from completely closing down. They have really helped very small businesses, such as restaurants, carry on to be able to pay their rent and other expenses, like COVID expenses.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to the economic update. I have a lot to say, but I will have to narrow it down.

Let me start with health transfers. This is important to me as a member for the Bloc Québécois, and it is important to Quebec as a whole, to my riding, Manicouagan, and to Canada as a whole.

Obviously, these transfers are not included here, and we are disappointed about that. We have known for a long time that the transfers are crucial, but the government may not have realized that yet.

Earlier, I heard several colleagues from different political parties say that this is the second year of COVID-19 and there may be a third, though I hope not, but that there is hardly anything about COVID-19 in the economic update.

My colleague from La Prairie brought it up again this afternoon. Some 85% of Canadians and 86% of Quebeckers are calling for these health transfers. For many years now, the government has limited, or, I should say, gutted, health transfers. It still refuses to index these transfers, which means that the 22% of expenses that the government currently covers is not enough. We want the government to provide 35% and index the transfers at 6%, but there is absolutely nothing in the economic update to that effect.

Everyone knows that COVID‑19 kills. That is one of the things that it does. It kills because the health care system cannot provide the services required and this is because the health care systems in Quebec and the other Canadian provinces have been damaged. When the money is not there, even though it is our money and we have responsibilities, it is hard, virtually impossible, to meet everyone's needs.

The federal government loves to boast and act the saviour when it claims that 80%, or $8 of every $10, as they like to say, of COVID‑19 spending came from the federal government. It is far from being a saviour, though, since we will never forget that this is taxpayer money and taxpayers want health transfers. I am using the word “taxpayer”, but I want to remind members that all provincial premiers and Quebec's premier, Mr. Legault, are calling for this as well.

I want to point this out because the government has presented an economic update that does not reflect reality and does not take these demands into account. The government likes to boast, though. It is happy, it struts around, acting proud of what it has achieved. I could also talk about two other measures that have not seen much progress. Not only is the economic update weak, but it might also be counterproductive in some cases.

To conclude, I would like to speak about jurisdictions. I am again asking the government to do its job. It needs to look after its own affairs and provide the provinces and Quebec with the money to look after theirs.

I spoke about responsibilities earlier. There is a huge fiscal imbalance, and Ottawa has so much money that it does not know what to spend it on. It should spend it on health, by sending the transfers and letting the provinces and Quebec manage that money for their own people, because they want to get out of this pandemic. It is not by crippling health care systems that the government will help Quebec and the provinces get through the COVID-19 pandemic.

As the Prime Minister stated, there are vaccines, yes, but there is all the rest too, including the health care system. The system needs substantial support. There was and still is a shortfall, and it only continues to grow because transfers are frozen.

I would also like to talk about the SMEs in my riding of Manicouagan, which is a vast, remote area covering 350,000 square kilometres of forests, fisheries and mines. There are obviously many natural resources and people all over the riding. SMEs make up a significant segment of our economy. In Quebec, approximately one-third of businesses are SMEs, but I note that the government has not really listened to them.

Of course there is the Canada emergency business account, but the government needs to listen to what small and medium-sized businesses want. The situation is evolving as we enter the third year of the pandemic. For example, SMEs had a hard time accessing the wage subsidy. They needed accountants and tax experts, but many of them could not afford those professionals, so they could not ask for help. All the business support programs in the world are useless if entrepreneurs cannot access them because of red tape and impossible criteria. The wage subsidy is great for people who already have enough money to access it, but that does not include small businesses. Members of the chamber of commerce in my riding, Manicouagan, would like to apply a third time. They would not necessarily need $60,000, but even $20,000 would help them stay afloat and survive. It would not be too hard to set up that mechanism.

It would have been easy to listen to these businesses and implement the measures they were asking for. The Bloc Québécois has proposed many other ideas for supporting small businesses, particularly with regard to loan forgiveness. The Bloc proposed that the percentage be increased in order to support these businesses based on their revenues at a time of great uncertainty. I am thinking of outfitters in my riding and their revenues. No one was visiting the outfitters during the first year of the pandemic, and the second year was extremely difficult for them because certain health measures prevented people from coming to the region.

I am pleased that the repayment deadline is postponed until 2023, because these businesses would not have been able to repay their loans quickly. The year 2023 may not be the right year either. I am therefore warning the government right now that it may have to extend that deadline as well, in order to give these businesses time to rebuild their financial health and get enough revenue coming in to be able to repay the loan and receive forgiveness. The Bloc is in favour of loans. However, we really want the percentage to increase.

We are also thinking about e-commerce. Of course this is very important where I come from. People in certain parts of my riding do a lot of their grocery shopping using the postal service. As I have often said in the House, this is very important to me. People have the right to live in remote areas and to occupy the land, and they need to be supported. We already have a great deal of inequity in our postal services compared to the rest of Canada. Northern regions, very remote regions, islands and places with no roads at all really need this service. We want to be able to increase this kind of trade. It would be good for small businesses to be able to import and export. It would also stimulate our economy. The Bloc proposed this, and it is feasible.

I would like to talk about several other measures, but I will end with some criticism. As I said earlier, we sometimes need to think about the negative effects of certain measures.

Let us talk about the travel tax credit. As I mentioned, I represent a large riding, and I have to travel a few thousand kilometres to get to the House. For someone taking a flight out of the North Shore, the tax credit would cover about one trip a year, and perhaps only one way. The $1,200 will not make it into anyone's pocket right away. For individuals struggling to pay for airfare, waiting until the end of the year to receive the tax credit will not help them. The tax credit will go to people who already have money, people who can afford to put that amount on their credit cards and pay the interest afterwards, which is terrible. This measure will be ineffective.

Then there is the issue of commuter workers. People come work in my riding and then leave again. They do not necessarily want to live there because it is hard. They do not spend any money and do not contribute to the economy of the North Shore, but they are the ones who will likely benefit from this tax credit. I am glad they can work. I want everyone to be able to earn a living. At the same time, we have to think about not adopting measures that will ultimately harm the regions. This is incredibly important to me. We have to look at all the policies and these measures in relation to remote regions such as the North Shore.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred, if not directly then indirectly, to the importance of small businesses and how it is important that the government provide financial support. We have done that in many ways, whether through loans, wage subsidies or rent supports. It is important to recognize that the Bloc party supported Bill C-2, which supported small businesses.

Now we have Bill C-8 before the House. It provides different types of support, at least in part, through rapid tests for small businesses, which many of them will require, but also for ventilation in schools.

I would like to get a sense of the Bloc party's position with respect to Bill C-8. Does the member support this legislation?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I will support it a bit because I cannot support it more than that, if that makes sense. In other words, there is room for improvement. Of course, we supported Bill C‑2. We want help to be provided, but that help has to be flexible and based on needs. We have had to pass some bills hastily, even urgently, because businesses were closing. Many filed for protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. That was a very difficult time.

In the meantime, this is still going. We have been studying it for two years. What we are saying now is that this could have been part of it. One does not preclude the other. We could have thought of another smaller emergency account for businesses, something the Bloc proposed last spring. This already existed and we could always enhance it. Of course, there is help, but we also have to listen to the little guy.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleague from Manicouagan that I support her vision for land occupancy. The House should more clearly define its position on this issue and act accordingly. Having people settle all over Quebec and Canada is fundamental.

She also mentioned that she had many ideas about how to help SMEs. I would love for her to present them.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier we spoke about the Canada emergency business account. With regard to help for businesses, I did mention the issue of accountants and tax experts, which could be a solution and would keep them working as well. Maybe we should help businesses with that.

There is also the whole issue of paperwork, which can always be reduced. We are in an emergency, and we need to focus on the time factor, so that people can get money quickly.

I am almost tempted to talk about employment insurance and what is happening with fraud. People need EI benefits right now. There will be time to look into the fraud cases later. I would say that the same thing applies here: Let us give people the money and have them fill out the paperwork afterwards, to give them more time. When it is a matter of saving the ship from going down, it is impossible to do everything at once.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to speak about employment insurance, so I must give her the opportunity to go ahead.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I will talk about employment insurance, after all, it is mentioned in the economic update. In fact I hope to see a reform. I thank my colleague because I love talking about this issue.

Back home, employment insurance is not just assistance, it is practically a development tool. That is a serious thing to say, but it is what it is. Some people in my riding have not had access to EI since November.

I am thinking about one fishing industry in the Lower North Shore, about some tiny villages of just 100 or 150 people, about the Newfoundlanders who came to fish. What happened? Every single employee of the plant was denied EI because of alleged fraud. It is funny. In my region, 30 or 40 people is an entire town. The entire plant apparently committed fraud and the workers got nothing.

We are asking that these people get their money now, because they need to eat and put a roof over their heads. The government can then conduct its investigation, and if some individuals committed fraud then they can pay the money back. The way things are done now is causing people to leave the regions, as is happening in my colleague's region, and that is not what we want in terms of land use, as we have mentioned.

This would be easy to do. The government did it with CERB, so it can do it with EI.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the pandemic persists, more individuals are experiencing precarious housing situations, and first-time homelessness is rapidly on the rise.

Housing is a human right that has been neglected by successive Liberal and Conservative governments, and although the current government has made investments in housing, including with the rapid housing initiative, it is a drop in the bucket. Years of underfunding have resulted in a massive shortage of housing with rents geared to income, and the normalization of violating people's right to housing. This is resulting sometimes in individuals dying on the street. This is becoming a new normal. It is a callous turning of a blind eye to human suffering, sometimes resulting in death.

Poverty is a violent human rights violation, and failing to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head is, in fact, a political choice. I share this because the current government has made it a practice to bail out and fund its corporate buddies. It gave $50 million to Mastercard, while millions were struggling to pay their credit card bills at the end of the month; $12 million to Loblaws to install new fridges, a company that eliminated the $2 per hour pandemic pay bonus for its workers, despite earning windfall profits; $14 billion in tax giveaways in its 2018 economic update alone, including writeoffs for private debts and limousines; and $18 billion in fossil fuel subsidies, while we are living through a global climate crisis.

CEOs and their C-suite executives rewarded themselves with millions in dividends when their companies received hundreds of millions from the Canada emergency wage subsidy that was meant to protect jobs, and Air Canada received hundreds of millions from the CEWS, and a bailout of $5.9 billion, but paid out millions of dollars in executive bonuses while cutting thousands of jobs.

However, I have to beg for crumbs for my riding. It is the third-poorest riding in the country, where lives are continuously and consistently lost to poverty. People are freezing to death in the cold because they have no place to sleep. Bus shacks are filled with people seeking refuge from the cold. There are fires in rooming houses and apartments because of overcrowded conditions, and families are cramped in small living quarters because the cost of renting a place to live is out of reach. In fact, the rate of unsuitable housing, meaning not enough bedrooms according to family size, is 7% in Winnipeg. This is approximately 21,500 households, and this crisis continues to grow.

In the last four years, only 11 rent-geared-to-income housing units have been filled in Manitoba, and while new funding has been announced to build some new units with rents geared to income, it still fails to meet the housing needs in Winnipeg Centre as a result of decades of underfunding. In fact, the End Homelessness Winnipeg 2021 Interim Street Census Community Report counted 1,127 people experiencing homelessness in a 24-hour period. It was -45°C in Winnipeg last week.

This is unacceptable. This is a political choice, and the choice not to invest adequately is costing precious lives. At the same time, tenants in my riding are feeling the squeeze as a result of this underinvestment and neglect.

In fact, approximately 50% of Winnipeg renters are in housing that falls short of at least one standard of affordability, adequacy and suitability. In addition, 40% of Winnipeg renters are living in unaffordable housing, meaning they are spending 30% or more of their income on shelter costs.

I have visited homes in my riding with holes in the walls into the main hallways, and it is not unusual for our constituency office to receive calls about heat not working, broken windows or pest infestations. In Winnipeg, the rate of inadequate housing, meaning housing that is in major need of repairs, is 7.6%, with 23,440 households being impacted. This is abhorrent, and this is completely unacceptable.

No one in a country as rich as Canada should have to live like this, and again I will share that this is a political choice. It does not have to be this way. It is a choice. We could make, for example, the political choice to stop investing in corporate bailouts and handouts and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share in taxes. That would be a choice.

Housing is a human right, and this right is violated daily in this country. In Winnipeg, 35,760 households are in core housing need, and according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Winnipeg has the highest number of indigenous households in core housing need. The government has left indigenous people homeless on their own lands, which they have graciously shared with others. This is a tragic outcome of colonization that has resulted from the often violent dispossession of land, and the vacancy rates tell an important story.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported in its most recent rental market report that vacancy rates in Winnipeg are highest for the most expensive rental housing units and lowest for the most affordable ones. While the vacancy rate is 13.8% for units with a monthly rent of $2,000 or more, it plummets to 4% for units with rents of $1,000 to $1,400 and to just 2.9% for units with monthly rents of $625 or less. What that tells us is that there is a critical shortage of genuinely affordable housing with rents geared to income.

Most of the new housing being built is out of reach for the majority of people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre. Speaking of things that are out of reach, skyrocketing housing prices are putting the dream of home ownership even further out of reach for many of my constituents. In fact, under the current government, the benchmark price for a home in Canada has jumped $300,000, while in Winnipeg prices for single homes in the city increased by 14.7% at the end of 2021 and 16.1% for condos.

This is a crisis, and we need to address this.

I know that I have painted a very bleak picture here, because the reality is, right now for so many across the country, things are becoming bleaker and bleaker, especially in regard to upholding the right to housing. However, as I indicated, we have a choice, and I am urging the government to make a different choice and ensure that all individuals' right to housing is respected and upheld.