Debates of May 2nd, 2023

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Home Ownership and Renting Affordability

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to get back to what we are talking about today, which, of course, is the opposition day motion.

I am going to take a moment to recognize Beatrice Weaver. Beatrice lives in Elmsdale, Nova Scotia, and this past weekend, she turned 109 years old. I had the opportunity to visit Beatrice. While recognizing and celebrating her birthday, I promised her that I would make sure her name and her accomplishment of reaching 109 are in Hansard forever. She is still spry. I am going to have this clip recorded and make sure she and her family can see it. Congratulations to Beatrice. I hear some colleagues clapping.

To go back to the matter before us right now, the opposition day motion, I actually agree with provision (b) in the fact that any time we can align all three governments with regard to investment and line this up with residential development, that makes a lot of smart public policy sense.

I was surprised to see the motion include these words: “so that young and middle-class people don't need to use cars”. I know the Conservatives have been against the government's effort to help renew the Canadian auto sector. The leader of the official opposition spoke against the partnership with Volkswagen to create 3,000 jobs in St. Thomas. However, I was surprised they did not say something along the lines of the following: “so that individuals can more easily access public transit”. I thought that the fact that they talked about not using cars was a little off brand for the official opposition, and I was quite surprised to see it. I want to make sure that it is there.

I also agree with provision (c); in principle, there is merit in being able to use federal resources, in terms of surplus lands. I would note that any time the government can create a more efficient process to deem federal lands surplus, where appropriate, it makes a lot of public policy sense. The lands could then be used for the type of purpose the motion talks about, which is affordable housing.

As I have said from the outset, for the benefit of my colleagues who were not here for my remarks before question period, there are merits in this motion that are, frankly, good public policy. There are other areas where I think there are real, considerable gaps. One of these is how to constitute what a reasonable delay is and whether we should be punishing Canadians who live in municipalities that, according to the official opposition, are not necessarily meeting the outcomes that they are arbitrarily putting in place.

I want to talk about one element that was not included in the motion, and that is skilled trades and access to labour. I have before me a CTV article from Talisman Gate, a housing project in the Gravenhurst area in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, which is that of the shadow minister for the Conservative Party. There is no mention whatsoever about access to labour. Developers talk about the challenge they have, which is that they are finding it more and more difficult to find the people who are able to build the housing.

I can appreciate the hon. member raising this concern around how we can expedite processes. I have some legitimate concerns about the simplification and how they framed this in the opposition day motion. It does not talk about having the men and women to build the houses. This particular project in Gravenhurst has been delayed by over a year because the developer was struggling to find the available labour. Why would the member not have included that? That is a really important point that could have helped round out this dynamic.

I will summarize my remarks by saying that there are elements within this opposition day motion that have merit. I thank the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, because I think he is better than others at public policy framing in terms of what he can accomplish. I said earlier in my remarks that it is too bad he did not win the leadership. I think the opposition party would have been in better hands, although this is not to create grenades on that side. However, there are some real issues, particularly around what constitutes a reasonable delay and how we would go about even establishing rewarding municipalities that are doing good work on developing and building housing. There are not a whole lot of answers there. There are a lot of problems identified and simplistic solutions, but there is not a whole lot of nuanced public policy that is going to solve the issue.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not planning on asking a question, but I will tell the member how the town of Gravenhurst is pronounced.

Many times in this House I have talked about the importance of the federal immigration system working directly with the provinces to make sure we are attracting the right skills to build the homes Canadians need. I wonder if he can speak to that. Are we actually doing enough to attract skilled trades to this country?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, my apologies to the good people of the Gravenhurst community in the member opposite's riding.

The point remains that I wish that was something the party opposite had put in the motion today.

The Minister of Immigration is developing skilled pathways that are specific to regional outcomes, whereby the provinces are able to identify gaps in particular types of labour positions. They can help identify ways we can create skilled pathways for immigrants who might want to come here and bring their trades and the opportunities to build the housing the member talks about. Also, the government is putting a lot of investment in working with provinces, institutions, universities and the skilled trades to get the folks who have the skills to build the houses we need.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone that the Quebec government wants full powers over immigration. Part of the housing crisis can be attributed to the fact that the construction of new housing has not kept up with population growth.

Can my colleague not face the facts and recognize that it would be more efficient and more productive to give Quebec full control over its immigration and, at the same time, that it makes sense to transfer the money to Quebec so that it can plan its supply of new housing for the long term, taking immigration into account, if only to ensure that the housing crisis does not get worse?

Since 2016, we should have had 100,000 more new homes than we do now.

Does my colleague not realize that the Liberal national housing strategy is a complete failure and that there are human consequences to that?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as I understand it, there are already significant devolved and delegated powers for the Government of Quebec in relation to selecting the immigrants who come to Quebec. Our government has been very clear regarding our desire to increase, on the federal side, the amount of immigration that is francophone-based. We know that is extremely important from a linguistic perspective, not only across the country but indeed in Quebec as well. Therefore, I think there is already a lot of devolved power going to the Legault government, the Quebec government, to help it choose. We are working on a regional basis as well to make that happen.

I think there are a lot of good existing programs. If the member has concerns about the immigration pathways in Quebec, he should raise that with the Quebec government, which has significant power to choose the immigrants in question.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, part of the immigration problem is that the government has decided to continue to use temporary foreign workers to address our skilled labour shortage, including in the construction sector. What the government should do is regularize people so they have the status to come to Canada, and ensure that those who are already in Canada have full status.

Would the member support the regularization of those without status or those with temporary status who are already in Canada so they can fully contribute to every aspect of Canada's development?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my remarks at the end of the intervention have bled into a really important conversation about immigration. Of course, I will remind listeners at home that this is about housing, but I agree that we have to help folks who want to come to Canada to make a difference.

My view, given my local experience in Kings—Hants, where we welcome almost 2,000 seasonal agriculture workers, is perhaps a bit different from the member opposite's. It is not that I do not support long-term access to pathways for citizenship in this country. I absolutely do. However, if we talk to some of the workers, they do not want to come to Canada and become full-time citizens. They find that the opportunity—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Many of them do because they don't have a pathway.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

—to contribute to their family at home is one of the best foreign development programs.

The member opposite can try to scream me down in the House, but if she wants to hear my answer, it is simply, yes, absolutely we should regularize the opportunity for folks who want to come to Canada so they can. For those who do not want to, let us make sure there are protections in place to allow their valuable contributions to our country and the ability for them to help support their families at home.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand in this venerable House to speak on behalf of my residents of the riding I am very proud to represent, which is Davenport, and to speak to the Conservative opposition day motion on inflation and housing.

My remarks are going to cover three key areas. The first is the issue of inflation and housing and how it is impacting Davenport residents. The second is what our federal government is doing. The third will be the problems that I see with some of the key statements proposed in the opposition day motion. Unfortunately, I will not be supporting it.

The first thing I want to talk about is how inflation and housing costs are impacting Davenport residents.

I had the wonderful pleasure of being able to canvass on a rainy Saturday afternoon just recently, and I had a chance to speak to about 100 Davenport residents. I will tell members that the three issues that were top of mind for them were the cost of living, whether they will be able to live in Toronto and whether their kids or grandkids will be able to buy homes, which many were worried about.

We spoke at length at the doors, and I talked to them about all of the things we were doing at the national level. I prefaced my conversation with them by saying that for over 30 years, all three levels of government in the city of Toronto spent very little money on supporting housing affordability and creating affordable housing. Thirty years of non-investment has a huge impact.

I said to them that I have a lot of confidence that within the next few years, all three levels of government will be working really hard to address the issue. I do not agree with all of the decisions at the provincial level, but we are all seized with the issue of housing affordability and affordable housing, and we are working very hard to try to resolve the issue. I have a lot of confidence that our kids and grandkids will see houses they can buy and can afford to buy, that we will be creating more rental spaces and that we will be creating more spaces for the most vulnerable in our communities.

This leads me to my second section, which is about what we have done on housing.

I am very proud of our government. Since we came here in late 2015, we have really taken charge of housing and the issues around housing and how to build more housing in this country. I will talk to a few aspects of that, because I think it is important for people to be reminded of what we have done.

We have introduced a national housing strategy, and we have allocated more than $72 billion. We have put in a number of measures that will help individuals who are looking to save money to buy their homes. We have recently introduced a new tax-free home savings account to allow Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free to buy their first home. We have also doubled the first-time homebuyers' tax credit to provide up to $1,500 in direct support to homebuyers to offset closing costs involved in buying a new home.

We have introduced a whole series of measures to make sure the houses we have here in Canada are for Canadians, and to do what we can to curb speculation, which is driving our housing prices up, particularly in our major cities. I have a couple of things to mention there.

We have the two-year ban on non-resident, non-Canadian purchases of residential property to help curb speculation and ensure that houses are used as homes for Canadians to live in. We have introduced a 1% annual underused housing tax on the value of non-resident, non-Canadian-owned residential properties that are vacant or underused. We are also making sure that the profits from the flipping of properties held for less than 12 months are taxed fully and fairly.

These measures will go a long way to ensuring that the houses we have are being kept for Canadians and that we are doing what we can to curb speculation.

We have launched a $4-billion housing accelerator fund to remove barriers and to incentivize housing supply growth, with the goal of creating at least 100,000 net new homes across Canada. We have also launched a $200-million stream under the affordable housing innovation fund to develop and scale up rent-to-own projects, which I know is something that Davenport residents are very happy about. They like their apartments and are looking for opportunities to rent them. This program would allow them to actually own them one day. We have also launched a third round of the rapid housing initiative, which will provide $1.5 billion to create 4,500 new affordable housing units for Canadians in severe housing need.

In my riding, we have some of these rapid housing initiatives. They have been life-saving for the most vulnerable in our community. When they are teamed up with supportive dollars from the provinces, it is a game-changer. If they have mental health supports and supports to help them find jobs, in addition to having a safe place to live, it saves lives and helps to produce more productive citizens in our society.

Another thing we have done as a national government, which I am very proud of but we do not often talk about, is renewed our co-op housing agreements on a long-term basis. There are a number of co-ops in my riding. They are affordable places for families to live in and are lifesavers for so many people. They allow families to continue to live affordably in our large cities and in the centre of our cities.

There are a couple of things that I would love for us to do. One of the key things we can do, which would not cost a lot of money, is serve as a coordinating body to bring all levels of government together. We need to include developers when looking at the inflation issue and ask this: Now that inflation is at a certain amount, how do we make sure that we get things out of the way, whether at city hall, at the provincial level or with any type of regulatory issue at the federal level, so we can expedite things quicker than where we are at right now?

A number of non-profits in my community would love to build affordable housing units on top of their community centres. They have asked us to work with CMHC to better facilitate ways for them to work with CMHC to ensure they have the capital, investment, framework and support they need to create affordable housing units.

This opposition day motion talks about inflation. We have talked quite a bit in the House about a number of targeted supports that our federal government has put into place, as well as some huge programs that are literally game-changers for families in my riding of Davenport and for all Canadian families across the country.

We are talking about the grocery rebate; the Canada child benefit; the Canada workers benefit; old age security, which we have increased by 10%; and the national child care program, which means Torontonians in my riding of Davenport are saving 50% of their costs. There are also some of the newer measures just introduced in federal budget 2022, such as automatic tax filing and dental care, which will be expanded to seniors and all youth under the age of 18, as well as a number of other initiatives. When I go to people's doors and talk about these initiatives, there is a lot of appreciation for them. They are working and they are helpful.

We have an opposition day motion, and part of my disappointment with the motion is that it seems to imply the federal government is the reason inflation has reached a 40-year high and that our government, for some reason, has not so much caused our grocery prices to be higher, but has caused Canadians to cut back on their groceries. I think members of this House know that we have high inflation because of the after-effects of COVID, supply chain disruptions, the geopolitical situation we have right now, the war in Ukraine and of a lot of other global economic changes that impact inflation not only in Canada but right around the world.

I will end on a positive note. I like the fact that opposition members are concerned about housing and inflation. We should all be concerned about that. I think we should all put forward our best ideas and continue to try to work together so we can support Canadians through this very trying time.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things undermining the provision of affordable housing is that when privately owned affordable housing buildings come on the market and are flipped, they often become less affordable for tenants. This is causing us to move in the opposite direction than we need to be moving in.

One of the things the government in British Columbia did was create an acquisition fund so that non-profit housing providers could buy housing projects and keep them affordable. It is something we have advocated for on a national level.

I am wondering why the member's government has not proposed something similar. If not that approach, what approach does her government see for ensuring that we do not lose existing affordable housing to private developers?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the finance committee, which I have the privilege to serve on, we did a study on inflation and housing. We heard from a number of advocates saying that we really have to look at the REITs, which have a particular mechanism that allows companies to buy apartment buildings. What we are hearing, in many cases but not in all cases, is that apartment buildings are being bought and slightly renovated, and then the apartment rents go up exponentially, so a lot of people have to move out of what were affordable apartments.

I can tell the member that our government is looking at that. We are looking at a number of measures that are stopping us from having affordable housing and housing affordability in the marketplace. We are looking at those, and if the member has other—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will continue with questions and comments.

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

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague thinks of the NDP proposal to tie the level of federal funding to immigration caps within each province.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I totally understood the question, and I apologize for that.

However, on whether there is appropriate funding levels to go with immigration levels, I think that maybe the core of the issue is probably that we are bringing in a lot more immigrants and those immigrants need housing. We have revised our immigration policies and numbers, while being very much aware that there is a housing affordability issue across this country. I do think that we keep that mind. Yes, there is a housing crisis in this country, and we keep that in mind as we move forward on our immigration policies.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give the member an opportunity to respond to a little preamble.

I appreciate that the member is recognizing that it is a housing crisis, but what is the government doing to actually build housing stock? The patchwork approach the government has taken, the whack-a-mole approach to come out with a new program for its failures, is not helpful on the long term.

We need to build more housing, both for Canadians and new Canadians. What exactly is the government doing to get more housing stock on the market?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are doing a lot, but I will mention two key things.

One is rapid housing, which is getting a lot of housing for our most vulnerable, for new Canadians, and they are built very quickly. If we talk to mayors right across this country, they will tell members that this is a very successful program, which is why we are about to introduce the third stage. The second thing is the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which is going to help incentivize cities to eliminate a lot of their red tape and a lot of their long timelines to get housing built in the cities.

Those are two key things that we have put into place. There are many other initiatives, but I have run out of time.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am so pleased that the member raised the issue of REITs, the real estate investment trusts, which allow corporations to intervene and turn homes into investment properties where the prices get spiked and taxpayers lose. I was pleased to hear her say that the Liberals were interested in looking at this. Motion No. 71, introduced by the Green member for Kitchener Centre, deals with it in detail, and I hope the member will support it.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this.

When we heard about this in the finance committee, we were all very concerned about it. My understanding is that we are looking at it right now. We are studying it, and many of us are advocating for immediate and urgent changes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kenora.

Homebuyers across Canada are confronted by two massive obstacles that they must work through as they try to buy and finance a home. First, families are struggling with the devastating impact of the Liberal government's economic mismanagement and its housing plans. To great fanfare, the government announced Canada's national housing strategy in 2017 to make housing, it said, more affordable and accessible. It has been an obvious and utter failure.

Canada's home prices have doubled since 2015. Today, the average home price in this country is an eye-popping $800,000. Ask any recent buyer or aspiring buyer if they are better off today than they were eight years ago, and the answer is a resounding, emphatic no.

The second obstacle is the cost of financing a home, which has skyrocketed. Thanks to the Liberal government's massive deficit spending, Canada's debt has doubled to $1.2 trillion. On top of that, the interest rates to service that debt have skyrocketed and will soon hit $50 billion every single year.

The indirect costs of that debt are significant. Reckless spending has fuelled inflation to levels Canadians have not seen in 40 years, and this has driven up interest costs. The result is higher mortgage payments. Today the average mortgage payment in this country has doubled to $3,000 a month. These two factors have made home ownership more expensive and pushed it out of reach for countless Canadians, particularly young Canadians.

The lack of housing and higher costs have also been ruinous to home and apartment rentals. The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Canada's 10 biggest cities is now $2,213, compared to $1,170 before Canada's Liberals broke the housing market. Vancouver and Toronto are now the third and tenth most unaffordable cities in the world, outstripping places like New York and London.

Big city governments that delay permits and have excess red tape and taxes can add as much as $200,000 to the cost of each new home built in this country. No wonder people cannot afford to buy a home, with prices like this being driven up by the gatekeepers.

Owning a home and raising a family are the foundation of the Canadian dream, yet for many this dream appears to be slipping further and further away. It is out of reach because the Liberals are out of touch. Home ownership has become an impossibility for too many Canadians since the Liberals first took office. In Canada, it is considered affordable to buy a home if the cost is less than 30% of a household's before-tax income. It now takes 60% of Canadians' income to cover the cost of owning a home. Those who have scrimped and saved for years to afford their first home now find themselves questioning if they can ever achieve the Canadian dream.

This crisis did not happen overnight. It has steadily worsened every year the Liberals have been in office. The Bank of Canada's governor, as well as the finance minister, led people to believe that interest rates would remain low. Today, thousands of Canadians are grappling with the stark reality that those entrusted with governing and overseeing the nation's finances failed.

The Canadian dream was once a straightforward proposition: work hard; play by the rules; finish school; get a decent job; get married; save each month for a down payment; have a family; and one day retire, owning one's home. However, for many of my constituents in New Brunswick, those who have done everything right, this dream is unattainable today. That is, no matter how hard families work or how much they save, the dream of home ownership is a mirage.

The Liberals have failed to deliver affordable housing, and that was made abundantly clear in the Auditor General's report last November, which revealed that, despite spending tens of billions of dollars, and the Liberals are great at rattling off program after program and the mounds of money they have spent, when it comes to homelessness, the numbers keep rising.

The Auditor General says that the departments responsible, Infrastructure Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada, failed to even adequately track results, instead relying on outdated national shelter data to assess the effectiveness of their programs. In fact, the government's numbers, even using numbers the Auditor General said were less than reliable, indicate homelessness has increased nationally by 6.6% since 2018. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who no longer have homes.

The Auditor General also underscored that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, which oversees the majority of the housing strategies under the government, has no idea who benefits from its initiatives. Low-income families are being priced out of the market by funding rental housing that is supposedly affordable, but proves to be unaffordable for working families. It is an absolute mess.

Housing is one pillar of the Canadian dream, and the other is raising a family, yet the high cost of living, driven by inflated housing prices, has further discouraged Canadians from that other joy of life, which is starting a family. The average household debt in Canada reached 183% of disposable income in 2022, limiting the financial freedom and security of many Canadians.

The risk of homelessness is also going up because demand for homes has surpassed supply. New Brunswick's many affordable units were purchased in the last couple of years in my riding. This has forced people out, as buyers either moved in or increased rents. Families have been forced to move elsewhere to work and live. This has had a twin impact on the labour market, as small communities now cannot keep young families, which tend to be part of the economic foundation of these economies because they provide work for businesses and start small businesses, and it is not always by choice. This is happening because they are being priced right out of their neighbourhoods.

For those who cannot move or find an affordable place to live, the result is sadly and frequently homelessness, and this has a devastating impact on one's mental health, as well as personal safety. For the most vulnerable, those who are on the edge of poverty or trying to break the cycle, there are nowhere near enough shelter spaces, supported housing for persons with addictions or disabilities, rental units, or even starter homes. It is imperative that we address the housing crisis at its core by scaling up and building more. No government program is going to solve this problem. We need to build homes for future families. The Liberals cannot, but Conservatives will get it done.

The CMHC has noted that, as of April 27, the housing shortage throughout Canada is going to worsen. The agency has predicted that there will be a 32% decline in home building this year, as the cost of borrowing remains high and building costs have risen by 20% in the past year alone.

How is the carbon tax working now? We said it was a tax on everything, and it is. It is driving up the cost of living in this country, especially on new homes. It is Canadians, despite the government insisting it is doing everything right, who are paying the price. A Conservative government would incentivize home construction across Canada.

Step one would be to fix Canada's affordability crisis is restoring credibility to Ottawa's budgets. We would restore the federal government's finances, which have contributed to inflation and higher interest rates on home buyers. We would impose penalties on big city gatekeepers for excessive obstruction of housing projects. We would require cities seeking federal funds to pre-approve zoning for high-density housing and employment on land surrounding transit stations and hubs.

Last, we will sell off at least 15% of underutilized federal buildings in its property to ensure these buildings become affordable housing for families.

We must make the dream of home ownership a reality for families again. This is the only way we can secure a brighter future for our nation, for our children and for the next generation.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciated the speech of my hon. colleague. I am just not sure what side of the fence he is on because, on one hand, he wants the federal government to take more action and, on the other hand, he, I believe, as a Conservative, would agree that it is market forces that determine a lot of housing affordability and it is individuals, Canadians and companies and so on, that build housing.

Does my colleague agree with his colleagues, such as the member of Parliament for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, who have said that the government should do less on housing and pull back from its investments in the national housing strategy?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure the member was listening to my speech. Nowhere did I say the government ought to spend more and do more. If anything, the government's spending is one of the reasons that inflation has been on fire in this country and home ownership is more difficult. I am not sure where that criticism came from, or the belief that I think the Liberals are not doing enough. They are actually going in the wrong direction.

When it comes to the markets, the federal government has the most responsibility for setting the conditions for economic growth and home construction. It has failed utterly. The problem is the Liberals do not recognize they are going in the wrong direction. That is why we need a new direction, under Conservatives.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, on April 25, the Conservative member for Battlefords—Lloydminster said the following in the House:

...I am someone in this place who is on the record about respecting provincial jurisdiction. I believe provinces actually know better than the federal government does when it comes to their own jurisdiction and what works. Again, I respect provincial jurisdiction and provinces know what is best for the people who live in them.

The debate was on housing.

Given that the Conservatives have decided to move an “Ottawa-knows-best” motion that imposes conditions on the provinces, does my colleague think that the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster will be uneasy about voting in favour of the Conservative motion?

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have no idea. We would have to ask the member that question.

I am here to support this motion with the other Conservative members. I am ready to do that.