Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
House of Commons Hansard #350 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.
House of Commons Hansard #350 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberals.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, there are so many areas that I would love to be able to address.
First, let me start off with the so-called Liberal insiders. If the member is not aware he should be aware that the chair of the SDTC, Annette Verschuren, was an adviser to Brian Mulroney and Stephen Harper. I understand she was a donor to the Conservative Party. She would not be classified as a Liberal insider.
If we look at what the member for Grande Prairie—Mackenzie said, which was that the RCMP cannot get the information so we have to get the information for it, let us think about that for a minute. Are we saying that, with respect to any government agency or bureaucrat out there, if there are any issues whatsoever and we want to get information to the RCMP we just go to the Conservative Party and it will just hand over everything unredacted? Talk about a blur of judicial independence. Conservatives do not care what the RCMP and the Auditor General are saying. They are more focused on character assassinations and doing whatever it takes to precipitate an election than they are about Canadians. Shame on them.
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, I love debating with the member. Some days it is really easy.
He is now saying that, on this side of the House, because we want to expose corruption and make sure that law enforcement in this country has full access to investigate criminal wrongdoings, which in this case is the $400 million of taxpayer money that was given in conflict of interest cases, how dare the Conservatives do that? I bet the Liberals are guilty on that one. They are trying to block their own investigation into their own wrongdoing.
We are having this debate because the RCMP said that it does not have all the information. It should have it all. The government is blocking it.
Let us think about this for context. We talk about history repeating itself. I mentioned the sponsorship scandal in the previous Liberal government. Let us go to the current Prime Minister and SNC-Lavalin and the number of times we have heard from the RCMP that it closed the investigation without laying charges because it did not have all the information. The Prime Minister refused to waive certain confidences he hid behind in the situation with himself, Jody Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Madam Speaker, we are in a situation where the whole House has said that this issue is serious so let us send it to PROC. The Conservatives have decided to stop the work of Parliament so they can carry on about all the Liberal crimes through the years, which is all based on not having memory.
I remember Brian Mulroney, who accepted cash in a paper bag in a hotel room. The great parliamentarian Pat Martin told him that Hell's Angels and drug dealers accept money in a hotel room in a brown paper bag, but former prime ministers do not. The reason I mention Brian Mulroney is we have now learned that Stephen Harper hit the taxpayers up for CERB payments. We know how the Conservatives hated CERB. They did not think that people who could not work should be given any help. The CERB was there for waitresses and maintenance workers, not Stephen Harper. Here is what Harper and Associates claims he offers, the “insight of a G-7 Leader to create value for clients.”
Do members think this grifter deserved money to survive the pandemic on the pension that he gets? I would like to ask the hon. member about the attacks the Conservatives waged against people during the—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, here is the interesting thing about the member for Timmins—James Bay—
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, they yell and heckle in an attempt to distract here.
We are talking about this case and the RCMP having full access to documents on a scandal of the magnitude of $400 million. Here is the thing the NDP says, and again, it is so typical. Over the course of the last couple of years, we have found out about this through committee work. This issue has already been discussed, and it is the digging on the part of the Conservatives that has gotten the information.
We called for the Auditor General to come in to do an audit and take a look at this issue, which produced a report. We have had public accounts, government operations, the ethics committee, opposition day motions, debates, and an Auditor General's report to discuss this. It is so NDP to back the Liberals up and say, “No, they don't have to produce it. Don't worry. Let's just send this to another committee.” This is not a committee to produce the documents, but to talk about it and study it.
I am going to argue that Canadians are done talking. Canadians are done studying and thinking about it. Canadians do not want the Liberals, just as we have heard here, being propped up by the NDP, trying to make every excuse in the book while talking about the issue. I ask them to just give all the documents to the RCMP so it can do a full investigation. The NDP and that member have lost their way if they are thinking otherwise.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned ad scam, the sponsorship scandal, and back then they still could not find $40 million after the Gomery inquiry. We had a gentleman who used to stand up every day asking, “Where is the $40 million?” Now there is $400 million missing, that we know of. That was what happened with that $40 million during the last decade of darkness. Now, we have had almost another decade of darkness, and there is $400 million.
On that trajectory, should the Canadian people ever make the mistake of putting a government such as the Liberal-NDP coalition in place again, what level of corruption can we expect at that time?
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, there was $40 million in the sponsorship scandal, and there is $400 million in their latest scandal. Inflation has been pretty bad, but I would argue that that is pretty excessive. It is ten times the size it was for the sponsorship scandal.
We can think of the outrage that Canadians had when that money went missing, and fast-forward to the next Liberal government, we now have $400 million. The Liberals never, ever learned. That is baked into their history and their entitlement.
The NDP, though, is the party that really frustrates me because its members pretend to be in opposition and that they are so sick of the corporate insiders, yet they are the ones, for the last three years, who have backed them up, including voting for the very program now under criminal investigation.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I believe the member opposite has himself misspoken. He said that the Prime Minister was hiding behind cabinet confidence in the case of Jody Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin. The cabinet specifically waived all cabinet confidences in relation to that matter to allow necessary witnesses to speak to it. I also recall reading the Gomery report, which concluded that there was no malfeasance and no wrongdoing on behalf of any cabinet minister at that time.
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, the member can defend and say that, at SNC-Lavalin, there was nothing to see. The RCMP made it very clear that its investigation closed and that it did not have access to everything that it wanted to see to do a full-scale investigation of that issue. That is the bottom line, and that is what happened.
Here we are again in a massive corruption and spending scandal where the Liberals are stonewalling and pretending to be the ones who should have the right to decide what the RCMP sees. If the Liberals are so upset about the misspending, if they are so upset about the 186 cases and the $390 million for conflict of interest cases alone, they should give all of the documents, unredacted for full access, to the RCMP so it can investigate. If somebody did wrong, they should see the consequences.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, we are supporting the motion because we do not believe in supporting Liberal corruption, but we do not support Conservative corruption either. The most corrupt government in Canadian history, the worst financial manager in Canadian history, was the Harper regime. It was unbelievably bad. At no point did Conservatives ever allow any investigation into the massive scandals, the insider trading, of the Conservative corruption that we saw over a number of years.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, of course, Conservatives laugh at this. They laugh at corruption. They laugh when insiders in the Conservative Party get their benefits. We certainly have seen how lobbyists have taken over the Conservative national executive and their campaign organization, so good luck with any grocery food price gouging ending because the Conservatives are embedded with lobbyists.
I wanted to ask my colleague about this. The ATS scandal was $400 million. Conservatives blocked any investigation. The G8 misspending was a billion dollars, and they shut down any inquiry. The Phoenix pay system cost Canadian taxpayers, under the Conservatives, $2.2 billion, and Conservatives refused any investigation. There was also $3.1 billion in anti-terrorism funding that had no paper trail, and Conservatives shut down the investigation.
The question is very simple: Do Conservatives apologize for all of their corruption and misspending during the Harper regime?
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Speaker, I had to check the seating chart to make sure it was a member of the NDP criticizing anybody else after they voted confidence in this out-of-touch and tired government after nine years.
The $400 million under investigation, they voted for it.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Madam Speaker, I believe the member for Humber River—Black Creek provided the title for this speech: “Corruption, corruption, corruption”. The member for Edmonton Griesbach gave the theme and the reason behind the whole debate, and that is to pay for the consequences of bad actions.
I am pleased to rise on behalf of the industrious and innovating residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. Today we are debating a very important motion. The motion would direct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the government's cover-up of the corruption at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. There is really not much actually up for debate. The facts are clear and well established.
The former head of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC for short, told the government that appointing a person who had received money from SDTC to be chair of the board was a bad idea. The government ignored the advice and appointed the Liberal donor anyhow. Then, to absolutely no one's surprise, the board members started handing out grants to companies they had a stake in. Naturally, the employees at SDTC started to feel uncomfortable with the actions of the board. These employees carefully documented the conflicts of interest and followed the proper procedures for reporting to the ministry responsible for SDTC. These employees followed the rules and were granted a meeting with the deputy minister. The employees explained the situation. The deputy minister said it was worse than the sponsorship scandal ad scam. He said that the minister would flip his lid.
Unfortunately, the deputy minister had placed too much faith in the minister. Rather than flipping his lid, the minister tried to put the lid on it. Of course the government wants to cover it up. It was explicitly, directly and clearly warned that appointing this particular Liberal donor to be the board chair was a problem. The government ignored not only the warning lights, but also the warning signs and the warning bells. The Liberals ignored all of it and appointed even more compromised people to the board. That is like warning a bartender to stop selling drinks to minors, and then he starts giving them away for free. According to the Auditor General, this involved at least $400 million of taxpayers' money and 186 conflicts of interest, that we know of.
As I mentioned, this is not really a debate. Those are already the established facts, just like the ruling that the Speaker issued finding the Liberals had violated an order from the House to hand over the documents to the RCMP.
Now the Liberals' junior partner is complaining that all of this is distracting the government from pursuing its socialist agenda. Once again, the NDP is revealing that it does not understand that the role of Parliament is to hold the government accountable. This is our number one job, and it is not just for opposition members. Every member not in cabinet is supposed to hold the government to account. Maybe if the Liberal backbench spent more time doing that and less time spreading conspiracy theories about hidden agendas on social media, the government might not be so badly out of touch.
This motion is not distracting Parliament from its work. This is its work. If the issue were getting legislation passed, then the Liberal cover-up and Liberal corruption are the problem. That, and the NDP enablers. Enabling this corruption is the problem. Not pulling it out at the roots is the problem. Liberal corruption and incompetence is the real problem, and it impacts the lives of Canadians just as much as, if not more, than any single piece of legislation before the House.
The founder of an exciting technology company in my riding has informed me that he may have to move his company to the United States. He will be taking the high-tech jobs it created with them. There we have collateral damage. How much of that was lost that we know of? We have a productivity crisis that is making Canadians poorer every day, yet the NDP socialist coalition is driving away exactly the types of companies we need to tackle this crisis.
The government has spent the last nine years piling straw onto the backs of small and medium-sized business. However, for a particular company in my riding, it was SDTC.
This is why holding the government accountable is so critical. Liberal corruption and incompetence will cost people their livelihoods. It does not matter if someone is 80 kilometres from Ottawa or 800 kilometres. Decisions made here have an impact out there. The Liberals decided to appoint a donor to be the chair of the SDTC down here, and hundreds of jobs are lost out there.
The only person who should have lost his job over the scandal at SDTC is the Liberal minister, whose lid remains firmly unflipped. I can see that calling for a Liberal minister to resign is being met with eye rolls across the aisle, and I know that when Liberals hear a Conservative calling for a minister to resign, they will just dismiss it. They think we are just trying to score points because that is, to them, the point of a parliamentary democracy.
When a government makes a mistake, our job is to point it out. When something goes wrong in a department, the minister is supposed to resign. That way, a new minister can come in and clean house. Not only that, but the new minister is also strongly incentivized to keep a close eye on what is going on in their department, yet I would not wager a single current minister even knows half the programs being run underneath them.
Jean Chrétien tried to kill the idea of responsible government in our country, but the Prime Minister, with his outspoken admiration of communist dictators, took it off life support and smothered it with a pillow. Common-sense Conservatives will resurrect it. We will restore democracy, responsibility and accountability, and those are not just sound bites.
As I mentioned earlier, this scandal has nothing to do with any of my constituents, yet some of them are paying the price for it. Had there been a minister who listened to the advice of the outgoing SDTC president, none of this would have happened. Good governance is good politics.
By demanding the accountability of our ministers, Conservatives get quality ministers. Better ministers are better at passing Conservative legislation and advancing Conservative policies. Bad governance is bad politics, and this motion is all the proof the Liberals need.
None of this would be happening if the minister had done as his deputy predicted and flipped his lid. Everything that transpired at SDTC was not just predictable. It was actually predicted. This is a troubling pattern with these progressives. They are warned that their bad policy will have a predictably bad consequence, and then they accuse the policy critics of spreading disinformation.
They pass the policy, and it goes exactly as miserably as predicted, so they start to gaslight Canadians. Whether it is the streaming censorship act, the news censorship act or the hug-a-thug act, the results are playing out as the critics expected. Less news means less choice, and more crime means more chaos.
Now, thanks to Liberal corruption and incompetence, Canada will have less sustainably developed technology, the kind of technology that saves lives and boosts productivity, developed by the kinds of companies that create jobs and pay the taxes Liberals love to spend. Instead, after nine long, scandal-filled years, all Canada has is more corruption, more debt, more taxes and more crime. Thanks to the carbon tax pushing up the price of food, Canada now has more scurvy too, yet all we hear from the Liberals is that everything is awesome. That may be true for the shrinking Liberal base of support, but for the rest of us, things are far more awful than awesome.
The motion is a chance for the Liberals to turn their sinking ship around. Liberals will ignore this advice, but a little humility goes a long way with Canadians. They can turn over the documents, sack the minister and apologize to Canadians. That is just common sense.
While I promised to be brief, there is one more element to this story. Regular viewers of my Facebook Live streams may recall this from last June. To recap, SDTC gives grants and loans to companies developing green technologies. The Liberals had ignored advice from public servants warning them not to appoint Annette Verschuren as chair of the board of directors, because Ms. Verschuren owned a company that was getting funding from SDTC. Despite the warnings to the Liberals, she was appointed as chair. Shortly afterward, Ms. Verschuren voted to give her company additional money. She was not the only board member who was in a conflict of interest.
Fortunately, employees blew the whistle. The Liberals tried to sweep it under the table, but eventually it was reported to The Globe and Mail. The CBC did several stories on the issue, and it resulted in parliamentary hearings. Ms. Verschuren appeared at the committee, claimed she did nothing wrong and then resigned a few weeks later.
If we search Google, we can find dozens of media stories reporting all the details over several months. The Liberals appointed someone to lead an organization that hands out taxpayer money, and that person gave money to her own business in an obvious conflict of interest. The legacy news media gave it appropriate coverage, Parliament investigated and the Liberal appointee resigned.
The legacy media like to point to this type of reporting and argue that exposing this type of corruption is why the legacy news media is a pillar of democracy and, therefore, should receive taxpayer-funded subsidies. The Liberals listened and have created a whole new slew of funding programs for legacy news media. One of those programs is the local journalism initiative. It gives media outlets money to hire a local journalist. The program is run by the news media lobbyists. The lobbyists selected a panel of seven people to be the judges on who gets the taxpayers' money. The judging panel reviews applications, selects recipients and decides on funding allocations. Of the seven judges, five are in blatant conflict of interest for having approved funding for their own media outlets.
For example, one of the judges, Linda Solomon Wood, is the CEO and editor-in-chief of the National Observer. The National Observer received funding to hire three journalists. Most outlets only received funding for one journalist. Just as with SDTC, we have a group of people in charge of handing out taxpayer money, and these people are giving that money to their own companies. We have identical scandals, but just one news outlet has ever mentioned it. This is Blacklock's Reporter.
The entire legacy media has dropped a cone of silence over this scandal. The reason they are all covering up the Liberal corruption is that, even if they do not receive money from the program, they can profit from it. Part of the program requires that all the taxpayer-provided journalists must share their reporting for free. News outlets can access the database of free articles through the radical far-left outfit called The Canadian Press. By the way, one of the seven judges is also the executive director of The Canadian Press.
Now the government has released an evaluation of the local journalism initiative. The Liberals give themselves an A plus, but that is what happens when we hire our evaluators. More outside consultants were hired by Canadian Heritage's evaluation directorate to evaluate how well the government is doing at giving away taxpayer money to well-connected special interests. Surprisingly, the people getting the government money think Liberals are—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
I have to interrupt the hon. member.
Having reached the expiry of the time provided for today's debate, the House will resume consideration on the privilege motion at the next sitting of the House.
The House resumed from September 20 consideration of the motion.
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
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.
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I, too, share the passion the member has for the problem of homelessness and affordability. Our government has been committed, for the duration of our time in office, to working toward resolving these issues, starting right from the get-go and certainly through the national housing strategy. As the member mentioned, it may have some deficiencies, but we are interested in resolving those deficiencies. We are keen to support the homeless population and provide affordable solutions across the country. We have done so in many ways, but we have also been supporting non-market housing and co-ops throughout because we believe the government needs to act and needs to be involved in this problem.
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comment in relation to the public accounts committee report on chronic homelessness. For all of our benefit, it would be important for me to cite some of the important recommendations I found within the report, namely four of them.
The first recommendation with which I agree is that Infrastructure Canada must provide a report outlining several things, including estimates on emergency shelter use, its research plan and timelines. These are incredible data points. If we want to see whether investments toward targeted relief programs are working, we need to know the results of those programs. This is one thing that the Auditor General makes clear is important to her. Second, another report must be provided by Infrastructure Canada showing how many communities have implemented coordinated access for housing support services. Third, CMHC must provide a report outlining the housing needs of vulnerable groups and evidence that these groups are receiving housing assistance. Finally, a joint report must be provided by CMHC and Infrastructure Canada indicating what measures are being taken to improve the coordination between federal departments and homelessness agencies.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, with respect to homelessness, I want to ask the NDP member about Conservative Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act. I suspect that the NDP would propose other measures that are not in this bill, but it is odd to me that the NDP voted against it because it contains some very obvious common-sense measures, such as requiring municipalities to set targets for the construction of new homes. They would benefit from exceeding those targets and be penalized if they do not.
What exactly in Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act, from the Leader of the Opposition, led the member and his NDP colleagues to oppose it?
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-356.
My biggest problem with Bill C-356, which, as I mentioned in my speech, is an accelerator to the housing crisis that the bill codifies, is using public land that taxpayers have owned collectively for generations and that we have all benefited from given the public good it has provided. Those pieces of land should be used to build non-market homes that people can live in if they cannot afford a market home.
When it comes to housing, the free market has access to almost a majority of the land in municipalities across the country. We are saying that it is important to have a social safety net that provides housing for those who cannot afford it, whether it is because they have lost a job, are a single parent or have suffered tough economic times that have resulted in lower income. They should not have to be homeless just because they lost their job. They should not have to be homeless just because certain things outside of their control were made a reality.
That is why it is so important to have have social housing, co-op housing and non-market homes on that land. Then those who cannot afford it can get a roof over their head and have an opportunity to get back on their feet and continue to contribute to our society and economy.
I voted against this bill because it would have given access to that land to rich developers, real estate investment trusts and billionaires, and they would have turned it into mansions to sell for profit.
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Edmonton Griesbach. He has been an extraordinarily effective spokesperson for housing in Edmonton and right across this country. He is very articulate when speaking to the needs that Canadians have for affordable housing in the midst of the affordable housing crisis.
I want to ask him two questions. First, we know that the Liberals gutted the national housing program 40 years back. The reality is that to get to the crisis we have today, successive Conservative and Liberal governments simply ignored the issue of affordable housing and ignored putting in place all of the investments that are critical to maintaining a housing stock. What would the impact have been if the Liberals and the Conservatives had not gutted affordable housing funding decades ago?
My second question is looking toward the future. If an NDP government is elected in the next election, what would that mean for building affordable housing? How quickly would we be able to build the housing stock that would make a difference and ultimately result in every Canadian having a roof over their head at night?