Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the good constituents of Edmonton Griesbach; like many of my colleagues, they are being ravaged by a very dangerous but predictable housing crisis. I say “predictable” because this is a crisis that was in the making.
The Auditor General's report makes clear several times over that there are serious issues relative to the national housing strategy in its current rendition, but how did we get here? This is an important piece of our dilemma today, and I will speak about it.
We had consecutive federal governments from the 1980s to the 1990s, Liberal and Conservative, that largely pulled out of new affordable housing. For example, the national housing strategy was cancelled in 1993 by then prime minister Paul Martin. What are the implications of that loss? Nearly $2 billion annually was cut from that period of time to today. The pure capital infrastructure deficit has now been downloaded, in the Liberals' own admission, to the provinces. They say it is provincial jurisdiction.
However, it has not always been that way. It is certainly not the history of Canada, and it is not the history that many who found affordable housing after World War II or who found co-op homes during the 1970s and 1980s remember. They remember a federal government, and two of our earlier predecessors, to their credit, that were able to see something. They saw that an economy with only market housing would result in those who could not afford a home becoming homeless. What a shame it is that we could have predicted such a terrible crisis as far back as 1993.
I think some of my colleagues will find some humour in this, but there were two things that happened in 1993. One was the cancelling of the nearly $2 billion of annual revenue for the national housing program that had seen people getting into homes, whether co-ops or non-market homes. We saw that happen. The second thing is that I was actually born in 1993. What a reality, to have experienced a federal government that does not want to get into the business of housing for my entire lifetime. What a shame to be a student of history to then be born and learn of the fact that many in this place could easily recall what happened in 1993. I have great colleagues in this place, from all sides, who remind me of that history all the time. However, I think what we are unanimous about, something that we all agree on, is that the federal government has a place in national housing.
The Auditor General said some damning things that are worth noting. The report on public accounts, which was published and released in November 2023, suggested that “Infrastructure Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada [ESDC] did not know whether their efforts to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness were leading to improved outcomes”. In addition, “Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not know who was benefiting from its initiatives”. It went on to suggest, “There was minimal federal accountability for [reaching] the National Housing Strategy target to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by the 2027–28 fiscal year.” However, we do not know whether the investments that are made under the current national housing strategy will actually have an impact on the number of people experiencing homelessness. This is a real shame because we are seeing significant growth across the country.
CMHC's definition of “affordable housing” as 80% of the market rate is different from the government's recommendation of spending no more than 30% of income on housing. With rent soaring, this is increasingly difficult for many people. These are serious problems that are resulting in really serious issues. When we do not take seriously our lack of ability to plan or foresee this crisis, of course there is going to be a gap. As I mentioned, the crisis originated as early as 1993, with the cancelling of the national housing program. Non-market and other social housing initiatives have seen nearly $2 billion of revenue lost annually. Of course we could have predicted this.
There are statistics from StatsCan, for example. I will back up a little just to describe exactly who this is affecting. According to a point-in-time report from 59 communities, on any given night, based on 2021 data, 32,000 people experience homelessness. This is a 12% increase since 2018, which should break all of our hearts.
If we can be unanimous in the House when it comes to ending homelessness, it is truly achievable. However, it takes a real effort to understand how we got here, as well as an incredible effort to understand that we have to go beyond some of the very partisan pontification that often happens in this place, when we have the solutions in front of us.
The great thing about the Auditor General's office and about the public accounts committee is that there is not a group of members from the chamber relegating or creating recommendations. It is the Auditor General, who has an immense staff, immense capability and immense integrity, and is not only able to review the information presented to Canadians, like the statistics I just mentioned, but has also offered real, credible solutions, like fair reporting, that can fix some of the issues.
Imagine if we just reported fairly on the investments by CMHC toward the real number of people who are experiencing homelessness according to the census versus the data that cities collect, for example. The data is non-aggregated. The data is really difficult for a lot of the people who are working in this space to actually find a target, but we do know the number is increasing. On top of all of that, indigenous people represent nearly 30% of people who experience homelessness each night, despite being just 5% of the general population.
This is a point that personally touches me. I had a relative who has passed on now; in 2019 he died on the streets of Edmonton because he did not have housing. He was a very good person. Many times, people would walk by him on the streets. When I would go to assist him, I would ask him what was wrong and whether he needed anything, whether I could get him something and whether he wanted a place to stay.
He would respond by saying that he needed to help the people in his community, that he needed to help the people living on the streets. He said that a lot of them are young people, that we need them to know that we care about them, that they have relatives and that they know they must have a chance to be seen as human.
He did that work, but we need governments to do that work now. We need governments to see homeless individuals as real human beings. Housing is a human right. New Democrats have been consistent in our message that there are rights, there are needs and there are wants. Let us leave the wants of Canadians up to the market. Does someone want an Xbox? Sure, the free market should deal with an Xbox. I do not care. New Democrats support that.
However, what we do not support is when one treats a home, food and water like commodities. Every single one of us needs those things. A person cannot ever get a job if they do not have food, if they do not have water and if they do not have shelter. These are some of the basic organizing principles of any country. Look after one another.
Let us look after the people in our communities so they may be able to fulfill the deep dreams they have, which I know so many do, and so they can contribute to our country. Imagine if the cure for cancer lived in the heart and the mind of someone who was homeless. To know that we could not have the ability and a social safety net to pick them up and make sure they could contribute to our great country is a real shame.
I want to share the story of one of my constituents, named Margaret, who grew up in the Rat Creek neighbourhood in Edmonton Griesbach. She is nearly 95 years old. She came from the Netherlands just after World War II. She married a very brave and noble soldier from Edmonton. After the war, she came to Edmonton, Alberta. However, they did not have a home. They found themselves living in the basement, with her husband's brother and his family, of the family home that he had grown up in. It was overcrowded.
At that time, there was an unprecedented growth in Canada's population. There was a boom, which resulted in the many baby boomers whom we call our parents and our grandparents. It was a generation that had to suffer, very early on, a very traumatic housing crisis. However, the government did not relent and say it was a jurisdictional problem for the provinces. It did not say people should work a little harder to make more money because they cannot afford a home. The government said it would make the conditions possible so people could have a home. This was the post-war housing corporation.
Many may not be familiar with this anymore. The post-war housing corporation was tasked with building the homes, before the war, that soldiers required. This was so that, whether they were on military bases or otherwise, their lives could be sustainable and they could have the means and fulfill the requirements to train on a military base. After the war, these brave soldiers came back and had no homes, and the government created the post-war housing corporation.
The post-war housing corporation was tasked with building thousands of homes, particularly in my community of Edmonton Griesbach, where Margaret, who was living in the basement of her in-laws' house, feared she would never have a house of her own. She was able to meet with me some months ago, and she recounted a story that I think would inspire many of those people who are hoping to one day have a home too.
Margaret found that the post-war housing corporation was able to build thousands of bungalow units across Edmonton, beautiful little homes that everyone cherishes. They are a mausoleum to our history, to our co-operation and to what it means to live a good life, a humble life and one where we take care of each other. She was able to spend $50 a month buying the house from the government, with a down payment of $500. Imagine how incredible that opportunity was for her.
Margaret quickly moved from being in the position of not having any hope to being able to move into a home quickly. She had four children and a loving husband. She and her husband lived right into their golden years, and she still lives in that home today. That was all because the government acted. The government decided to invest and to ensure that people had a home.
This is what New Democrats are calling for today. We believe in a country that can build the homes that people desperately need: non-market homes, co-op housing and a variety of multi-generation homes that are now needed for our growing and differing population. These are solutions that can manifest into real hope for Canadians.
In the chamber, we so often speak about young people in particular and their inability to ever get a home. It is true that many young people, and many Canadians generally, believe that it is impossible now to get a home. However, the other factor that is not being spoken about is the fact that we are losing homes, affordable homes and non-market homes, very rapidly, and that is adding to the incredible challenge and the requirement of participating in the market.
Imagine a single mom who is having a very difficult time. Let us say that she, like some people in our country, loses her job, unfortunately, and misses one month's rent. The options for that person are dire. Reports suggest that most Canadians are just one paycheque away from losing their house. It can be nearly anyone.
Chronic homelessness can be something we all experience; however, we can also all support ending it, and it is something we can actually re-engage and create hope about. If we created, for example, an affordable housing strategy that truly met the needs of Canadians, it would be one that invested in co-op housing, in non-market housing and in transition homes and holistic supports for those who are experiencing chronic homelessness.
In particular, that would mean indigenous people who have been largely living on the streets at a rate of 30% for a very long time, some of them upward of 12 years before they access a service. That is an incredibly long time and it is very difficult to try to support them, but we have to do it. It means involving community. It means investing in holistic community cultural supports like language. It means understanding the deep impacts of intergenerational trauma and the realities of the impacts of residential schools and the sixties scoop on one's own ability to manifest a future where they see themselves in a home.
Let me give an example of that. Many residential school survivors have reported, particularly within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that they did not have the life skills upon exiting residential schools to truly ensure that they had the understanding and the ability to have a household that would cherish and love its own children. Many residential school survivors report that they found it difficult to even speak the words “I love you” to their children because of the immense abuse and suffering they faced in Canada's horrific residential schools, places where they were not told who they were, where they came from and whether they were loved.
Imagine the impact of, as a little child, being boarded away in a big building without any role models to suggest that they deserve to be in a home and that they were loved, or that they could even see a future for themselves. These are the people who are living on Canada's streets. They are people's relatives. These are Canada's consequences. We must have the courage to not just invest but also to truly listen and change. How do we do this work?
Beyond that, we know there are solutions. Homeward Trust, which is a fantastic organization, created what we call the Homeward Trust By Name List in Edmonton. It counted 4,011 people who are either unhoused or without stable housing, which is up 2,728 people since January alone. The CEO, Susan McGee, says, “We've not seen this kind of month-over-month...increase in any year prior”.
This is an emergency that we must take seriously, and throughout the course of the discussion today, we are probably going to hear from my Conservative colleagues that the Liberals have failed. I would certainly agree with that. We are going to hear the Liberals say that the Conservatives are going to gut and cut. The truth is in between both of these positions.
Since the eighties, both of these parties have conspired toward the very real rejection of social, co-op or non-market housing. We have nearly gotten out of the business. It is a sad state of affairs when we know we can do it. With a country as wealthy as ours, we know we can afford to house everyone, but for the very deep pursuit of pleasing the mega-elites of the country, particularly real estate investment trusts. The very unfortunate and real relationship that these groups, very large private investors, have had with consecutive governments has put at risk the livelihood of Canadians. The 4,000 Edmontonians I just mentioned are at risk because they are not being heard.
Instead, these large megacorporations are being told that they can get public money and can make a profit if they build these homes. Let us do a quick summary of that scenario. If public land comes up for sale, a developer can get a great sweetheart deal on that land and can build whatever they want on it. The government says they should build some affordable homes, and not even a majority but at least 30%. In many instances, they are not even doing that, at the very least, and are using access to public funds and public land to build for-profit housing. If their goal is to build for-profit housing and make profit, they have an option between two units. They can develop a small townhouse model that is modest at a decent rental or purchase cost, or they can build a mega mansion and sell it for millions of dollars. If they are in the business of making money, they are going to build the mega mansion and sell it for as much as they possibly can.
That is the story of Canada's national housing program today: to give truckloads of money to developers without any guarantee that they are going to build homes that people can afford. We have seen this time and time again.
The Auditor General made very clear in her report that she found it very difficult to ascertain whether the Liberals have reduced homelessness with the investments they have made so far. Although the national average is 30%, in Edmonton, 51% of homelessness is experienced by indigenous people, even though we make up just 5% of the population. It is a real shame.
We know that indigenous people in particular have the solutions to end this crisis in their own communities, whether that is through innovation in sustainable building products and new ways to build on reserve or off reserve, or through ensuring that workforce development programs ensure that young people have the training and skills to do the work themselves. It would get the lobbyists and consultants out of the room, save some money and build more homes. That is what they want to do, but time and time again they find it too difficult.
We have the solutions to fix this crisis, and the Auditor General has pointed out to us the very real issues. We must have the courage to build homes that people desperately need: non-market, co-op and social housing.