Debates of Sept. 25th, 2023

Rick O'Brien

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

This is a he-said-she-said situation. I rely on hon. members for what goes on. We are going to check the blues, see what we have and come back to the House should we see fit.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 48th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees of the House.

If the House gives its consent, I move that the 48th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

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

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

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. Hearing none, the motion is carried.

(Motion agreed to)

Aquaculture

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise virtually in the House today to present a petition on a subject of keen interest to many of my constituents.

To cover it briefly, this relates to the ongoing crisis for west coast wild salmon and the need for action to reduce their exposure to viruses and disease, as well as infestations of lice, that come into the wild salmon population from locations in marine coastal areas of foreign-owned toxic fish factories, otherwise known as salmon aquaculture. Work was under way under the previous minister of fisheries and oceans, and petitioners hope to find out whether the commitments to get these toxic operations out of our waters are still under way.

Health

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to offer my condolences and support to Constable O'Brien's wife, children and family, and the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and all law enforcement agencies in Canada, who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect us.

I rise today in support of not only Brooke from Nelson but the people of Kootenay—Columbia and across Canada to present this e-petition with 15,000 signatures on proposed changes to the natural health products that the NDP-Liberal government has proposed to Health Canada. We rely on health food products every day as part of our proactive health care. Health Canada is proposing significant fees for the import, manufacture and selling of NHPs and new labelling laws. This over-regulation will force people to seek out products online outside Canada.

I stand with and support the natural health product industry and call on the Minister of Health to work with the industry to embrace modern labelling and cost-recovery rates to reflect the scope of the industry.

Opioids

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present this petition. I hope you had a wonderful summer in your riding. I was fortunate to go to Portugal and learn about the toxic drug crisis, so it is timely that I present this petition on behalf of constituents of mine who are calling basically for the same model and approach that Portugal took in terms of a health-based response to the toxic drug crisis.

The petitioners are looking for a compassionate, integrated and coordinated approach to respond to the toxic drug crisis with a timely plan and resources to respond to it, including just-in-time treatment, recovery, prevention, education and resources to support that, a safer supply of substances to replace the toxic drugs on the street, and decriminalization. As we know, the evidence says that criminalizing people who use substances causes more harm.

The petitioners are asking for the federal government to table a plan and respond to the toxic drug crisis.

Climate Change

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of members of my community who are calling to the government's attention the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Specifically, they are asking the government to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise for the 11th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are sick and tired of the Liberal government's excuses on the rising rate of crime. The reality faced by local businesses is grim. They are forced to either spend their hard-earned money on security or risk shutting down. Businesses are struggling because of the constant crime by repeat offenders who plague the community.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities. I support the good people of Swan River.

Medical Assistance in Dying

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

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition regarding Canada's euthanasia regime, otherwise known as MAID.

The petitioners note that legalizing the state-sanctioned killing of people with mental health challenges will undermine suicide prevention efforts. Consequently, they call on the government to provide treatment and recovery to persons with mental illness.

In addition, they call on the government to reject the proposal to allow for the killing of infants under Canada's euthanasia regime, as was proposed by the Quebec college of physicians.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Alleged Duplication of Private Member's Bill

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to a point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte regarding the Private Members' Business item Bill C-339.

As members will know, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business is scheduled to review the votable status of the 15 items that were added to the order of precedence last week. It is for the subcommittee and for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review the votable status of these items of Private Members' Business, including the bill brought forward by the member for Bay of Quinte.

I submit that it would be premature for the House to consider the matter raised by the member until the subcommittee and its parent committee undertake their work, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1, and table their report in the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was about to explain, when I was interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Bloc Québécois deplores the federal government's constant need to dictate to Quebec how to spend its money.

First, we want the government to transfer Quebec its share with no strings attached. Had the government done so starting in 2017, then Quebec would have been able to begin building and renovating a number of housing projects, particularly social housing projects, three years sooner, and that definitely would have helped to mitigate the current housing crisis. Transfers with no strings attached would make the funding process much simpler, since the various agreements complicate the associated bureaucracy and increase the wait times before the amounts in question are actually allocated. That is important, particularly since the programs put in place by the Government of Quebec are often innovative and effective.

Second, the Bloc Québécois reiterated the importance of federal funding targeting first and foremost the many needs in the area of social and deeply affordable housing because those are the most pressing.

This is what we proposed during the last election campaign. We proposed that Ottawa progressively reinvest in social, community and truly affordable housing amounting to 1% of its total annual revenues, to ensure constant and predictable funding, instead of having ad hoc agreements. We proposed that every surplus federal property be repurposed for social, community and very affordable housing to help address the housing crisis. We proposed the creation of a property speculation tax to prevent artificial market inflation. We proposed a reform of the home buyers' plan to account for the different realities of Quebec households and increasingly diverse family situations. We also proposed that the federal government proceed with a financial adjustment of the different programs stemming from the national housing strategy to create an acquisition fund. Implementing this fund would enable co-operatives and non-profits to acquire housing unit buildings that are currently accessible in the private market, to keep them affordable and turn them into social, community and very affordable housing. We proposed that Quebec receive its share of funding with no strings attached from federal homelessness programs while calling for the money allocated over the last year during the pandemic to be made permanent.

I had the opportunity to test all these ideas because I was proud to represent the Bloc Québécois in the Eastern Townships in a debate on housing, but the Liberals and the Conservatives were absent from the debate in the Eastern Townships during the election campaign in 2021, on an issue as critical as that. It really struck me at the time. Social housing and homelessness organizations noted the Bloc Québécois' good ideas and the absence of the other two political parties.

In conclusion, we will continue to call for a real housing policy, but there is nothing overly terrible about this bill. Consequently, we would like to see it go to committee for further study.

I would like to add one last thing. It is undignified to leave so many people deprived of a basic need like housing. It is undignified to let women be raped in the street or give birth alone. It is disrespectful to those who built our society to let seniors lose their homes and find themselves without a roof over their heads. They have a right to want to age with dignity. We must put aside partisanship and take action on this all-important issue of social housing and homelessness.

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

Madam Speaker, what we see within the legislation is a very positive step that would lead to the construction of thousands of new homes. One of the things that reflect well on this particular legislation is that we have now seen other provinces adopt the same principle in terms of providing the same break, which would complement the policy that much more. I wonder if my colleague across the way would acknowledge, as I have done, the importance of recognizing not only the need and that Canadians want the government to do this, but that it is also important that the different levels of government and stakeholders work together to best address the overall issue of housing shortage.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think I was fairly clear in my speech. Ottawa has no business dictating our fiscal policy to us. This was precisely Quebec's response. Quebec is asking for its share because social housing and homelessness are part of its jurisdiction and it wants to take action.

I clearly demonstrated why Quebec, the provinces and the municipalities should not be browbeaten, as certain other parties tried to do during this debate. Rather, they should be empowered to act.

I saw no shortage of innovative ideas among community groups when I led a round of consultations with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. Community groups want to put these ideas into practice.

Let Quebec take action.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that not enough new social housing is being built. However, is it not also true that one of the most serious problems surrounding the housing crisis is the loss of existing social housing?

Does my colleague think that creating an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations could help slow or even stop the loss of social housing?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I talked about this in my speech, but I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to come back to this much-vaunted acquisition fund.

In 2021, during the election campaign, when I spoke about the acquisition fund during the Eastern Townships housing debates, organizations very much in touch with the needs of the community said that it was a promising idea that would allow community groups and co-operatives to carry out social housing projects. These groups embraced the notion of an acquisition fund.

There are some very interesting models in my riding of Shefford, including a seniors' co-operative that celebrated its 20th anniversary and even appeared before the World Health Organization to show that it is possible to have different housing models for seniors.

Let us allow these organizations to benefit from this acquisition fund and let us get some buildings out of the private speculative market so we can give the power back to the organizations.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a good day when we can speak to the challenges that are facing many Canadians. Right now, with respect to housing, it is no secret that the shortage of supply is making it difficult for folks to keep up, whether that is their mortgage or rent.

I enjoyed the member's speech because we have a lot in common and we believe the solutions are the same. Could the member speak to how important it is to build non-market housing and to the fact that the existing housing market has not delivered the results that Canadians deserve? It is seeing high prices and high competition with huge mega-corporations. Can the member speak to why non-market housing, social housing, is so important?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying to my colleague, we need to look at what should be done with private housing and find the best solution.

Beyond what is proposed in this bill, the Bloc Québécois also wants to debate it in committee in order to make suggestions, ask more questions and work with all the other political parties to come up with the best solutions. We realize that this bill is not perfect, but we have a duty as elected representatives to set partisanship aside when the time comes to debate an issue as crucial as social housing. When the bill is studied in committee, we will be able to continue working on it and propose improvements.

At the end of the day, people are waiting to have a roof over their heads. The right to housing is absolutely crucial. These people are counting on us and are watching us. We have a duty to act with dignity. We owe it to them to study this bill in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, everyone knows that times are really tough for Canadians. Housing and grocery prices are higher than ever and continue to rise. There is a real need for the government to intervene and adopt public policies to try to create circumstances in which those prices are more affordable for Canadians.

Bill C-56 sets out what the government is proposing to accomplish that. There are some good ideas about the Competition Bureau. However, I would say that more could be done. The bill introduced by the leader of the NDP goes even further with regard to the Competition Bureau. For example, it seeks to impose harsher penalties on companies that fix prices and to make the companies in the industry that are planning a merger responsible for showing that they are not doing something that would be harmful to Canadians. Right now, it is up to the Competition Bureau to prove that a company merger would be harmful to Canadians.

We think that the burden of proof should fall on the companies, that they should have to prove that their activities are in the interest of Canadians. The status quo that we have had for so long has not served Canadians well. There are some good ideas in the bill, but we must do more.

When it comes to housing, we in the NDP think that it is very important to not rely solely on market-based solutions, should we have to use them. If we truly want to resolve the housing crisis that has been growing for decades in Canada—under Liberal and Conservative governments alike—then we need solutions that come from outside the market as well as within the market. We have made several proposals, including an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations to give them the opportunity to buy affordable social housing when the organizations that run them decide to sell them.

All too often, large corporations are the ones buying these buildings. They renovate them, only so they can kick out the existing tenants and take on new ones who can afford to pay higher rents. If we are going to implement market-based solutions, we think it is important that the government adopt policies that will help address the critical shortage of social and affordable housing. We do not see anything like that in Bill C-56. We know that there are opportunities to work with the government and the other parties to ensure that Canada takes a strategic approach that includes non-market solutions, but we are not there yet.

I am really happy today to speak to Bill C-56. I think it is an interesting bill. We know that it is a really hard time for Canadians and that it has been for some time now. The costs of housing and food are higher than they have ever been, and they continue to go up.

There is no doubt in our minds, as New Democrats, that some kind of public policy intervention is required in order to try to get a handle on this situation.

In both cases, we have reached this moment of crisis because, for 30 years now, we have had Liberal and Conservative governments that have largely said to leave all this to the market. The market has not produced solutions around affordability.

It is not that the market does not have a really important role to play in the building of housing, for example, or in the delivery of groceries. However, we know, from what we have seen over the past number of years, and in the case of housing, for decades now, that if we just leave it to the market, then we are going to continue to end up in a worse and worse situation. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of housing needs in Canada that will never be met by the market, because it is not profitable enough for the market to meet them.

That is why we need a strategy that pushes private actors into making available, as part of their holdings, affordable suites. It is why we need governments to take responsibility again, as governments did from the 1940s all the way up to the 1990s, when the federal Liberals of the day cancelled the national housing strategy that was in place.

Unless we get governments back to the table and taking responsibility for the creation of social housing, we are not going to see an adequate resolution to the housing crisis. We are going to see it continue.

I have more to say about that. I will carry on with the housing piece, because I think the evidence has been that we have a pretty unified approach between the Liberals and Conservatives. What we have seen this fall already, and, in fact, if we looked back over the last 30 years, is that it is largely a market-based approach to the housing sector.

That is one of the things that changed significantly in Canada in the 1990s, whereas before, we had governments that said that there is a responsibility and an obligation to be investing in social housing and to be maintaining and expanding social housing stock. Really, in the 90s, a decision was made to say that, actually, we are going to leave housing entirely to the market. This has been consistently followed by every government we have had after Chrétien.

This is not done in the other G7 countries. In fact, of our G7 comparators, Canada has one of the lowest percentages of social housing in its housing stock. Canada has really dropped the ball because of this “market-think” that has dominated both Liberal and Conservative governments.

I rush again to say that it is not that the market does not have a role. It is not that there is not going to be market-based housing. It is that a whole other pillar, which was social housing and affordable housing, evaporated; we are living with the consequences of that now. Affordable housing, in some cases, can be provided through market mechanisms if one has the right rules in place, set by public policy.

The problem with Bill C-56 is that the government has not proposed the next stage for meaningfully building social and affordable units, whether in the bill or alongside it. This means that it is an incomplete strategy.

There is a risk of just adding to the public policy that prefers market solutions and puts money back in the pockets of developers without being upfront with Canadians about what the plan is or presenting a plan for a really aggressive social housing building strategy.

That can be the government building social housing. It can be meaningfully engaging the non-profit and co-operative sectors to build social housing. The real point is that we do not see it here.

There is an affinity with the Conservative leader's presentation of a housing plan last week as well. He also talks about taking the GST off purpose-built rental. He does talk a little bit about some affordability conditions in his bill, but they are not defined. When he talks about how it has to be rented below market, we really need a definition of what he means by that. If one charges just 1% below the market rate, we are not really helping Canadians.

I think it is noteworthy that, when the Conservative leader talks about using federal land in order to build more housing, there is no talk about affordability conditions in that part of his bill. That is actually where developers stand to make the biggest gains and make the most money. Therefore, it is really important to have some kind of affordability or social housing framework in respect of the forfeiture of federal lands for housing.

If those conditions are in place, it can be a very good thing to use federal land to develop for housing, but not in the absence of those criteria. In Ontario, we recently saw a Conservative government that decided to allow for the sale of protected lands in order to build more housing; however, it did not establish good rules about that, and it subsequently had to backtrack completely.

Canadians are watching this file very closely. They are not interested in seeing politicians abuse the housing crisis to make money for their developer friends. This is why the conversation that we have around affordable and social housing conditions here in Parliament as we discuss Bill C-56 is so important.

For instance, I think of the NDP's call for a non-profit acquisition fund to try to stop one of the important contributors to the housing crisis. This is that, where there have been apartment blocks with affordable and social units in them, non-profit housing providers or co-ops that have been running them for decades decide they cannot do it anymore, and they put them up on the market. When and if this happens, we have seen a lot of real estate investment trusts or big corporate landlords swoop in and buy those buildings. They have fast access to capital, and they have a lot of money in reserve that they can use to buy these places. They renovate, ask for exceptional rent increases, kick out all the people who were there before and get new tenants who can pay higher rents.

What that means, and some have calculated this, is that for every unit of social affordable housing we are building in Canada right now, we are losing 15. That is not sustainable. It means we are not on track. That is why it is not enough to just propose new market mechanisms to get developers to build new housing, rental or otherwise.

We really need to have a concerted and strategic effort to make sure that we are building a lot more affordable social units and that we are not losing the ones we already have, particularly in communities where there are experienced and competent non-profit or co-operative agencies to take those places over and continue to offer them as units with either affordable or social housing rents, which are calculated as a percentage of one's income, so those who have a lower income pay a lower rent. That is really important.

I have to add that one of the reasons why there have been so many of those buildings come on the market in the last 10 years or so and why real estate investment trusts and big corporate landlords have been able to scoop up so many existing affordable housing units, is the Harper Conservatives. The federal government, in the heyday of its involvement in housing, used to offer operating grants that would help subsidize the rents for these buildings that were tied to the mortgages. In some cases, the mortgages were 40- or 50-year mortgages, and when they came up for renewal, the federal government had to renew that operating funding.

The Harper government, while the leader of the Conservatives was at the table, made a decision not to renew those operating agreements. That is why so many buildings across Canada ended up for sale. The current operators could not continue to offer what they had been offering before, which was affordable rents, or properly, social housing, because the federal money that made that possible went away as a result of the decisions of the Harper Conservatives.

The Liberals ran in 2015 on renewing those operating agreements, and then they did not. There was some talk about coming up with an alternative arrangement, but the evidence is that it was not successful, so the operating grants were not renewed and there was not really a successful initiative that replaced that money to make sure that those units could continue to be offered on an affordable or social basis. Therefore, in the Harper years, we lost 600,000 units of social housing. The leader of the Conservatives, who gets up and talks a lot about housing, how much housing we have lost and how expensive it has become, sat at the table while his government refused to renew funding agreements that, in some cases, had been in place for 40 or 50 years to make sure those units could continue to be affordable.

Also, we saw big profit-seeking interests come in and buy up those buildings, kick out the tenants, fix them up a bit and then charge exorbitant rents. We cannot allow that to continue, and we really need to see, alongside or in this legislation, depending on the mechanism that parties can come to some agreement about, either conditions on this GST rebate or something like a non-profit acquisition fund.

Certainly, the housing co-investment fund was the only real housing initiative under the new national housing strategy the Liberals announced and have been working on in various ways over the last seven to eight years. Although I think most people feel it has not been very effective, it was what got some social housing built. That fund has been depleted, and we need to see it replenished so the organizations that do have plans in their community on how to provide affordable and social rents, with some help from government funders, can get down to doing that work instead of being held up.

When it comes to grocery prices, we in the NDP do not think the Liberals' approach of calling in CEOs for a meeting and wagging their finger has a likelihood of success. If a wagging of the finger was all that corporate executives needed to lower their prices, goodness knows the Liberals should have done it a long time ago. They should not have waited those 20 months while grocery inflation was outpacing the regular rate of inflation, at a time when grocery store profits were neither standing still nor diminishing. What we saw over that time was that they were making far more money than they did prepandemic.

The Conservatives would have us believe that the carbon tax is the only thing driving up grocery prices, but if that were the case, then their profits would not be growing. If all they were doing was passing on the increased costs that grocery stores have experienced as a result of the carbon tax, their profits would not be growing. However, they are growing, which means those companies are increasing their prices by more than the increase in input costs. Any government or any party that wants to form a government with some sense of seriousness about addressing the challenges that Canadians have been facing at the grocery store has to recognize the role of corporate greed in the equation, or they will be unable to do this.

For a long time, going back to during the pandemic when we saw big grocery retailers and other big box retailers making way more money than they had in the years just prior to the pandemic, the New Democrats have recommended a windfall profit tax along the lines of what governments in some other countries, including some places where they have conservative governments, have done. We think that one of the best ways to ensure that corporate greed is not unduly affecting grocery prices is to have something in place that says to grocery retailers that, if they are price gouging, they are not going to get to keep it. That is the best way to make sure that they are not gouging Canadians at the store. We think that is called for because not only have grocery store profits gone up but also even the margins for groceries have gone up.

We would say to those who say that traditionally the grocery sector is a small-margin industry compared to other industries and that again it is the same thing as we see in housing, where Conservatives and Liberals want to treat housing as if it were any other good. This is where they say, “Oh, do they need a house?” Although I should not say “need” because that does not capture the market approach. It is, “Oh, do they want a house? Do they want a Nintendo game? Do they want a new pair of shoes? Do they want to eat at a fancy restaurant?” All these things are just things that people want, ultimately, from a market point of view.

New Democrats are here to say that, when it comes to food and housing, these are not just commodities like anything else. These are things that people have a right to because they are essential to live a dignified and healthy existence, and we have an obligation as a country to make sure that people are housed and fed at reasonable prices they can afford. More and more, we see those prices getting away on us. This is why, alongside effective market mechanisms, such as taking the GST off purpose-built rentals, if the goal is just to build more rental apartments, we also need mechanisms with non-market solutions to make sure not only that are we getting more units that Canadians will not be able to afford anyway, but also that we are getting more units that those who can afford them can access, while also ensuring that we are building units that those who cannot afford the options on the market are also able to access because everyone should be able to access a home here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of things the member made reference to. I want to pick up on the point that the legislation that we have before us today is great because, when it comes to homes, thousands of homes would be created. We have seen, as I mentioned earlier, other provincial jurisdictions now doing what Ottawa is doing to further enhance it.

However, I want to pick up with the member how important it is that we continue to work with different levels of governments and stakeholders and just emphasize the important role of organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. The member is very familiar with Habitat in Winnipeg, and I believe it has built over 500 homes over the last number of years. Organizations can actually make a difference. This is one of the tools that is being used, but it is important that not only the national government but also governments at different levels work together to build more homes for all sectors of our society.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right that obviously it takes a lot of different kinds of organizations to properly attack the housing crisis and get a handle on it. I am very familiar with Habitat for Humanity. I have had the pleasure of volunteering on some Habitat projects. In fact, not long after I was elected, we did that as an office-building exercise. We went out to a Habitat site.

However, with a number of the programs out there, whether it is Habitat or others that we have seen produce some really great infill housing in, for instance, the city of Winnipeg, one of the real challenges is that the housing market is running away on them so much that being able to acquire the property they need to have successful projects using the financial model that gave birth to the organizations is seriously strained and put in jeopardy. It is why things that are, strictly speaking, just market mechanisms cannot just go ahead on their own without a clear strategy by government to ensure that those non-market pieces are being addressed as well. The problem that we have here this fall is that the government has singled out a market mechanism that it wants to move forward on without saying more to Canadians about the other piece that has to follow, which is the social and affordable housing piece.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is really too bad that my colleague from Manitoba is taking this intervention from his home in Manitoba when this is a very important subject of affordability.