Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
House of Commons Hansard #385 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was indigenous.
House of Commons Hansard #385 of the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was indigenous.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Access to Parliamentary Precinct Members debate a question of privilege regarding a protest at a parliamentary building. Conservatives allege NDP MPs were involved in obstructing access. NDP members deny organizing the protest, describing it as a peaceful sit-in by Jewish Canadians protesting genocide in Gaza, and criticize the Conservative characterization as offensive and misleading, calling the privilege question frivolous. 3100 words, 25 minutes in 2 segments: 1 2.
Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Members debate a Conservative motion on the government's failure to provide documents about Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC). Conservatives allege cronyism and corruption in SDTC funding. Liberals defend their record and criticize Conservative policies. The NDP criticizes both parties for the impasse, stating it prevents debate on issues like the cost of living. 6900 words, 45 minutes.
Opposition Motion—Federal Sales Tax on New Homes Members debate the housing crisis and a Conservative motion to eliminate the federal sales tax (GST) on new homes sold under $1 million. Conservatives argue this increases affordability; Liberals defend programs like the housing accelerator fund, criticizing the Conservative plan. Bloc members raise provincial jurisdiction concerns, while NDP members advocate for non-market housing and structural change. 14100 words, 2 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Oral Questions Members debate points of order concerning House decorum, disruptive behaviour, and the Speaker's rulings on the relevance of Question Period questions, with multiple parties raising concerns. 1300 words, 10 minutes.
Indigenous and Northern Affairs Members debate housing affordability, focusing on the third report of the Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Indigenous housing. Conservatives criticize Liberal policies as failing, proposing to build the homes by eliminating federal sales tax on new homes under $1 million and tying municipal funding to housing targets. Liberals defend their investments, including the Housing Accelerator Fund, and criticize the Conservative record. NDP members highlight the crisis's impact on Indigenous peoples, linking it to gender-based violence and the Indian Act, advocating for Indigenous-led solutions. Bloc Québécois supports initiatives like Yänonhchia' and calls for federal funding transfer to provinces. 21500 words, 3 hours.
Adjournment Debate - Housing Mike Morrice argues for an HST exemption for non-profit home builders like Habitat for Humanity. Peter Fragiskatos cites low-interest loans and grants as alternative supports, and defends removing GST on apartment construction to increase housing supply. Morrice questions why the government "forgot" about non-profits when it removed GST from for-profit builders. 1400 words, 10 minutes.
Opposition Motion—Federal Sales Tax on New HomesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Opposition Motion—Federal Sales Tax on New HomesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Chris d'Entremont
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until tomorrow, Tuesday, December 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The hon. deputy House leader.
Opposition Motion—Federal Sales Tax on New HomesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7 p.m. to start Adjournment Proceedings.
Opposition Motion—Federal Sales Tax on New HomesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Opposition Motion—Federal Sales Tax on New HomesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am back again tonight to continue to call for action on the housing crisis we are in, in particular, to call for one very tangible action the government could take in the lead-up to the fall economic statement we now know is set to be announced a week from today.
I have been pressing for six specific items to be included in the fall economic statement, including this one on the housing crisis. I want to start, though, by sharing the extent of the crisis we are in and what it looks like in my community. First of all, when it comes to those who are living unsheltered, between 2018 and 2021, the number of folks living unsheltered tripled from just over 300 to just over 1,000. In the most recent three years, as we just had the point-in-time count study in my community completed a few weeks ago, it almost tripled again. The number of folks living unsheltered is now up to over 2,300, and that is likely an underestimation.
Meanwhile, house prices are eight times the median income today. Back in 2005, they were around three times the median annual income. This is because house prices have gone up almost 300%. Rents have doubled. Wages, meanwhile, have not caught up in any way; they have only gone up 42%. Meanwhile, in my community, research shows we are leading the country in the number of affordable housing units we are losing. We lose 39 units of previously affordable housing for every one new unit built.
When it comes to government investments in housing, it has gotten to the point where, in Ontario, 93% of affordable homes were built prior to 1995, back when both federal and provincial governments in Ontario and the federal government of various stripes invested in affordable housing at the scale required. It is part of why I have been pushing for a number of items, including doubling the social housing stock with ambitious federal investments, similar to what we used to see in the 1970s and even into the 1980s.
I have been calling to have the government fix the definition of housing that CMHC is using so that affordable housing dollars go towards building truly affordable housing, and for an end to the tax exemptions for large corporate landlords like real estate investment trusts.
Tonight, I want to speak specifically about this, because I know in the House there has been a lot of talk about Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity has one specific call. It wants to see parliamentarian support ending HST so it can build more affordable homes. Last fall, the government gave an HST exemption to for-profit developers of rental units, a helpful measure to address the housing crisis, but left out were non-profit, affordable, home ownership builders like Habitat.
In my community on Kehl Street, a Habitat home build site built 45 homes. It would have had an extra million had this measure been in place to build more affordable units. In fact, Habitat estimates that, for every 100 homes built, it could build an additional five to 20 homes if it was exempt from this.
It is why I sent a letter about this, back on October 25, to the ministers of finance and housing. I asked about it in question period on November 1, but I did not get an answer then. I got a reply to my letter on November 12, directing me to ask the question of the Minister of Finance. I did that earlier today at the industry committee and did not receive an answer there either.
What I have put forward as well is that we could actually pay for this measure if only we got rid of that tax exemption for the REITs. If we had the REITs pay their fair share, this is what we could use to pay for removing the HST for Habitat.
Will the parliamentary secretary at least share where the government stands on this important measure?
Peter Fragiskatos LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by focusing on what we agree on. I have a lot of respect for my colleague, in large part because he always raises issues related to vulnerable Canadians. He began his speech by talking about those who are unhoused. We have in place a government that hears him, that sees the issue in Canada and is responding.
A few moments ago, I talked about encampments in Canada and how the federal government has put $250 million toward ensuring that people are taken out of camps, sheltered and ultimately put into stable housing. There are other examples I could point to relating specifically to the issue the member raised. I am not unsympathetic to the idea that we need to support not-for-profits, and we do. We do in a variety of ways, like through low-interest loans, for example.
The member talked about initiatives in his home community. In my community of London, I am thinking about the Vision SoHo project, a great housing project that is going to see hundreds of people housed. This includes people who have very difficult and acute needs, people who have experienced deep trauma, physical abuse, sexual abuse and trauma that has led to them being on the street and addicted to all sorts of unfortunate things. When it comes to drug or alcohol addiction, the wraparound supports are available. The organizations that made this possible secured a low-interest loan of around 3%. That is not uncommon. Working with CMHC, not-for-profits can do that.
What not-for-profits can also do by working with the federal government is obtain access to grants. Grants allow for housing to be built. I emphasize “built” because that is what the federal government takes care of. We work on the capital side, ensuring that homes are built. We do ask, and I look to provinces especially on this, for the operating dollars when it comes to supportive housing for people facing those particular challenges. Of course, not-for-profits are taking care of the ultimate administration and execution of these programs, and municipalities have a role to play too.
The member talked about the high cost of rent. Of course, we know that is an issue in Canada and we lifted GST costs on the construction of apartments. We did so for a specific reason. Interest rates, labour costs and construction costs have been very high. We needed to do it, and now we see cranes across the country building homes for Canadians. If we add to supply, we bring down costs.
Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking the parliamentary secretary for adding some substance to this conversation. I think that is what debate in Parliament is supposed to be about.
However, it continues to be the case that I do not understand how the government, when it removed GST from for-profit builders of rental housing, just forgot there were other non-profit affordable home ownership builders like Habitat. Habitat has come around and shared this oversight with the government. I think that would be a kind assessment. Maybe it was an oversight. The government recognizes we are in a housing crisis. Non-profit affordable home ownership builders like Habitat are ready and waiting to build more, likely in the member's community and certainly in mine.
Now that the government understands this, and Habitat has met with it as well, why is it not more obvious that this measure is important to take up? Why have we not seen it done yet?
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are different ways to get to the same results, the results we all want. I talked about low-interest loans. A low-interest loan to a not-for-profit of around 3% is very significant considering the current economic context. I talked about grants that are available, and they certainly are, through the affordable housing program and other initiatives of this federal government.
I talked about how the GST lift, taking GST off the construction costs of apartments, will add to supply. We have vacancy rates in this country hovering around 0% in many communities. That is unacceptably low. We need a vacancy rate between 3% and 5%. With high interest rates, we needed to do something to incent the private sector. That has done it.
If I had more time, I would have talked about the housing accelerator fund and the systemic change it is leading to by zoning changes and other things to make home ownership a real opportunity. We have more to do, but I am excited about the prospects ahead because we are serious about this.
HousingAdjournment Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker 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 6:56 p.m.)