Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2024

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Housing

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Housing if he would join Conservatives in axing the federal GST on housing so more Canadians could finally buy a home. Axing the federal GST would spark 30,000 new developments across the country per year. This tax cut would save $40,000, or $2,200 a year in mortgage payments on an $800,000 house. Unfortunately, the Minister of Housing refuses to remove this burden from Canadians' shoulders and still clings to a housing accelerator fund that does not build homes.

The NDP-Liberal housing accelerator fund has failed Canadians. Toronto received $471 million and it increased development cost charges by more than $20,000; Ottawa received $176.3 million and it increased development charges by between 11% and 12%; and my hometown of Abbotsford received $25.6 million and it increased development charges by 54%. Indeed, even in the letter Abbotsford sent to the Minister of Housing after he requested a supportive letter from it, my own municipality could not tell the minister how many homes have in fact been built with the housing accelerator money it has received.

It is unfortunate that the government promised to lower rents, mortgages and housing prices, but has instead doubled these costs for Canadians. Before the Prime Minister took power, it took 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years just to save up for a down payment. Things have gotten so bad that some families believe they will never be able to pay off their mortgage, let alone get one. Only in Canada has housing become so unaffordable so quickly. Home prices are expected to once again break the records they set just recently.

Between 25,000 and 35,000 people are homeless on any given night in Canada; 30% of Canadians who are homeless come from indigenous communities; and 22% of shelters are aimed at young homeless in Canada, while 20% of people experiencing homelessness are between the ages of 13 and 24 years of age. Also, 88% of renters say their goal of owning a home is out of reach, so much so that 28% of Canadians are considering moving to another country for greater affordability.

Back in October 2015, a month before the Prime Minister took office, it only took 39% of the median pre-tax household income to cover home ownership costs; now it is about 60%. Although it used to be normal for working-class youth to buy homes, 80% of Canadians now tell pollsters that home ownership is only for the very rich. Removing the GST on new homes under $1 million would not only spark new developments across Canada; it would also remove a tax burden for new homeowners in Canada.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member. He is a good member, and I know he cares a great deal about his community. He talks about families in his community and across the country. What he does not mention is that the Conservatives would, right away, if they were to assume office, cut child care support, which has now moved in many parts of the country to $10 a day. Where it is not at $10, it will soon be, which will make life much more affordable.

The Conservatives would get rid of the school food program, which we have seen tremendous progress on. Recently, the provincial government in Ontario came together with the federal government. Manitoba and Prince Edward Island are also moving forward. What about support to help people living with diabetes? The Conservatives would get rid of free insulin.

To the point at hand, the Conservatives would also get rid of support for housing. The member talks about the so-called big, bold idea the Leader of the Opposition has put forward to lift GST off the purchase price of a home. How would they pay for that? They would do so by getting rid of the housing accelerator fund, which unfortunately my friend has not characterized correctly here today.

I do not discount at all the importance of development charges; they are an impediment to getting more homes built, and municipalities have to find a way to lower them as much as possible. However, what the member does not talk about is the systemic changes that come as a result of the federal government's attaching conditions to federal funding for municipalities, so that, for example, zoning changes can become possible.

Throughout too much of Canada's history, certainly into the modern day, the building of certain types of homes has been outright illegal in this country. In some neighbourhoods, it has been outright illegal to build duplexes or triplexes or fourplexes, or row houses or mid-rise apartments. All of those would add tremendously to affordability to help the families in the member's community. I especially have on my mind the young couples, for example, who have a tough time, if they can put together a down payment, finding a home that is affordable for them. They cannot do it right now in so many instances. Zoning changes would allow for that.

What the federal government has done is said that we recognize that restrictive zoning is a huge impediment to getting more homes built, and we have attached conditions onto municipalities that if they want federal dollars for housing and infrastructure, they agree to make zoning changes. Many are doing so. At this point, there have been 178 agreements, and the number will grow.

Finally, the member also fails to mention that the GST proposal of the Conservatives would lead to the cancellation of the government's infrastructure support for communities. We cannot have housing unless we have infrastructure, for example to connect water systems and roads to homes, and to make neighbourhoods possible.

We have said there is a need for infrastructure, and we have attached a condition for it too: that development charges be frozen to April 2024 levels to ensure that development charges in that issue are in the first instance dealt with, but also to ensure that municipalities are doing what they need to do to build more homes. This is why the condition exists, and the Conservatives want to get rid of it.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for London North Centre and I can agree on one thing: Zoning reform is indeed needed across Canada. It was under the previous election platform from the Conservative Party that zoning measures were introduced as a means to spur more development. The Liberals in fact copied our plan. The premier of British Columbia implemented similar policies and actually targeted my community of Abbotsford to put in those very zoning changes to encourage building of fourplexes etc. In fact my street is now zoned for fourplexes.

I will note that the member mentioned $10-a-day day care. There is only one place in Abbotsford where people can get it, and that is on Eagle Mountain at the new elementary school. It is the area of the highest income of the entire community, so what the Liberals have done is given the people with the most money more support under the program. It is a shame.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we will agree to disagree on that point; $10 a day child care is moving forward in communities across the country. As I said, where it is not available, it will be available in communities throughout the land, and that is critical to our country's economic success and to our shared future.

On the point at hand, again, the accelerator fund, the proposal by the member's party would get rid of the program, which would be a detriment to communities in his riding. The Lytton First Nation is counting on the fund for 176 new homes. The Boston Bar First Nation is counting on 65 new homes as a result of the program. Finally, the Seabird Island Band is counting on the accelerator fund for 251 new homes.

I am not sure what the official opposition has against the federal government's working with municipalities and with indigenous communities to get more homes built and attaching conditions to ensure that more homes get built. We are doing that and we will continue to do it. The Conservatives are standing in the way.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my question for the Minister of Immigration on November 22, last month, I can only think that the minister's reply was not only to ignore the question but to deflect from accountability for his failures with a personal attack on me and my staff that was as pathetic as it was transparent. Let us be honest. We all know that someone resorts to personal attacks when they cannot defend a position based on its merits, and there is no defending the minister's complete and utter incompetence.

To set the record straight, while I have gotten used to the minister's insults, I will not tolerate outright misrepresentations made against me or my staff, especially when I have evidence that categorically proves that my staff and I have made several representations to the minister to assist my constituents and their families.

For the minister to state that I have “never brought a single case to [him]” is an outright mistruth. If the minister had any credibility, he would do the honourable thing and withdraw his offending and inaccurate comments. Perhaps he should check with his own departmental staff to see the cases that we have brought to the minister.

I also want to correct the minister as to why I am no longer sitting in my former seat. It had nothing to do with my not wishing to sit near the Green Party leader; I had done so for nearly two years. I moved simply because, due to the addition of a new independent member, I would be sitting next to an MP whom I personally feel does not share the same interests that I have for a democratic Canada. The immigration minister would do well to review why certain members of his party's caucus no longer find themselves within it, and he may actually learn something from the exercise.

It was unconscionable for the minister to suggest that I only asked my question of his useless administration of the immigration department for my benefit. It was out of utter frustration for individuals who are trying to make Canada their home but who are suffering from delays and from the inability to receive any answers as to why they are waiting years to have their cases actioned. I have raised with the minister cases of doctors and skilled tradespeople, individuals who would contribute to building a better Canada for all Canadians but who find themselves languishing in an immigration quagmire.

Under the minister's direction, the morass that is IRCC seems better suited to letting the IRGC and other terrorists blatantly use and abuse our immigration and refugee systems in order to remain in Canada, rather than to help other people who would become contributing and law-abiding citizens. What an utter disgrace, and it gets even worse.

Due to the minister's incompetence, Canada is now facing heavy tariffs being laid on Canadian exports to the United States by the incoming Trump administration. Instead of bringing doctors to heal Canadians, the government issues new passports to admitted human traffickers. Instead of prioritizing tradespeople who would build the homes we need, the immigration minister abuses his power and uses a ministerial intervention, not for a life-or-death situation but to save a five-time criminally convicted foreign national who boasted of foreign financing to blockade Canadian roads, highways and pipelines.

It is high time for the minister to be dismissed by the Prime Minister before further damage is done to Canada and to those who not only want to make our country their home, but want to help heal Canadians and build the homes we need.

Therefore, would the parliamentary secretary not agree that the first step to fixing a problem is to acknowledge that we have one, and that at the core of it is an incompetent minister with twisted priorities?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House and answer my colleague's questions.

We heard my colleague make personal attacks against a minister he disagrees with about the immigration system, but he also tried to stoke Canadians' fears over immigration. However, I want to say how important it is to our government and to the department that these matters be discussed at length and publicly. We cannot talk about specific cases, but I can speak to our general immigration guidelines. Every application is unique. Every applicant can apply for programs, but spaces are limited. It can take longer to enter the system if information is missing from an application or if applicants do not answer questions promptly.

My colleague mentioned doctors. He also mentioned skilled workers, who are part of our society. My riding of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation is no exception. We have doctors who are there to support the community, who are willing to stay in remote communities. However, it is because of the immigration system that communities like ours in Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation can have good doctors. It is the same for agricultural workers. Farm workers depend on our culture. They depend on every type of product that reaches our plates. There are vineyards that benefit from immigration. Berry farmers benefit. It is also good for tourism development. For example, at Château Montebello in Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, foreign workers enable the hotel to offer world-class service.

We see that there is high demand to immigrate to Canada. Many applications are submitted every year. People want to benefit from the good quality of life that we have in Canada. The department is meeting its target of processing 80% of the applications, including in a certain number of important programs: citizenship, highly skilled workers in areas of federal jurisdiction, provincial candidates, family reunification for spouses and children. I am thinking about Tony, my barber, who is working on reuniting his family. They are in a wartorn country. We have an immigration system in place. We intend to modernize it, make it more accessible and easier, while taking into account the lack of housing in Canada. We have to reduce the level of immigration, but we have to do it the right way. We are also digitizing several programs to reduce the bureaucracy. We are improving services for clients and Canadians and aligning objectives for 2025 to 2027. I do have a message for my colleague, however: he needs to stop scaring Canadians.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary accused me of trying to scare Canadians. Let me tell everyone what is scary. What is scary is an ISIS terrorist, who is on video ripping apart the body of his victim, receiving Canadian citizenship. What is scary is an admitted human trafficker being issued a new fricking passport. What is scary is a foreign national, criminally convicted five times, being saved from deportation, as ordered by the immigration department and upheld by the court. What is scary is that not only does the parliamentary secretary not seem to find any of this concerning, but he actively defends it.

My question to the parliamentary secretary is simple. If he was Minister of Immigration, would he be doing exactly what his minister is doing now, which is nothing, or would he be taking real action to protect Canadians, secure our border and protect our livelihoods so we are not taxed to oblivion by the incoming Trump administration?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have full confidence in our Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. The minister is working to protect national security. He is working with the Prime Minister's Office and with the best experts in Canada. The Minister of Immigration is supported by various services to keep Canadians as safe as possible. We have strengthened our borders. We have invested in technology. We have also increased the number of officers at the border. Why have we done this? We did it to be better. As soon as new immigrants arrive in Canada, they go through a variety of services to ensure that they are safe in Canada and that Canadians are safe when we welcome these immigrants.

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

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:51 p.m.)