Debates of April 27th, 2023

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is spending, spending, spending. There is one thing that should concern all members in this House, something that is not really being talked about. We touched on it at the finance committee: the Bank of Canada, with $600 billion on the balance sheet. It was $120 billion in 2020.

For the first time in 87 years, the Bank of Canada lost $522 million last year. We do not see that in the budget. How are the Liberals going to account for that loss? Is the Canadian taxpayer, because there is only one, going to be on the hook for that?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my speech was on budget 2023 and that is what I will focus on.

In opposition to Conservative logic, we cannot just cut our way into growth. We have to provide subsidies to companies that are creating jobs here in Canada, and that is something we can all agree on. Short-sighted, crisis-driven spending is never the answer. The answer is a fiscally responsible blueprint for jobs, which is exactly what this budget focuses on.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, we were expecting the government to use Bill C‑47 to eliminate the EI deficit that accumulated during the pandemic, but it did not. The Employment Insurance Act requires the EI fund to break even over a seven-year period. Ultimately, workers will have to pay off $17 billion through their premiums to wipe out the deficit.

The government covered all of the other pandemic-related deficits, but not this one. As my colleague from Montcalm said a few moments ago, in the Chrétien and Martin eras, the government took $57 billion from the fund.

Does my hon. colleague consider it fair to leave workers on the hook for this deficit?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, EI is something that is under consideration by this government. This government will never leave vulnerable Canadians behind. We will support vulnerable Canadians and our workers. That is exactly why my speech touched on automatic tax filing and on drawing more RESP loans for students. This government believes in the right of every Canadian to live in dignity, so we will support Canadians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up on the question of EI. Let us face it: The budget implementation act is very light on EI measures. One thing it does is extend the pilot program for the “black hole” by just another year. When this pilot program is something that has been going on now for five or six years, I think it makes a lot of sense simply to make it permanent, rather than continuing to extend it year by year. There are also some modest changes to the EI appeal board, but there is not really anything that addresses the important changes that were made during the pandemic and cancelled by the Liberals in September.

Why does the government continue to drag its feet when it comes to this important reform as we are being told that Canada is likely heading into a recession, when employment insurance is at its most important in terms of the lives of Canadians?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Madam Speaker, EI was there for Canadians during the pandemic. We will continue to look at the system and how we can modernize it for our current day.

Once again, these programs are meant to help vulnerable Canadians. That is exactly why I was touching on automatic tax filing for Canadians, which will help vulnerable Canadians who have not been able to access Canadian benefits. We also looked at students and the fact that the interest on their federal loans will be waived. They can also draw more from their RESPs heading into the next school year. These measures are there to help Canadians who are the hardest hit by worldwide inflation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon to the budget implementation act. At the outset, let me acknowledge that we are gathered here on the traditional, unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

While talking about the budget, I want to preface it by outlining the current economic state of our country. After coming through the pandemic, Canada, while facing a number of headwinds, is in a very strong position. First and foremost, we continue to have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We continue to have one of the lowest levels of unemployment in the G7, but also in Canadian history. We continue to lead in building a green economy that responds to the needs of the day, including addressing the existential threat of climate change.

In many ways, the pandemic taught us that the government can be there to support Canadians of all stripes, whether it be through supporting organizations that work on the front lines or supporting businesses through wage subsidies or emergency loans, which, in many ways, were lifelines for our businesses. On an individual level, the Canada emergency response benefit, or CERB, supported so many Canadians in getting to the other side of the pandemic.

As we look forward, we realize that the issues around inflation and increasing interest rates are a threat to our economy and, as a government, we have been addressing these issues head-on. We have one of the lowest rates of inflation among developed countries. Also, our rate of inflation has gone down to new lows, and we are confident that we will reach the 3% mark by the summer and be well into the 2% mark by next year. That should give us some confidence.

As a steward of this economy, we have looked at our economy in a very different way than it has traditionally been viewed. We have made sure that our economy is very much linked to our environment. We do not decouple the issue. We believe that they are fundamentally related and we cannot, under any circumstances, decouple it. If we look at modern accounting practices, we will note that many companies are now reporting their environmental liability. As we go forward and as we see the impacts of climate change, whether it is floods or wildfires, we know that the environment plays a critical role in our long-term sustainability, directly linked to our economy.

In this budget, the Minister of Finance and her team worked very hard to put together some measures that will give individuals real support during the pandemic. As we know, in the fall economic statement we had very important measures that supported Canadians on affordability. First and foremost was the GST credit, and the second one was the $500 housing rebate for those in the lowest income brackets. Those were crucial in ensuring that affordability was maintained for the most vulnerable Canadians.

As we look forward, we are looking at a number of targeted initiatives, the critical one being the one-time grocery rebate, which will support 11 million Canadians in making ends meet. While we know that it is not a permanent fix, we do realize that in these most difficult times, we need to get Canadians to the other side of these economic threats. I believe this is a very smart way of addressing this issue.

With respect to predatory lending, when I was in my first year of law school, a professor by the name of Iain Ramsay was my contracts prof, and he was a highly respected professor at Osgoode. During our contracts class, his singular focus was on predatory lending. He did an enormous amount of research on the impacts of predatory lending on low-income Canadians, the cycle of debt that it brings individuals and, subsequently, young families into, and the systemic challenges of getting out of this debt. As a result, I learned a great deal about those who are dependent on payday loans, which can only be described as predatory.

I realize that this was over 20 years ago, so I am actually quite heartened and also somewhat disappointed that it took Canada this many years to get to the point where we are actually addressing this issue head-on, redefining the notion of criminal interest rates and ensuring that those who are dependent on payday loans, our most vulnerable, are supported. It is something that I believe is fundamentally important to the economy but also to those who may be struggling right now. In addition, we are cracking down on junk fees to ensure that businesses are transparent with the prices they are set to pay.

We are also looking to implement automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians. Every year, and I know my colleagues here will probably relate to this as well, we have a volunteer who, since I was elected in 2015, comes every February and offers up her time to do tax returns. In fact, even if we do not call her, she calls us. Every year, that service is full. She really does it as a service to her community, to those who are struggling and to those for whom the tax return is so critical to their income, whether it be the Canada child benefit, old age security, the guaranteed income supplement or other government entitlements. She is very diligent in getting this done, and there are literally thousands of tax preparers who do this out of the kindness of their hearts, to make sure they support other Canadians.

Automatic tax filing, in many ways, will ensure that those who are left outside of the ability to prepare their taxes or get the type of help that is provided by my office, and I am sure many of my colleagues' offices, are supported. I am very glad to confirm that automatic tax filing will be coming and is included in the budget implementation act.

We know that students have had a particularly difficult time. I interviewed for the summer leadership program that we have, and I am pleased to say that we have two students who are starting next week. As a government, we have over 150 students, with over 4,000 applications from students who have applied to our program. This is, I believe, our seventh year running this program. It is so good to see the quality of candidates who are coming forward, but when I speak to students, I know they are struggling. Whether it is through the youth constituency advisory council that I have or through the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus, which is located in my riding, or Centennial College, I hear from students about the issue of affordability. Oftentimes, it is the ability to pay the tuition or to make ends meet.

I believe there are many measures in here, including increased grants, that will enable students to ensure that their education is affordable. I often say that in our society education is our ultimate equalizer and the measures that we have in place will support students in attaining an education.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, given the hon. member's legal expertise, I appreciated his legal analysis of the budget.

However, I am concerned about the economic trajectory of this country. With the data from the budget itself and from last year's budget, in fact, our GDP per capita is significantly lower than those of the Americans and of our OECD advanced economy competitors. In fact, it has gotten worse over the last three decades. In particular, we have seen stagnant wage growth over the past five years, compounded with record-high inflation and very high housing prices.

The Liberal government is spending all this money, and yet we are not seeing great economic growth trajectory for Canadians. I am very concerned about it.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that the expenditures we are talking about are investments in our community, individuals and businesses. Just last week, the Prime Minister was in St. Thomas announcing a record investment in the auto sector with Volkswagen coming to Canada. It is the first European carmaker to set up shop here, which we believe is transformational. While we have some challenges with respect to the economy today, we are poised for long-term sustainable growth because of the investments we are making in individuals and businesses.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, in the recent budget, the government announced $80 billion for the green economy and the transition to a carbon-neutral future. In Bill C‑47, we learn how this will be managed and that has us concerned. Through a legislative change, the government is creating two institutions that will be in charge of administering the money the government plans to invest, money that escapes the control of Parliament. Non-elected people will be able to choose the projects they support without being accountable to anyone, without being accountable to the House and without any clear criteria.

What does the member think about that?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think it is a bad thing for decisions regarding funding to be made by independent actors. I believe Parliament has a very important role in setting the agenda and terms of reference, and appointing custodians and managers to ensure the funds are managed. However, I believe that processes that are meant to adjudicate and allow funding to go to individuals and businesses ought to be managed independently of government and that it is wise for us to continue to do that. We have a civil service that does it. Oftentimes, we Crown corporations that do that. I believe that is probably a more prudent way to achieve the goals we are mutually trying to achieve.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I asked earlier about the urgency of employment insurance reform. I want to talk about another facet of the employment insurance problem that Canada has at the moment, which is the decision of the government to allocate $25 billion of CERB debt to the EI account. We know that EI was not in a good place prior to the pandemic. It was not adequate to the task. The whole system had to be revamped. It was effectively run like a program and not the usual employment insurance system that premium payers are used to. That was cancelled back in September.

How does the government imagine it is going to achieve an effective modernization of the employment insurance system when premium payers are preoccupied with paying down a $25-billion debt over the next seven years instead of seeing improvements to the employment insurance program?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course the issue of employment insurance is so critical to Canada, and to anyone who depends on a paycheque, which is the vast majority of Canadians. We know that any one of us could, at some point over the years, face the difficult challenge of applying for employment insurance.

During the pandemic, we were there for Canadians through the Canada employment response benefit. I recognize the member's concern with respect to the additional obligations under EI for the CERB shortfall, but we are confident we will ensure we will have a system that protects the most vulnerable, especially those who may be out of a job or temporarily see themselves seeking employment insurance because of seasonal employment and the like.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, today we are talking about budget 2023, and there are many serious issues facing Canada. Unfortunately, I do believe that many of them are not addressed in the federal 2023 Liberal budget.

I am the shadow minister for public safety and the vice-chair of the public safety and national security committee for Canada, and so when I was looking at the budget, I was looking at it through a public safety lens: How is this budget going to improve public safety in Canada? Again, there are very serious issues in public safety that need dire and immediate attention from the Liberal government, and I do not feel that they were given that attention in budget 2023.

We are facing a 32% rise in violent crime since 2015, which is the 2015-21 statistic. I am confident that, unfortunately, the 2022 statistic is going to be even worse, given the headlines that we have seen over the past year and a half. Also, 32% is not just a number. In fact, it represents 124,000 more very serious violent crime incidents that have impacted innocent Canadians across the country. That is how many more violent crime incidents per year we experienced in 2021 versus 2015, when the Liberal Prime Minister first came to power. So, there are very serious issues not being addressed, from my perspective, in the budget.

Many of us read the news and watch the headlines, and we have seen a lot of very concerning stabbings, shootings, murders, assaults on innocent Canadians and stranger attacks on public safety, and a lot of it has to do with repeat violent offenders in our community who continue to get bail and wreak havoc on innocent Canadians. For example, there was a violent knife attack on a Surrey SkyTrain, which is its public transit, that left a young man in hospital. The attempted murderer was released on bail less than two weeks later. A man was almost stabbed to death, and the culprit was back on the streets. This follows the death of a 17 year old who was murdered, stabbed to death, in B.C. on a bus. This follows a 16-year-old boy who was stabbed to death in a Toronto public transit station. There are countless other examples of these horrific attacks in Canada. It seems that there are more and more every day.

It is not just civilians; it is also police. In fact, 10 police officers have died in the past year, eight of them on the job, and notably repeat violent offenders is a theme in many of the murders. Of course, everyone has heard of OPP Officer Greg Pierzchala, a young OPP officer who was murdered just after Christmas this past year. He walked up to a vehicle in a ditch and the driver shot and murdered him. That driver, that murderer, was out on bail and had a lifetime prohibition from ever owning a gun. Yet, he got out on bail, got a gun and shot and murdered that young police officer. We mourn the loss of Greg Pierzchala with his family.

Notably, his death sparked a necessary national conversation about bail reform, which is not mentioned once in the federal budget, despite every premier in the country joining in on one letter, which is very rare, and sending it to the Prime Minister demanding bail reform. Despite big-city mayors and municipal police forces across the country demanding bail reform, we see no action, no results on bail reform from this government. It is not mentioned in the budget at all. I find it very concerning, and it is very serious. Last year, in Toronto, of the 44 murders when someone used a gun to murder someone, 24 of the murderers were out on bail at the time, and so 24 of 44 could have been prevented if our bail system was a bit tougher. It is quite serious.

In B.C., the NDP provincial government has written urgently to the Prime Minister just in the last few weeks outlining what they are facing in terms of bail and violent crime. Only about 16% to 17% of those who are going through a trial for a violent crime actually get detained. I was shocked at these statistics, and I had to read them a number of times. Fewer than 20% of violent criminals are being denied bail in B.C. Something is seriously wrong, and the B.C. NDP government is demanding bail reform as a solution from the Liberal government, and yet it is not mentioned as a priority in the Liberal budget. I found that very disappointing, given the national conversation and the deaths that we have seen. We could say that maybe bail will be mentioned somewhere else, but violent crime was not mentioned as a priority. Members can google it themselves; it was not in the budget.

Again, folks at home need to understand that a government's budget is telling Canadians what its values are and what it is prioritizing for the year ahead with the billions of taxpayer dollars it accumulates over the year. If violent crime is not mentioned, then clearly it is not a priority for the Liberals to fight violent crime or to deal with bail and repeat violent offenders. There are issues in our parole system as well.

What is in the budget? It is not something that is answering the calls of police. Before I move on, I want to say I found something quite shocking this week. The Victoria Police Department, just to drive this point home, recently released a news release about a vile rapist who was charged with 10 counts of sexual assault with a weapon. It says, “Why was this person released? Bill C-75....”

Bill C-75 was a Liberal bill from a couple years ago. Where is the mention of fixing this problem in the budget? Where are the resources to fix this problem in the budget? Why was it not prioritized by the Minister of Public Safety? I have not received any answers for these questions yet.

There are a few things in the budget that I did find notable in the public safety realm. There is $29 million over five years for an IT computer program for the government's so-called buyback program of long guns. I know this is very contentious. I have talked about this extensively elsewhere.

There is no evidence to suggest that long gun confiscation is going to do anything for all the issues I have outlined. In fact, of the multitude of violent crimes in this country, fewer than 0.5% are committed with long guns. We know the majority of crime committed with firearms is committed by people who are not legally allowed to own them.

Spending millions of dollars on an IT program, millions of dollars buying inventory from small gun shops and then billions of dollars buying property from law-abiding citizens who have been trained, tested and vetted by police to own firearms, is not going to make any difference to everything that I have been talking about.

However, it is a top priority for Canadians that it get solved. I put this to the minister. He said there are a lot of ways to fight gun violence. I said sure there are, but I asked what they were in his opinion. He said he is investing money in the border. Is he doing that?

I took a closer look at the budget since the Liberals formed government. In 2015, there were 8,400 frontline officers and investigators working for CBSA, our border agency. We know, as Toronto Police have told us, about nine out of 10 guns that are used in crime in Toronto are smuggled in from the U.S. We hear this quite universally from police departments across the country. It is a gun-smuggling problem from the U.S.

In 2015, we had 8,400 frontline workers who were tasked with stopping things like this from happening and stopping the gun smugglers. The Minister of Public Safety has said to Canadians multiple times, every time he gets a microphone, that he is spending all this money on the border to stop gun smuggling.

However, eight years later, there are only 25 more frontline officers, yet a lot of money has been spent. There are only 25 more frontline officers to fight gun smuggling, which is the source of violent crime in this country. Every chance he gets, he boasts about how much money he has invested.

Where is that money going? A closer look at the employees at CBSA shows that middle management has gone from approximately 2,000 people in 2015 to 4,000 people in 2023. It has doubled middle management, not the frontline workers who are working hard and putting their lives at risk to apprehend gun smugglers at the border, but the middle managers.

I greatly respect all of our middle managers in public safety, but the point is that it has doubled, while there has been almost no movement of the frontline officer numbers. How serious is he about cracking down on gun smuggling? The numbers are not telling me that the results are going to be there.

We know the RCMP is facing significant issues as well. Recruitment is way down, as is morale, across the country. Police say this is an issue, yet there is not any new money in the budget to encourage recruitment or for new recruits. We are seeing serious declines in recruitment in our police forces. Why is that not being addressed? We need more frontline police officers to fight violent crime.

We also know there has been a 12% funding cut to the Parole Board and a 36% decrease in staff at the Parole Board. Perhaps that is why we have major mass casualties like the murderer in Saskatchewan who murdered, with a knife, 11 people and sent 17 more people to hospital. He was out on parole with 59 prior convictions.

After all that, we see cuts to parole and no increase in this budget, yet increases everywhere else. Public safety is not a priority for the government from what I have seen in the budget.

I do feel very strongly about this, as does the Conservative Party. We know Canadians care about public safety. I call on the Minister of Public Safety and the Liberal government to bring forward real measures to address public safety because so far, they are getting a failing grade from me.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I also studied the budget from a security perspective. I realize that not enough is being done, as she said, to counter gun violence.

Yes, we are working on Bill C‑21. There are good things in there. Is this going to solve all the problems? Unfortunately not and it is certainly not going to solve the problem of illicit firearms trafficking.

For months, the Bloc Québécois has been proposing that more people work together and that we create a sort of squad of New York police officers, Akwesasne Mohawk police officers, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec, police officers from Ontario and Border Services officers. They also need to be given more resources.

When these people appear in committee, they tell us that guns are crossing the border and they do not have the resources to stop it. Does the member think that the government is putting money in the right place?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, it has been a great pleasure to work with my colleague on public safety. It is great to have two young, strong women fighting for public safety in Canada. I appreciated the guns and gangs study that the two of us and the others at the public safety committee spearheaded, and we all signed on to that report. It is amazing what we can accomplish when the Liberal cabinet does not stick its nose into public safety affairs, I will say.

That aside, we did learn significantly that, just as the member outlined, there is a lot of gun smuggling and drug smuggling coming in. Actually, this is happening near her riding, I believe. I firmly believe in empowering first nations policing and first nations community resources to stop that sort of thing. I think they clearly need to be an equal partner at the table in that regard. I am not happy with the results we have seen, and I do not believe the first nations are either, because we have had them at committee and we have talked to them. It does not seem like they are getting the resources they need, which is very odd given the money being spent.

This is where the problem is. Why are we not investing more money? They are spending money everywhere else. Why not do so to stop the problem?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver East, we are actually struggling with a series of crises. We have a homelessness crisis, and we have a drug poisoning crisis; we have a mental health crisis where people need mental health support and are not able to access it.

I wonder whether the Conservatives would support an approach whereby all levels of government are brought together, including federal, provincial and municipal governments, along with the community and indigenous leadership to find a way to address the crisis that we face. This would be similar to what is in place in Winnipeg, in what is called the Winnipeg accord, and formerly in Vancouver, in the Vancouver agreement. Then, in a non-partisan way, we could take a concerted approach to addressing the situation that we are all facing, and particularly, in my situation, in the Downtown Eastside.

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated working with the member when we were on the immigration committee together. This collaboration is something I would personally support. I cannot speak for the Liberal government or any other level of government, but I certainly believe that when we come together and collaborate, especially across party lines, we see real results. We have seen collaboration across party lines at the provincial level. All premiers of multiple different parties signed a letter demanding bail reform, which is a consequence and part of the problem the member outlined. This problem is that there are repeat violent offenders who are wreaking havoc on our communities and taking advantage of vulnerable people, particularly those addicted to drugs, thereby putting them at risk or even hurting them.

I think that there is a lot that the member and I would work well together on, and collaboration is certainly a female strength. I would love to see something like that happen given all the lives that we have lost, particularly young lives in the last number of years, to the drug addiction issue.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. There are many things in this budget that are very good for Canadians. I wanted to ask about her opinion on the dental plan, which is now free for children under 12. By the end of this year, we will be expanding it to those with disabilities, seniors and those under 18.

What does the member think about providing this plan for Canadians?

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, when looking at the budget, I think we all need to be concerned about children and what the future will be for them. On the dental plan, I believe in provincial jurisdiction. Dental is a health care issue. I believe that we need to allow provinces to lead the way on health care issues. I feel that the Liberal government has really waded into provincial jurisdiction way too many times and way too much.

I appreciate the member's question. When we are talking about children, I know that she heard when I mentioned there were multiple deaths by stabbing, notably from those repeat violent offenders I mentioned and talked about at length. Those were children who were murdered. What is her government doing about that in terms of protecting those children and ensuring their future? It is not doing a lot.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

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 Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Government Services and Procurement; the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Health; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise and enter into debate about budget 2023.

There are many issues I want to touch on with the budget, but first and foremost, I must speak about the situation with the housing crisis that Canadians are facing from coast to coast to coast. It does not matter if one is in a large or a small community; there is a housing crisis all across the country.

There are encampments in communities big and small, and unhoused people are in fact dying on the streets, unable to access safe, secure and affordable housing. Long-term renters are getting pushed out of their apartments just so that corporate landlords can turn a bigger profit. Tenants cannot find an affordable home, and prospective homeowners are priced right out of the market.

Housing costs went up 77% under the Harper government and by another $300,000 under the Liberals. Therefore, successive Conservative and Liberal federal governments have abandoned their responsibility to invest in social and co-op housing. They are letting housing profiteering go unchecked right under their noses.

Real estate investment trusts enjoy preferential tax treatment, and the seven largest real estate investment trusts alone have saved a combined $1.5 billion through federal tax loopholes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just released a report estimating that the federal government will lose another $300 million in taxes over the next four years. Yes, the Liberals are letting corporate landlords profit off Canada's urgent housing crisis by purchasing affordable housing stock and renovicting long-term tenants to jack up rents.

This is what the financialization of housing means, and it has to stop. Housing is a basic human right and not a commodity. Budget 2023 was an opportunity for the Liberal government to tackle the housing crisis and stop wealthy corporate landlords from treating housing like a stock market. Sadly, it fails to take the necessary action to ensure that Canadians' basic right to housing is met.

The Federal Housing Advocate calls the budget a “sorry disappointment.” Previously, the Auditor General issued a damning report stating that the government will not reach its own targets to reduce chronic homelessness. The 25 largest financialized landlords held more than 330,000 units last year, which is nearly 20% of the country's private purpose-built stock of rental apartments. It is time to put people before profits, and the NDP has real solutions to address housing profiteering.

I am calling on the Liberals to take a human rights-based approach to housing, as enshrined in the national housing strategy. The federal government must stop rewarding real estate investment trusts for pushing out long-term tenants and jacking up housing prices. We must end special tax treatment and make them pay their fair share.

It is time for a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable homes by real estate investment trusts and other corporate landlords, which are making big profits while driving up the cost of housing, as well as renovicting and demovicting Canadians. It is time to put housing back into the hands of the people.

The federal government needs to use the taxes from real estate investment trusts and create a non-profit acquisition fund to allow not-for-profits, co-ops and land trust organizations to purchase at-risk rental buildings when they come on the market. There should be no more profiteering, no more renovictions and no more special tax treatment for corporate landlords.

Aside from addressing the issue of the financialization of housing, or profiteering, we need to take other actions as well. The coinvestment fund is a program within the national housing strategy. In the budget, this fund is almost depleted. I had been looking for the government to actually make new investments into the coinvestment fund to support non-profits in the development of social and co-op housing. However, that did not happen.

What the government did was rob Peter to pay Paul; it took repair dollars within that fund to put into the construction arm of the fund. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is actually not going to get projects done. If the government does not replenish the coinvestment fund, we are not going to see those projects become viable; thus, we will not see the much-needed housing develop in the community.

Strangely, the Minister of Housing, with the ministry, decided to put a cap of $25,000 per unit on the dollars that non-profits can access out of the coinvestment fund. In the face of the rising cost of housing, inflationary costs and so on, that cap will only kill projects. It will just mean that the projects cannot be developed. That makes no sense whatsoever. The federal government needs to lift the cap on this requirement.

The NDP also wanted the government to invest in the rapid housing initiative. This is one program that is working relatively well, but we need to make sure that the community knows there is sustainable funding in that stream. Therefore, the NDP called for the government to invest $1.5 billion annually into the rapid housing initiative. Sadly, we did not see that investment either.

One investment in housing that we did see, which the NDP fought tooth and nail for, was this: the “for indigenous, by indigenous” urban, rural and northern housing strategy. For too long, indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples who have lived away from their home communities have not gotten the housing supports they need. Somehow, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not recognized when they are away from their home community. This is wrong. Therefore, we have been pushing the government and demanding that action be taken.

I am glad to see that, in this budget, there is an investment of $4 billion over seven years to be made in a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. That is a start, I will say, and more needs to be done. This amount of money may sound like a lot, but it is still absolutely deficient when it comes to addressing the housing crisis for urban, rural and northern indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples in our communities.

We also need to make sure that the government rolls these dollars out quickly. It should not slow-walk or back-end load the program, as it has done with other programs in the national housing strategy. I would also say that it has to be true that the programs are delivered as a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy. The government has to hold true on this. We need sustainable funding for this into the long term.

I would also say that, in the budget, I was glad to see what the NDP had pushed for and forced the government to take action on, which is the dental program. I cannot tell members how much seniors in my riding need this program. I have met seniors who have lost their teeth and are unable to afford to get dental services, where they are blending up their food to drink it in order to get the sustenance that they need to stay alive. This is just wrong. Our seniors are desperate for this program, and I am so glad to see that the NDP prioritized this and demanded that the government put forward this dental program. Therefore, at the end of this year, seniors, people with disabilities and people aged 19 and under would be able to access this program, and it is high time that we actually look at health care from head to toe and ensure that people's oral health is taken care of.

I have much more to say about this budget. There are some good parts, and there are some parts that are missing. No matter what, the NDP will continue to use our power to force the government to take action. I will continue to speak up on the things where the government fell short and to fight for the community so that every member has access to fair and equal treatment and can live with dignity in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to thank the member for her support of the budget and for her advocacy on the housing file. As the member knows, we are going to start the financialization of housing study soon at HUMA. I know the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who is the author of that motion, is here tonight. I look forward to that.

I just want to ask a question about social housing and the importance of investing in that. The member mentioned the rapid housing initiative. We have now had three rounds of rapid housing funds that have benefited my municipality, in particular, in my riding, and I know Vancouver has been a leader on the modular-build front. I am anxious to see further investments in that area. Could the member talk about and highlight the benefits of rapid housing and the modular builds that we have seen across the country?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important for the federal government to show leadership with a national affordable housing initiative. To that end, we need to cut the red tape. The member knows very well that the federal government's CMHC is not ensuring that programs are delivered. As it is said, projects go to CMHC to die, and that is not good enough. We have to cut the red tape.

Investment needs to be commensurate with the needs in our communities. The federal Liberal government cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. As a result of that, we lost more than half a million units of social housing and co-op housing that would otherwise have been built. We need to at least make up for that and then some as part of the solution to addressing the housing crisis.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member talked quite a bit about housing. Both of us are from British Columbia, where there is some of the highest housing costs in the country. At committee, when the housing minister was there, a Conservative asked him if he considers our housing situation in Canada a crisis. He would not acknowledge that we have a housing crisis in Canada.

I am wondering if the member can comment on that and what her thoughts are on the fact that the housing minister does not consider that we have a housing crisis in Canada.