House of Commons Hansard #372 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was documents.

Topics

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, yes, it is a great program. That is where we are right now.

It is important to ask who Conservative MPs are representing in the House. Do they represent their communities or do they represent the Leader of the Opposition? I think it is pretty evident from everything that has gone on in the news, the stories we have heard about the Liberal Party and what we talk about in caucus that we can get away with saying a lot. We can vote our conscience and get away with it. That is not the case with the Conservative Party, not when leaks are coming out saying Conservative MPs are concerned that the entire operation of the Conservative Party is whatever the Leader of the Opposition happens to think of on a given day and what slogan he comes up with in the shower on a given morning. He will all of a sudden give the new three-word slogan, and his team will monitor to see how many MPs have been saying it and at what time. They will get gold stars every time they say it. Then whoever gets the most gold stars gets a prize. That is effectively what is happening over there, so there is no representation of their communities.

I am extremely perplexed by where we are, specifically as we talk about the housing file. It is really important to ensure that when we are here, we represent the views of our constituents. I have stood up in the House from time to time and said that I agree with what an NDP member said when I know it is not the position of the government. I will give an example: I did not support buying a pipeline. I do not think any federal government should order a pipeline, but guess what.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

6:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Hear, hear!

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the one NDP colleague who is clapping.

I am still going to be in the Liberal caucus tomorrow for saying that. I can do that. Conservatives cannot do that.

I encourage one Conservative MP to stand up and say one thing they disagree with their party on. They cannot because they know the wrath that will come from the Leader of the Opposition if they do. What this ultimately comes down to is representing constituents and holding strong to the values that we believe our constituents elected us to represent in this place.

With that, I have a subamendment to move. I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the word “role”, the words “and impacts”.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary claimed that members of the Conservative caucus are no longer able to write letters to the government. That is in fact false. In order to demonstrate the point, I wrote a letter to the government while he was speaking. The letter says as follows: “Dear Government, please help my community by calling a carbon tax election now.” If one of the pages could come over and bring that to the parliamentary secretary, I would greatly appreciate it.

What my community wants is very clear: It wants to replace the government and its failing policies with a government that will actually get housing built. The parliamentary secretary talked about a program the government has that is building bureaucracies. He admitted this in his speech. He said that the program does not build homes; it gives money to municipalities in the hope that they will clean up problems with their permitting process.

The Conservatives have a much better solution. First of all, we will make housing more affordable for Canadians by removing the GST from new homes. We will also say to municipalities that they have to meet certain housing targets to receive the same level of federal funding. If they exceed those targets, they will get a bonus, and if they do not meet those targets, they will face a clawback. We would pay for results instead of just giving municipalities money and feeding bureaucracies in the hopes that it is going to change things. Our plan will actually get homes built.

I will send that letter now.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the gimmick of what the member just did, it is very clear that he is not one of the 19. He is a good soldier of the Leader of the Opposition. He does what he is told. I would encourage him to talk to the member for St. Albert—Edmonton. That member wrote a letter to the housing minister, specifically asking him to please support the member's community with the housing accelerator fund.

He can play the games that he wants. Ha, ha, it is really funny, although we are trying to talk about something serious here. The reality is that the member is just here to recite his leader's talking points. He says that this program of his, of removing the GST, is somehow going to solve all the housing problems. I guess it will solve problems by removing the GST from new housing. However, we only pay GST on a brand new home. This is only going to be applied to people who are buying a brand new home.

I would love to know how many young Canadians who are first-time homebuyers are only buying brand new homes. We are completely removing everybody else. How is that program going to suddenly solve the whole housing crisis?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:05 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise and speak on a very important issue for the residents of Hamilton Centre: the financialization of housing. I want to give the hon. member the opportunity to respond because he suggested that, in this current context, it is not the government's role to build housing. If he knows the Kingston workers' history project in his own riding, he would be able to visit the site and see what the history of the CMHC was.

It was not always the case that the CMHC was simply an insurance company for big developers. In fact, it started out of the wartime homes project, which, in Kingston, built 250 homes in his community after World War II.

I invite the hon. member to rise. He does not have to cite his party's policy, but perhaps he could envision a bigger, bolder role for the definancialization of housing. In this, the federal government could meet the scale and scope of the crisis, actually go back to its roots and build affordable homes, as they did with the little strawberry box housing they have in both Kingston and Hamilton Centre. I am going to ask him to stand up and just dream a little bit bigger today.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, there is a very important role for the federal government to play in housing. I want to talk specifically about affordable housing. The reality is that, yes, the federal government was involved in building affordable housing back in the 1960s and 1970s. The federal government did that. I think, personally, of all the experience I have had in affordable housing in Kingston. I sat on the affordable housing development committee before I was a city councillor. As a city councillor, I continued to sit on that committee. As mayor, I saw a lot of legacy projects.

The reality is that the affordable housing that the federal government was involved in building in the 1960s and 1970s, unfortunately, led to stigmatization and the ghettoization of housing. If he wants me to dream bigger, and I will do that with him right now, the proper way to build affordable housing is to build it in a way that integrates it into a community. We should not have 100 affordable units all together. We should have 10 affordable units in 10 different areas of the city, of the community, because that actually allows the affordable units to be integrated throughout the community.

We decrease the stigmatization, not only of the affordable housing that is being offered but also of those who live in the housing and the way they interact with folks who are not living in affordable housing. In particular, the style of affordable housing that was being offered back in the 1960s and 1970s was stigmatized. There is an incredible amount of work that can be done here, and there is a role for the government to play in this.

I have always supported what I have said in terms of what that role is.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I was a little concerned to hear the member say that this debate was not meaningful. I want the member to know that the community members and the witnesses who came to the study find this work very meaningful, and the government has a lot of opportunity to take those recommendations.

I just want to give a shout-out here. Today was the wrap-up of the 2024 Housing Central Conference in Vancouver, hosted by the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, the BC Non-Profit Housing Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of BC.

All of them are very interested in this debate, and they would like to know what the government is going to do in regard to the recommendations in that report.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I never once said that this debate was not important and was meaningless. I started my speech by talking about the Conservatives using the House in a meaningless way, because they are doing that through their filibuster on the other issue. Then, after the member who just asked me a question rose on a point of order to bring me to relevance, and rightly so, I started talking about the importance of housing and the federal government's role in it.

I seriously reject the notion that I suggested this is not an important topic. It is actually one of the very few important topics that I have had the opportunity to stand up and speak to since we came back in September. I appreciate having the opportunity to contribute to a debate on such an important matter.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, to follow up on my previous question, I think the hon. member was confused. What I said was that 250 houses were built in Kingston, because the wartime project was about prefabricated family units.

I was a city councillor, and I know what happened during the 30 years of deferred federal investments in social housing, which is very different from what Liberals like to call affordable housing. The member suggested that social housing, non-market housing, had a stigma. I would put back to him that the people seeking refuge in tents right now, who will be facing the winter months coming up as snow begins to fall, would absolutely love to be in social housing.

Social housing does not have to be built in the ghettoized style of the 1960s and 1970s. Lots of models all across Scandinavia and Europe show that medium density, appropriate density, in urban settings could be applied with a social context. That gets back to the heart of this debate, which is about definancializing housing.

How does the hon. member intend to take the power, the corporate capture, of the real estate market away so we can go back to providing not just affordable homes but social homes to those who do not have the income to match the astronomic rise in the cost of living?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I did not ignore the member's first question. On the contrary, I acknowledged, at the beginning of answering the question, that I knew what he was talking about. I know about the housing built in Kingston that he was referring to. However, I thought it was more important to talk about affordable housing: housing that is supplemented by the government, housing the government helps to build and housing the government gets involved in through rent geared to income.

On the last point, I am fully aware of the housing this government has built in my riding. This government has contributed over 230 homes in Kingston since 2015.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Fraser Tolmie Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be here tonight on behalf of my constituents and to be able to speak freely on behalf of the people of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. I would like to share my time with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I am just going ask for a certain amount of latitude before speaking to the important subject of homelessness.

I want to recognize the passing of my mother Caroline Tolmie on October 8 and the passing of my father Robert Walls Tolmie three weeks later on October 30. Both of my parents were born in Glasgow, Scotland. I have shared on numerous occasions that having both parents who are Scottish, one half of me likes to drink scotch, the other half of me hates paying for it, but both halves of me like to fight.

My grandfather was a sniper on the offensive in World War II and during the campaign to liberate northern Europe, he and his fellow soldiers were drinking in a café. Canadian soldiers came running in, sounding the retreat as the enemy was on a counter-offensive with more firepower. The British soldiers scrambled to get their gear together and the Canadian soldiers, while waiting, started shooting at the bottles of liquor that were left on the shelf. In horror, my grandfather yelled, “Cease fire, cease fire.” He asked the Canadian soldier, and I am not going to use the exact language he used, what they were doing. The Canadian replied, “If we are not drinking it, they are not drinking it.”

My grandfather befriended the Canadian soldiers, and he wanted to move to Canada. He was never able to, but his dream was realized when my mother and father immigrated to Canada in the late 1950s and early 1960s. They moved to Canada when Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister of Canada, and I am proud to share the boundary riding lines with the former prime minister as I serve in this capacity.

My family came here with the hopes and dreams of owning property, and wanting to bring home powerful paycheques to provide for their family. They believed that Canada was a place where they could raise a family, and that their children and grandchildren could prosper. I believe in that dream, but people these days have lost hope and do not. My grandfather and my parents would be horrified knowing that many people experiencing homelessness are the brave sailors, soldiers, airmen and airwomen who were willing to put their lives on the line for the freedoms we enjoy today.

This tragic state of affairs, where homelessness is on the rise and food banks are having to shut because of the inflationary increase on food and other essentials such as clothing, is directly impacting veterans who are finding it hard to survive under the NDP-Liberal regime. When someone struggles with the everyday essentials, with homelessness, they lose hope. When they lose hope, it can directly impact their mental health.

I recently witnessed, in our veterans affairs committee, my colleague from Banff—Airdrie interviewing a witness and he revealed horrific testimony that has impacted me. My colleague stated, “This is a question I have for you, Marie. Mr. Blackwolf mentioned the triple-D policy that we often hear about from veterans. He mentioned it as delay, deny, discouragement. I kind of like that, because usually we hear it as delay, deny, die.”

My colleague went on to ask the witness, “Marie, you told me a story when I visited with you recently that really illustrates the delay, deny, die, triple-D policy. Would you mind sharing that with this committee for the benefit of everyone?”

Ms. Marie Blackburn, in her testimony, stated the following:

Yes, I can.

It was a hot summer day last year, and the air conditioning went out in the building, and I thought, you know what? I'm going to scoot out of here early and go home and have some gin and tonics on my deck and just cool down.

I'd seen this car in the parking lot all day long. He'd come and he'd go. He'd come, he'd go, and then he was just sitting there. When I was leaving, he came and tapped me on the shoulder and asked, “Are you able to help me?” I said, “What is it you need?” You could tell he was very stressed out and nervous, and he said that just needed some help with some family bills. We went back into that sweltering hot building, and we did the intake on him. He needed to pay his mortgage. He had no food for his family. He was behind on all of his bills. I said, “It's not a problem. We can pay all of that for you”. Off he went, and off I went.

Then he called me about two months later, and he thanked me, because his family unit was back together. His wife and he had sorted out things. The kids were back in their soccer games, whatever the case may be. He said to me, “I just want you to know that would have been my last day on earth had you not helped me, because I had a gun under my seat, and if you had said no, I would have blown out my brains in your parking lot.”

This is just another example of how long people are waiting to get these benefits that they're eligible for. It's ridiculous, really. It is. This is why we say that our mandate is to ultimately prevent veteran suicide. We are sort of between Veterans Affairs and the client to make sure that we can pay their bills, we can help with their kids or we can put food on their table. I don't know how you fix waiting for these benefits for as long as they have to sometimes, but something like this might give you a better understanding to figure out what we go through as boots on the ground.

Not everyone is so lucky to have someone as dedicated as Marie to help them out.

According to “The State of Homelessness in Canada 2016”:

In recent years, there has been an increased focus on the plight of Armed Forces veterans who experience homelessness. Research has shown that approximately 2,950 veterans are experiencing homelessness, representing 2.2% of the homeless population in Canada. Alcohol and drug addiction are key drivers of veteran homelessness, followed by mental health challenges (including post-traumatic stress disorder [PTSD]), and difficulty transitioning to civilian life.

The veterans affairs committee just submitted a report to the House on the transition to civilian life. Conservatives submitted our own report and comments, and I will quote from that. It is entitled “Common–Sense Conservatives Supporting Veterans in their Transition to Civilian Life”, and it states:

Once again, the Liberal Government and the latest report from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs fails Veterans by completely missing the mark and ignoring the real concerns brought forward by the men and women who selflessly served Canada. The Liberals' excuse for ignoring Veterans concerns is that this is an issue which could be examined in perpetuity as the evolving nature of the modern world and workforce will undoubtedly continue to present new challenges to Veterans in transition. Therefore, the Liberal Government and their NDP and Bloc partners have attempted to absolve themselves of any responsibility to Veterans, but Conservatives wholeheartedly reject that Liberal premise and table this dissenting report to be a voice....

In closing, we must recognize the damage that the NDP-Liberal government has done to every single person who is struggling with homelessness. My family came here with a dream to own property, and struggled under a previous Liberal government in the 1970s when another prime minister with the same last name was in charge. Things have not gotten better. We need to do better for the people of this country and for veterans.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

November 20th, 2024 / 7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my children for abruptly hanging up on them.

I am pleased to be back in the House to be able to speak about this important report on homelessness. I will start by following up on comments made by the member for Kingston and the Islands, who actually admitted what the government's so-called housing accelerator program does. He admitted it does not build homes. Let us be clear, this is not just something we say to criticize the program. This is what the government acknowledges about its housing accelerator program, that it does not have as its purpose the construction of homes.

The government's approach is, in some sense, to recognize, as the member said, that there are some significant problems with red tape and the cost of government at various levels limiting housing construction. However, its solution is to pile more money into those same bureaucratic processes and to think that is going to make the system better. The member identified in his speech a problem we have been talking about for a long time in the official opposition, which is that the cost of government, red tape and gatekeepers are slowing down and limiting the construction of new homes.

The member's solution is, effectively, to say to those gatekeepers, “We are going to give you more steel and more poles so you can build more and higher gates.” The response should instead be, in order to provide relief to Canadians who are trying to buy homes, to lower their taxes, which would make it easier for Canadians to buy homes. The government should also say to municipalities that it is not going to pump more dollars into ineffective bureaucracies, that it is going to expect results in terms of housing construction and that municipalities have to meet targets for new home construction. It should say that if municipalities meet those targets, they will be able to continue to receive transfers from the federal government, and actually receive a bonus if they exceed that target, but that there will be a clawback, a fiscal implication, if they fail to meet those targets.

Instead of simply giving more money to bureaucracies that the government has just acknowledged have some problems, our approach will be to say to those same bureaucracies that we expect results, and we want to incentivize results by tying federal transfers to results in terms of new housing construction. It reflects a fundamentally different attitude toward policy-making.

In the official opposition, we care about results. We think the measure of the effectiveness of a housing policy is whether people are housed. The government seems to think the measure of an effective housing policy is not the results but the intention demonstrated by the expenditure. We care about the results. The government wants its activities to be assessed on the basis of its intentions and measured by its expenditures. It creates a program, says it has a good intention and is going to put money behind it, even though it does not actually get homes built.

In the official opposition, we say we are going to take all that money the government is feeding into already bloated bureaucracies and use those resources to take the GST off new homes for Canadians. We are going to lower the taxes Canadians pay, we are going to give that money directly to Canadians instead of putting it into bureaucracies and we are also going to say to municipalities that they have to achieve certain results in terms of new home construction.

That is clearly a much better, much more effective approach. We are focused on incentivizing and pushing those results. If municipalities do not produce those results, they are going to face a clawback of federal transfers. Meanwhile, it also reflects a belief that giving Canadians back more of their hard-earned money rather than transferring more money into municipal bureaucracies is the solution, giving Canadians the ability to afford their homes. We have a clear plan. It is to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Of course, tonight we are talking about building the homes.

The Liberals always act as if those lines are a trigger for them. The member for Mississauga seems to be triggered by these lines: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Colleagues can see that we have clear, robust plans behind each of those identified priorities. They reflect a commitment to Canadians to actually deliver results. They are not just to talk about things or to have good intentions, backed up by taxpayer-funded expenditures. Our proposals are to achieve concrete results. We will axe the tax. We will build the homes. We will fix the budget. We will stop the crime. We will ask Canadians to measure our government, not by good intention and by expenditure, but by the actual results that are achieved. I invite the contrast that the member has proposed.

We are confident that giving money to Canadians and incentivizing real results from bureaucracies is the way to achieve results, not to pile more money into bureaucracies and expect somehow that the results are going to change simply by increasing the volume of expenditure on exactly the same things. If we look at the results of the last nine years, we are clearly much worse off. Canadians are paying twice as much for their housing. They are paying twice as much for rent. There has been a dramatic increase in violent crime. The Prime Minister, with the current housing minister, who is the former immigration minister, gravely mismanaged the immigration system. The minister who broke immigration was transferred over to housing because the government thought he could be a communicator for them on that file, but he has failed to deliver results in housing just as he failed to deliver results when it came to immigration.

The parliamentary secretary, as well, has talked about how for the last two years we were getting things done. He said we were effective in the sense that we were putting forward ideas and passing them. I do not think Canadians would say the government was effective. It has effectively been moving the country in the wrong direction. It has effectively made housing costs higher, made rents higher and increased the crime rate. This was the result of the NDP-Liberal coalition. We had a photo op of the NDP leader saying he was tearing up the coalition agreement. Then he taped it back together and has supported the government at every turn.

It will be Canadians who judge the plans that are put in front of them. I am looking forward to the chance to make our case to Canadians, to make the case in favour of our plan to axe the tax, build the homes, as we are particularly talking about tonight, as well as fix the budget and stop the crime. However, the NDP has continued to prop up the Liberals for a variety of reasons. I would challenge New Democrats to have the courage of their convictions, if they are their convictions. If they really think that piling more dollars into existing bureaucracies is the way to build homes, despite this not working for the last nine years, they should bring that case to the Canadian people and see what Canadians decide.

We will be coming forward with our plan to incentivize real results from bureaucracies and to deliver real tax relief for Canadians. We will be bringing our plan to Canadians; the Liberals will be bringing theirs. That will happen when the carbon tax election eventually comes. The Liberals should have the courage of their convictions. They should see the demand from Canadians for change and they should put their proposal before the Canadian people. They are unwilling to do that, though. They talk a good game about how they are apparently confident about what they are doing, but they are unwilling to bring their proposal to the Canadian people.

Let us have a carbon tax election. Let us have that election now. Let us see what Canadians think about what the government is doing. I am proud to stack our plan to build the homes against their nine years of failures any day.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:30 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I would like to read a quote:

Here, we should be encouraging our municipalities to build housing more rapidly. I will ensure that the funding for municipal infrastructure corresponds with the number of houses that the municipality manages to build. I will require every big city to increase building permits by 15% per year or they will lose their infrastructure funding.

Do members know who said that? It was the Leader of the Opposition. That is exactly what the housing accelerator fund is. It is a program that ties the funding to municipalities to their ability to create more housing. It is not just money that is being given to bloat bureaucracy, as this member suggests. It is actual money that is tied to creating more housing, and the municipalities have to prove that they have been able to increase the housing. That is not just our idea. The quote that I just read, supporting this exact concept, was from June 7, 2023, from the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, for the member to be critical of the housing accelerator fund is to be critical of the proposal that was made by his own leader.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong, and I will explain the difference again.

Conservatives would tie existing funding to results, and we would use this money to put it back into the pockets of Canadians in the form of a significant tax cut. We would provide tax relief to Canadians, and we would use existing funds to incentivize the construction of new homes. That is completely different from the government's proposal, which is putting new money into bureaucracies that are already struggling to actually achieve the results that are required.

Our approach is fiscally responsible. It would recognize the value of a dollar in the hands of Canadians, as opposed to government, and it also insists on incentivizing the results.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, what is the member talking about when he says “our approach is fiscally responsible”?

The only thing he has been able to offer is to say that the GST would be removed off purchasing homes. That is great for somebody who is purchasing a brand new home. I guess that will benefit them, but what about everybody else who is not building a new home? How is he able to stand in the House and say their plan would produce results, when the only plan that he has been able to offer is to take the GST off a brand new home?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:35 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, this is clearly the choice.

The Liberals have had nine years. They have objectively failed to build homes. We are not building homes at nearly the rate we need to. Housing costs are up dramatically for all Canadians. It has been nine years of failure under the government, and its members believe that announcing additional funding for existing bureaucracies is going to change that. Canadians, again, are not going to judge the current government by its intentions or its expenditures. They are going to judge it by the results.

Meanwhile, Conservatives have a record in government of much better performance when it comes to actual housing affordability for Canadians, and we are putting forward specific proposals that would cut taxes for Canadians, incentivize the construction of new homes and achieve results. Certainly, Canadians will judge the results, just as they will judge the current government by the results.

However, eliminating the GST on new homes would provide a significant benefit for Canadians. It would increase home construction. It would help to achieve the results that the current government has failed to achieve for nine years. Essentially, I think what we are hearing from the parliamentary secretary is a partial admission of failure up to this point, but he is saying that now they are suddenly going to change things.

It has not worked. With nine years of failure, we are worse off. We need a new government, and we need a common-sense carbon tax election so Canadians can decide.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, the member did not answer my question, but notwithstanding, I will take the bait.

Will the member tell us, please, about all this housing that the former Conservative government built? They want to take credit for all the housing that the market built back when they were in government before. However, the reality is that, when it comes to actual affordable housing units, the leader of the Conservative Party built six houses in the entire country when he was housing minister. I know this not just because I hear it in the House a lot but also because I was a mayor in an Ontario city at the time, and we received zero from the Harper government.

Can the member please tell us more about the Conservative record?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:40 p.m.

Conservative

Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Madam Speaker, this is unbelievable, if we listen to this member. He says that when Conservatives were in power, yes, things were going well in terms of housing, but it was not because the Conservatives were doing a good job. Then he says that now, after nine years, things are going poorly for Canadians, but it is not the government's fault. This member would have us believe that these dynamics—

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:40 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:40 p.m.

NDP

Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting to be in the House and to listen to the Conservatives and the Liberals fight about who did housing worse. As the NDP, we can tell them that they both did it terribly. Both governments decided they were going to walk away from their responsibility to offer safe, human-right housing in Canada and give it to the market.

Now the Liberals and Conservatives are seeing the fruits of their misguided decisions in the fact that people in my community and other communities across this country are living rough in tents, in parks, on benches and in their cars. Meanwhile, right beside them are 20-, 30-, 40- and 50-storey luxury towers. We only have to go to Vancouver and see the chandelier that is hanging under a bridge as public art steps away from Canadians who are living in tents. They cannot afford to get into these luxury towers and they are having their housing removed. I would ask the Conservatives and the Liberals, as they come to what the Liberals called a meaningless debate today, to think about what they have done and how it has manifested.

I want to say a big thanks and really recognize the member for Vancouver East, my colleague in the NDP, who was years ahead on the issue of the financialization of housing and the role and impact it was having on people. I say to the member from the Liberal side that the amendment of adding impact is important because there has been an impact. We can think about this study and about what my colleague the member for Vancouver East saw in her community in Vancouver, people becoming homeless and more and more people finding housing out of reach while luxury condo after luxury condo was being built. I saw the same thing in my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam, where purpose-built affordable rental units were bought up by wealthy developers and financialization landlords to create more housing that the people they were displacing could not afford to get into.

I think about when one of the very first luxury condo projects got approved in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, back in 2014 and 2015, and the developer came and said they were going to do rental housing beside it. They were going to do two towers and do rental housing. Back in 2014 and 2015, we thought that would be great. What they did build was a luxury building. It was a luxury rental building not accessible for the people they had displaced when they bought up the old affordable purpose-built rental housing and built their two luxury towers.

I want the current government members to know that their decisions, and the decisions of the Conservatives before them, have made people homeless. It is not just me saying this. The federal housing advocate said the aim of these people, these corporations, involved in the financialization of housing is to maximize their profit by increasing rent and cutting services for tenants. They are doing it on purpose.

I will go back to my colleague from Vancouver East, who put a dissenting report together for this financialization of housing report to say that the government needs to stop this loss of affordable purpose-built rental housing and to start protecting these buildings. I want to give credit to the B.C. NDP government, David Eby and the housing minister Ravi Kahlon. They immediately put forward a $500-million fund to protect affordable purpose-built rental housing in our communities across B.C.

What did the federal government do? It did nothing. It was asked over and over again to protect affordable rental housing and the government members let it ride with the market. It is totally unacceptable and it is why we are in this position we are in today. The government is missing in relation to protecting affordable housing and creating affordable housing.

Do members know why? It is because the Liberals are propping up these landlords. These financialized corporate landlords are their donors. They are their friends. They know them personally. They are protecting them in committee. In fact, as the NDP, when I asked for one of these financialized landlords to come to committee and talk about what it does with respect to its housing, the Liberal parliamentary secretary for housing protected it and voted against having it come in. It was the same with the Conservatives. We have not heard from these landlords that are financializing housing because they have been protected by the Conservatives and the Liberals.

I will add that Starlight Investments, one of these financialized landlords, was invited twice to committee to testify and twice it refused. Instead of the Liberal government saying that was not acceptable as it is accountable to Canadians, it said it was fine. In fact, during the summer, the chair of that committee said that it was fine and he would let it send in a written response. No. It needs to come to committee, talk about its business practices and what it is doing.

I also want it to talk about its partnerships with the federal government because it has connections to these financialized landlords through asset management. The financialization of housing is not just happening out there in the market with these landlords; it is happening right inside our pension funds with choices being made by the Liberal government.

Therefore, there is a lot of work to do here. Who is suffering? The most vulnerable people in Canada. I want to talk about seniors. Seniors are some of the longest-holding purpose-built rental tenants. For 10, 15, 20 even 25 years they have been in those apartments. They are the ones who are being targeted by these landlords who want to financialize. They want to get them out so they can jack up those rents. It is absolutely disgraceful. In B.C., for the first time ever, people over 55 are finding themselves homeless. This is absolutely unacceptable.

I go back to the Liberal member who made a speech earlier and said that this debate is meaningless and does not do anything. That is their choice. The Liberals have decided to do nothing, to let seniors, persons with disabilities, single moms and immigrants to this country become homeless. The Liberal government is involved in that decision to let financialized landlords kick them out of their homes. There was recently some research on this that came through the CBC. There is some very strong research that proves that these financialized landlords raise rents through these above-guideline rent increases more than any other type of landlord. Not just that, they evict at a higher rate. Where is the federal government to stop this exploitation and the pushing of people out onto the streets? It is nowhere. It does not even want to have a discussion about it at committee. It is protecting its financialization landlords. It is not taking this crisis seriously. I ask the government this. How many more seniors, persons with disabilities, single mothers and indigenous women having to give up their kids because the shelter does not allow them to bring their kids with them—

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:45 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

It being 7:50 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment to the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:50 p.m.

Liberal

Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseConcurrence in Committee Reports

7:50 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 27, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.