Debates of Dec. 9th, 2024

Indigenous and Northern Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love three hours to respond to that. I have great respect for my hon. colleague. We have worked together on the finance committee, but he knows very well the housing strategy of the Paul Martin government was not put in place because the NDP forced an election. I will not go too far on that. As for results on the key points he points to, when it comes to getting homes built, the national housing strategy is leading to the construction of 400,000 homes in this country, or to the repair. That is not nothing. We have much more to do, and we will.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is decimating Canada's middle class. I would like to share the story of a resident in Durham region to help illustrate exactly how Liberal policies are hurting our communities.

I met a man who has experienced what one might call invisible homelessness. Many people know him but did not know that he did not have a place to live. He was living with his mother, and their incomes together allowed them to be able to afford rent. When his mother had to be put in a long-term care facility, his income alone was no longer able to keep a roof over his head. He wound up moving into his car and sleeping in the parking lot of the ONroute in Newcastle, Ontario, in Durham region.

When I met him, he explained to me that he had done everything society had asked him to do. He went to school, got a job, worked hard and paid his taxes, yet when the time came when his family faced a crisis and an emergency, Liberal policies were not there for him. Liberal policies have let him and his family down.

The problem in our country right now, or one problem of many, is that more and more Canadians are in precarious situations, where one bit of bad luck, one person getting sick, or one issue hitting a family, sideswiping people unexpectedly, can put them in a situation of great desperation. Housing is a key fundamental aspect of this, of course.

A recent survey from Habitat for Humanity showed that 82% of Canadians worry that the housing crisis is impacting our overall health and well-being, and 78% believe that the inability to own a home is contributing to the wealth gap in Canada. The numbers get even worse when we look at younger generations of Canadians, who have family members, friends and neighbours going through precarious situations. Then they see a government continuing to do photo op after photo op, advertising policies and programs that are supposedly able to fix the issues, but the government is instead entirely tone-deaf and unresponsive.

The numbers, again, speak for themselves. Let us look at what has been announced by the Liberal government and its buddies in the NDP. Let us look at Toronto, with $471 million announced for a housing photo op fund, and home building starts down 20%. In Vancouver, the NDP-Liberal photo op fund is $115 million, and the result is that home building starts are down 19%. In Kingston, the NDP-Liberal photo op fund is $27.6 million, but home building starts are down 67%. The NDP-Liberal photo op fund in Guelph is $21.4 million, with home building starts down 65%.

The government in this country has abdicated any responsibility for middle-class families and instead wants to tell people over over again that it is doing this and that, and that it is trying to solve the problems. It is spending more tax dollars, yet the result is more people struggling, more people worried they may never afford a home, and more people raising children who believe that home ownership is now only for those who are the wealthiest, that it is now a luxury. This is opposed to a time, not very long ago, when home ownership was a defined part of the Canadian dream.

I am trying my best to channel the frustrations and concerns of many of my constituents across Durham region who believe, fundamentally, that they are not the priority of the Liberal government. More numbers come out that affirm that Canadians are pessimistic about the government's ability to solve any of the serious problems in our country, to look out for the best interests of middle-class families and to address the very real crisis of our country's housing shortage.

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Federal Sales Tax on New Homes

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(16), it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion 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.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, 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.

[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.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Housing

[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, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

[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 6:56 p.m.)