Debates of Sept. 20th, 2024

Public Safety

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, in no way, shape or form is hate speech or the support of terrorism allowed in our country. We are deeply concerned about these statements. We are looking into the situation in this matter. We take the member opposite's question seriously and are here to promote a Canada that is united together, that confronts discrimination and that is in harmony.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

As mentioned in the Speaker's statement of Monday, September 16, the volume for earpieces will now be reset. Members using their earpiece at this time will have to readjust the volume. I thank members for paying particular attention to the sound level.

Information Commissioner

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 94(2) of the Access to Information Act and subsection 72(2) of the Privacy Act, the reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada on the administration of these acts for the fiscal year ending March 31.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), these reports are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Mr. Turnbull (Whitby) for Mr. Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation).

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Public Accounts

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I move that the 31st report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Tuesday, November 7, 2023, be concurred in.

It is indeed an honour to rise in the House today to move concurrence on the report. Why is this important? Why should we be debating this motion?

This report refers to the Auditor General's report on chronic homelessness. It is truly a damning report on the state of the government's actions to address this issue in Canada. Why does this matter? Why does a report such as this matter to Canadians in my riding of Perth—Wellington and in ridings across the country?

It matters because those experiencing homelessness in our community are real people. They are family members, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, mums and dads, friends and, in some cases, co-workers. Those experiencing homelessness have been let down by the Liberal government.

I want to provide a bit of local context in my riding of Perth—Wellington. Many members, many colleagues in our official opposition, spent the summer speaking and interacting with local families, stakeholders and municipalities about what they were seeing on the ground in each and every one of our communities.

I had the great pleasure to speak with stakeholders that are making significant efforts to address homelessness and the challenges in our community, such as the United Way of Perth-Huron. I spoke with folks at the local community food centre; I enjoy stopping by because I always feel as though I am walking into a giant kitchen and chatting with people around a giant kitchen table. I spoke to a couple of folks who were there enjoying the community meals; they could not afford the skyrocketing rents that they see in our communities.

Unfortunately, this is happening across the country, not only in large urban centres but also in small-town and rural communities, such as those in Perth—Wellington. Two short years ago, it would have been unthinkable that there would be encampments in such a place as Stratford or Listowel in North Perth. However, here in 2024, after nine years of the government, we see encampments in these small-town, rural communities.

This summer, I was able to speak with family members whose loved ones could not find a place to live, who lacked the supportive housing that was necessary for them to be able to excel and to survive in our communities. I spoke with service providers who talked about the long wait-lists to access the services they provide.

I spoke with those who provide food for those in need, and they are experiencing the challenge. At the same time as demand is up for their services, the ability of those in our community to give is down. It is down because money is tight and because it is a challenge to make ends meet. Unfortunately, there is a lot more month left at the end of the paycheque. That is the challenge we are facing in communities across this country.

I also engage regularly with municipalities that are ready and willing to do their part but, unfortunately, are not finding a partner in the government. I want to give one example, and that is the housing accelerator fund. Not a single community in Perth—Wellington received a cent from the housing accelerator fund, nor did most small-town and rural communities across this country.

One of the reasons for this is that small rural communities, such as the township of Mapleton, were considered large urban municipalities. Small-town, rural and farming communities with populations slightly over 10,000 were being lumped in with large urban municipalities, having to compete for funds against the Mississaugas, the Torontos, the Ottawas and the Hamiltons of the world.

These small-town, rural communities are desperate to do the work necessary to make sure that everyone has a roof over their head, but the challenge is that they are not eligible for these programs, because the government is making it impossible to access funds like large rural municipalities.

Someone else who knows about these challenges is the member from Parry Sound—Muskoka, with whom I will be splitting my time. As the shadow minister for housing, he came to Perth—Wellington this summer and spoke with key stakeholders about the efforts that we can make together to address the challenges of those experiencing homelessness. Unfortunately, the Minister of Housing is asleep at the switch and is not putting in the efforts necessary to build the homes, so everyone has a place to call home.

Now that I have given the local context showing why this is important, I want to address the report itself: the Auditor General's fifth report addressing chronic homelessness in Canada. As I said, this is truly a damning report. The Auditor General found this: “Overall, Infrastructure Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not know whether their efforts improved housing outcomes for people experiencing homelessness or chronic homelessness and for other vulnerable groups.” The government claimed to be investing, but it has no clue what is happening on the ground.

What is more, the Auditor General went on to say, “the department did not know whether chronic homelessness and homelessness had increased or decreased since 2019 as a result of this investment.” Finally, the report found, “Despite being the lead for the National Housing Strategy and overseeing the majority of its funding, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation took the position that it was not directly accountable for addressing chronic homelessness. Infrastructure Canada was also of the view that while it contributed to reducing chronic homelessness, it was not solely [responsible] for achieving the strategy’s target of reducing chronic homelessness.”

We have federal departments and agencies claiming to be making investments to address the significant challenges of chronic homelessness and those experiencing homelessness in Canada, yet they have no clue what is happening.

In committee, Conservatives pressured the department to give us answers, and it took a second meeting. Finally, the deputy minister of Infrastructure Canada, Kelly Gillis, stated that the department had recently reported a 12% increase in homelessness in Canada. That is an increase for a government claiming that it will cut chronic homelessness in half by 2027. They are already starting with a 12% increase in this year, according to Infrastructure Canada.

However, if we look at the PBO's report from earlier this year, May 22, it states, “Since 2018, the number of homeless people has increased by 20%.” The PBO goes on to write, “the number of chronically homeless people...increased by 38% relative to 2018.” When we ought to see an effort to decrease chronic homelessness, the government has overseen a 38% increase in chronic homelessness since 2018. This is unacceptable to the families and loved ones across this country who are experiencing homelessness and losing hope that they will ever find a place to call home, a place with four walls, a safe place in a safe community.

This is unacceptable. The Auditor General has confirmed this, as has the report from the public accounts committee. Action that the government promised to take has not happened, and that is why we are moving concurrence in this debate today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to hide from the reality that homelessness exists. We know it exists, which is why we are committed to working with many different stakeholders to improve that issue.

The question I have for the member opposite is on this so-called interest that the Conservatives have taken on an issue that they did not have even just a few years ago. In fact, the current leader of the Conservative Party today was the minister of housing, and homelessness existed back then too.

Can the member is cite one tangible example of a proactive measure that his leader took on the issue of homelessness when he was the minister of housing?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear: Under the former Conservative government, taxes were at their lowest point since John Diefenbaker was prime minister, and housing was actually affordable. One could afford to buy a home in a safe community. In places such as my community, we have seen homes more than double in price in the short nine years that the Liberal government has been in power. From the time when people had good homes and good salaries to be able to afford them, it has gone to a place where one cannot even afford to put a roof over one's head. In places such as Stratford and Listowel, which are small, rural communities, a small one-bedroom apartment is now over $2,000 a month; it is unaffordable.

Under our future Conservative government, we will do what is necessary to build homes, reduce red tape, speed up processes and remove those who are blocking the ability to build homes. That is our commitment, and that is what a Conservative government under our leader, the member for Carleton, will actually achieve.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first recommendations in the report is to develop a work plan to accelerate the availability of national shelters to address homelessness. However, I will tell the member how this plays out on Vancouver Island.

In Parksville, the only community of over 10,000 people, the mayor fought B.C. Housing, which was going to build a shelter in the community. Now the mayor is running for the Conservative nomination. They went to court and blocked the shelter, which is what they do. They are doing it in Port Coquitlam too.

Conservatives come here and say one thing, but when they are governing, they actually do another thing.

What they did in Parksville is absolutely against human rights. It is a violation of human rights. What the Conservatives want is for the problem to just go away. They want the homeless people to just go away.

Can my colleague address why Conservatives block shelters in places where people are living on the streets?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member for Courtenay—Alberni may have a concern with his provincial NDP government in British Columbia, if it is not doing the work necessary to make sure that those who are unable to find housing can access the services that might be available.

Let me be very clear about what a Conservative government would do: Conservatives will ensure that the municipal gatekeepers are removed so that more housing can get built in all communities across our country. We will work with municipal partners so that housing can be built.

Municipalities are ready and willing to do the work, but the challenge is that, too often, they are not being supported by the government, especially when we look at issues such as the rapid housing initiative and the national housing strategy, which do not support small towns and rural communities in this country.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Before we continue, I would like to remind hon. members how the House works. Only one person at a time is allowed to speak. In the meantime, other members must listen and wait until they are recognized before speaking.

We have time for a 30-second question. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer my question. Can he indicate one thing that his current leader did as minister of housing to help address homelessness specifically?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very simply, we kept the economic climate strong so that folks could build homes and could buy affordable homes in safe communities. This is something we do not see today under the Liberal government.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Perth—Wellington mentioned that I had a chance to visit his constituency over the course of the summer for a couple of days. It was a great honour to meet the folks in his community who are working hard to address homelessness and affordability. Of course, it is shocking to see the number of homeless encampments that exist not just in big cities but also in smaller communities like those he represents. I will say that it is not like they were surprised to see him; he is an active, engaged leader in his communities and is well known for compassionate leadership, so I thank him for it.

I also thank him for moving a motion to concur in the report, because it is, of course, in many ways the issue of the day. The Auditor General tabled the report on November 5, 2022.

I have said before, and I am sure it is the position of everybody in the chamber, that Canada cannot reach its full potential until everyone has a safe, warm bed to sleep in at night. No human can reach their full potential unless they have a safe, secure bed to sleep in at night. In a country as rich as Canada, this cannot just be a dream. It should not be something we just work toward. We have to do better than that. It must be an achievable reality. As hon. members of the House, we see the most vulnerable all the time. We see them as we walk up the steps to Parliament Hill. This is avoidable.

Yesterday in this place we had a historic vote where the House unanimously declared that Canada is in a housing crisis that requires urgent action by the federal government to end homelessness. This is not hyperbole; there is a crisis. The unfortunate reality for too many Canadians is that the numbers prove that we are in a crisis. Since 2018, the number of homeless people in Canada has increased by 20%. The number of chronically homeless people has increased by 38% relative to 2018. This is what the Auditor General examined in the report: chronic homelessness and the Liberal government's failure to do anything to change it.

Chronic homelessness is long-term homelessness, meaning that someone was without a bed to sleep in for 180 days or more last year. What did the Auditor General have to say about chronic homelessness and the Liberal government's effort to do anything about it? On page 7, the report says that Infrastructure Canada, ESDC and the CMHC had no idea whether their efforts improved housing outcomes for people experiencing homelessness or chronic homelessness for other vulnerable groups. They did not know.

Page 8 of the report says that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as the lead on the national housing strategy, which we all remember was announced with great fanfare in 2017, spent about $4.5 billion of a $9-billion commitment, “but did not know who was benefiting from its initiatives.” CMHC also took the position that it was not directly accountable for addressing chronic homelessness.

In simple terms, Canada's Auditor General concluded that the Liberal government does not know whether the programs for which it announced billions of dollars of spending aimed at reducing chronic homelessness made any difference at all. What is worse is that CMHC, Infrastructure Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were all of the opinion that not one of them was actually in charge or the lead on the file. They all pointed at each other saying that it must be the other as it was not them.

We can be clear. We know who is in charge; it is the Prime Minister. It is clear that he has failed Canadians when it comes to homelessness. Perhaps the most damning part of the report is that when the Liberal government was faced with the rise in homelessness as a result of its policies, it firmed up that it did not even think it was in charge. It said that there is a housing crisis. It is more than that; it is a crisis in leadership. It is an absence of leadership.

Again, in the Auditor General's report we learn that Infrastructure Canada spent $1.63 billion on reducing homelessness as part of its Reaching Home program, yet the audit found that the department did not know whether homelessness had actually increased or decreased during that time. Canadians must know what the Liberals and the gatekeepers do not seem to know: Homelessness is up under their watch, and we see it everywhere.

The Homelessness Services Association of B.C. found that 4,821 people identified as homeless in the Vancouver area this year, compared to 3,634 in 2020. That is a 32% increase, the highest spike between consecutive counts since reporting began in 2005. In 2023, the nationally coordinated point-in-time count in Nanaimo showed that the number of people experiencing homelessness has been steadily increasing, and since 2016 it has almost tripled.

According to the Affordable Housing Association of Nova Scotia, the number of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness in the Halifax Regional Municipality jumped from 119 in August 2019 to 879 in August 2024. That is an increase of a whopping 639%.

In Toronto and the GTA, as of May 5, there were 256 encampments on City of Toronto property. The latest Parks, Forestry and Recreation numbers from March 15, 2024, show that there were a total of 202 encampments recorded at 72 separate locations across the city. In 2023, there were 82 encampments at 24 sites.

It is not just the big cities. In northern Ontario, according to the “Report Card on Homelessness for 2023”, there were 237 people experiencing homelessness in Greater Sudbury, a jump of 164 people since 2022. According to that same report card, the number of encampments in Greater Sudbury jumped from 25 at the end of 2022 to 113 at the end of 2023. There are approximately 359 people on the by-names list of individuals at risk of or experiencing homelessness in the city of Timmins.

In Kelowna, there were a record number of deaths among the city's homeless in 2022. Between 2015 and 2020, the annual average number of deaths among homeless people was 143. In comparison, the annual average between 2021 and 2022 was 305.

These are damning statistics, but the reality of the people behind them is far more painful. They are not just numbers. They are human beings who our system has completely and abjectly failed.

When I was mayor of Huntsville, there was a housing crisis brewing already. We had done all kinds of things as a municipality, but in Parry Sound—Muskoka oftentimes homelessness is hidden. People are couch surfing or sleeping in vans. I will give the example of Lions Lookout, a beautiful spot in Huntsville where occasionally we would see a van parked overnight because somebody was staying there. Today, this happens with a lot more frequency; it is all of the time, and not just one van but multiple vans. Rental vacancy rates in Huntsville, Bracebridge, Gravenhurst and Parry Sound have been under 1% for almost a decade.

The government talks about affordable housing and homelessness, but after nine years, the situation is demonstrably worse. More than 235,000 people in Canada are estimated to be homeless, in core housing need. We are talking about people who are actually homeless. As to those who are not visibly homeless, there could be between 450,000 and 900,000 people.

All of this exists within the context of the government's national housing strategy, an $80-billion plan that was supposed to be life-changing and transformational, the Prime Minister said. We have seen the transformation. We have seen Canadians' lives change, and it is quite clearly not for the better.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a former mayor, the hon. member has a unique perspective. Two things have traditionally contributed to homelessness. One is mental health issues. Provinces across the country, including my home province of British Columbia, did nobody a service years ago when they shut down institutions that would look after the homeless. Provinces put them on the street promising there would be the services they need, but they did not materialize. That still exists. The other piece is the hard, cruel fact that the free-enterprise system is leaving people behind. People are using homes as investments, buying them up to make money off of them. Rents are going up.

These are all things that provinces and cities should manage. I am wondering what role provinces and cities should be taking.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that one of the biggest impediments to getting homes built is, in fact, cities, provinces and a federal government that tax the life out of homebuilding. Of the cost of every new home built in this country, 33% is government.

Nobody makes more money on housing than government, so the NDP, the Liberals and all their lefty friends can continue to demonize private sector investment in housing, but we need $3 trillion of investment in housing in this country, and governments are going to make a fortune from it if we do not reduce the cost and get them out of the way. That is the real problem: We need to get governments out of the way, reduce the cost and get this country building again.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what it is like in Parksville, British Columbia, where we had a Conservative mayor. He accelerated development permits. We built more development in Parksville than at any other time in history and probably more than any other community on Vancouver Island. However, rents did not come down; they actually went up.

What we need and what Canadians need is affordable non-market housing to go hand in hand with the private sector. That is not happening with Conservative mayors. They are not addressing the root problem.

Like I said earlier, the same mayor fought BC Housing, which wanted to build a shelter in that community to make sure that people who were living on the street had their basic needs met. They actually went to court and stopped it. It is one of the only communities in this country with over 10,000 people that has no shelter. The same Conservative mayor is running for the nomination for the Conservative Party, so we know exactly what we are going to get when Conservatives lead at the local government level, the provincial level or the federal level.

Maybe my colleague can explain why Conservative mayors are blocking shelters and why they are not building non-market housing.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm for my hon. colleague that when I was on municipal council and before I was the mayor of Huntsville, I co-chaired the development of a women's shelter and helped get a men's shelter built. I did all kinds of work on affordable housing, and I did not block housing. In fact, I was the mayor and was the chair of the planning committee that made things happen. We approved developments, and everywhere we had to, I stood up to the NIMBYs to make sure we could get things built in our community. That is what we need across this country.

The member can talk about Conservatives' not caring about people, but we are the only party that actually has a plan to deliver real results. It is not a lot of talk, a lot of photo ops or billions of dollars that produce no results. Conservatives want to deliver real results for Canadians, and we are not interested in just talking points.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that as a mayor, the hon. member suffered significant impacts in his community from climate events. I wonder whether he can give us a glimmer of hope that there will be a Conservative plan for what we do about the threat of the climate crisis.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members have heard our leader talk about the Conservative plan to hold local gatekeepers to account. Part of what he talks about is making sure that any transit infrastructure investments made by a federal government led by the Conservative party would in fact be held until there are results on the ground and we actually rezone properly and increase the density around transit.

This is good for the budget, good for the climate, good for the planet and good for the communities. These are the kinds of things that are practical realities that would help reduce climate change and get homes built.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take this opportunity to highlight a few points that are absolutely relevant to the type of debate we are having here today and why we are having a debate on an issue that the Conservatives actually selected.

First and foremost, the issue of homelessness is one with which the government of the day has been seized for a good period of time now. As strong as the will is from the Prime Minister, cabinet and my colleagues as a collective to push this file forward, one of the things that we need to recognize is that the federal government cannot do it alone. It requires a high sense of co-operation from a wide spectrum of stakeholders. This is not a new issue to us, but apparently it is a relatively new issue to the Conservative Party of Canada.

The question I asked the member for Perth—Wellington was, in all sincerity, about why the Conservatives have chosen to raise this issue today, given that they have not demonstrated any interest in the subject matter itself. I asked the member to give one example of something that the leader of the Conservative Party had done when he was minister of housing. When we talk about the housing issues, Canadians and individuals following this debate, whether today, yesterday or going into the next election, need to know that the individual who was an absolute disaster on the housing file is today's leader of the Conservative Party.

I posed a question to the member for Perth—Wellington, who, no doubt, would have done his homework in presenting the motion that he presented today, asking him to give me one example of what the leader of the Conservative Party did when he was the minister of housing to deal with the issue of homelessness. What did he say? He said that taxes were low. That was the response about the minister of housing responsible for the development of any form of national housing, including dealing with the issue of homelessness.

The member could have given another example because, in fairness, the former minister did actually build six houses when he was the minister of housing. I know it is not an impressive number. There might have been some that was left over from a previous minister. I do not know for sure. However, I do know that, on the issue of housing and homelessness, the leader of the Conservative Party was found wanting, and that is to put it nicely and in parliamentary language.

Today, the member for Perth—Wellington has been instructed by the leader's office to continue to filibuster. The member for Perth—Wellington has been the one chosen to bring forward this report, for which there was a 20-page response from the minister dealing with the report that provides all sorts of details. However, the Conservative Party, in its hunger for power, in its thirst to do nothing but focus on trying to gain power and ignore the needs of Canadians, has decided once again to use a particular issue to justify filibustering to prevent legislation from passing in the House of Commons.

This is our first week back. We just had summer. We all met with constituents. What do our constituents want? They want members of Parliament to be working together to receive good, tangible results for Canadians. They know it is a minority government, but there is an expectation that the official opposition will at least have some interest in taking actions that would also support Canadians.

On Monday, we talked about the Citizenship Act. There are people in Canada who should be Canadian citizens. We thought this was non-controversial legislation until the Conservatives started debate on it. They made it clear they are not going to support it, and then they brought in a concurrence motion to prevent that debate from taking place. What happened the following day, on Tuesday? The Conservative Party brought forward motions to prevent debate, just like they did again yesterday.

The example from yesterday is really good. The Conservative Party supports Bill C-66 for military court reform. In essence, it is for women who have been harassed or raped within the military. As opposed to going through a military court, they would go through a civilian court. That is the essence of it. Everyone in the House supports it. We all do, but the Conservatives brought in yet another motion of concurrence. That one, by the way, deals with housing. We have actually had that debate. We will see a lot of repetition of that today, but that is the concurrence report that they brought forward, even on a day when we were debating legislation that every member of the House of Commons supports.

In fact, late yesterday, when we were able to get onto the legislation, the Minister of National Defence, who was present and listening to the debate, at the conclusion of it, asked if there would be unanimous consent to let the legislation go to committee, but no. The Conservatives said no to that.

That is what today's debate is about—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland is rising on a point of order.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just ask, perhaps, if the member could bring the debate back to what we are discussing about chronic homelessness, which is a serious issue. I was not aware that we were back to debating the military justice system—

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

The hon. member knows that members have a great deal of latitude when speaking in the House. However, I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that he must stick to the subject at hand.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely will. I know the truth hurts. What I am saying is no doubt upsetting a lot of Conservatives, not only those inside the chamber, and especially Progressive Conservatives. I can appreciate that because they have to follow the direction coming from their leader. The MAGA right has more control over the Conservative Party today than the Progressives do by far, and that is why we often hear from the Conservative right and the Conservative reformers.

I started off by talking about the issue of homelessness and why the Conservative Party, in particular its leader, does not necessarily believe in the issue. He is using it as a mechanism to filibuster government legislation, and I am expanding on what I mean by making that statement, which is totally relevant as to why we are debating what we are debating today. That is why we have this concurrence report. It is not because the Conservative Party is really interested in the issue.

Let me give the Conservatives a bit of a saving grace. Let us say that they were interested in debating this issue. People who are following the debate would know the Conservatives are the official opposition, and every session, they get a number of opposition days. In fact, next week they have an opposition day. They can take the entire day, as opposed to three hours, because this debate will ultimately be adjourned, and have a motion to deal with the issue and then get a much stronger, more focused debate.

The Conservatives have had dozens of opposition days in the last number of years. Have they raised this issue once? I have been here for every opposition day motion, from what I can recall, and I cannot remember the Conservatives ever bringing up the issue of homelessness. I can remember them talking about the price on pollution. I know they do not support the carbon rebate because that is something they amplify every time they get an opposition day motion.

What are the Conservatives talking about next week? It is not homelessness, yet they believe they can come in here and bring in a motion using a concurrence report to talk about an issue they like to tell Canadians they genuinely believe in. Maybe some of the more progressive members of Parliament on that side might genuinely believe in it. I suspect there are members who honestly want to improve the conditions of people who are homeless.

However, that is not what is driving the Conservative Party today within the House of Commons. I believe I can clearly demonstrate that to be factual and true. All one needs to do is look at some of the things I have said that show the Conservative Party of today is more interested in bumper stickers and slogans, as well as trying to deceive Canadians through social media and beyond. That includes on the issue of homelessness, as they try to say homelessness is up, and that is sad to see. Governments of all levels are working together to deal with that in a tangible way.

If members want a good sense of what the government has been up to on the file, there was a report tabled and there was a response to that report. Every member has access to that response. Did any of the previous speakers make reference to the 20-page response? There would have been great detail, and I will go into some of those details if time permits. However, I cannot recall any comments coming from members opposite that responded to the minister's response to the report we are talking about today.

Members want to talk about housing. No government in the last 50, 60 or 70 years has invested more in housing than this Prime Minister and this government. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, that is a fact.

We continue to work with provinces, territories, indigenous people and other stakeholders to improve housing conditions in every region of this country, because we understand the importance of housing. It is one of the reasons we doubled our efforts, with finances and resources, to support initiatives that will make a difference on the issue of homelessness, especially when it is a chronic situation. As a parliamentarian for over 30 years, I have witnessed this in every year of being a parliamentarian. I understand the role that provinces and municipalities play, that the federal government plays and that the many different stakeholders play.

For those following the debate, we are talking about other stakeholders, and there are some fantastic organizations out there. I have talked in the past about Habitat for Humanity. I could easily talk about the many housing co-op organizations too. Many faith groups have been a driving force in building low-income, non-profit housing. However, let there be no doubt that it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to come together and work on the issues that Canadians have to face today, and that includes Ottawa. We have been at the table and we have demonstrated leadership. Those are not empty words. There is no one inside the House of Commons who could indicate a government that has spent more money on housing than this government has over the last eight to nine years. As a government, we are committed to housing Canadians.

Interestingly enough, periodically members will talk about housing co-ops. Earlier this week, because we had a concurrence report dealing with housing and homelessness, I indicated that I am a very big fan of housing co-ops. I understand the benefits of housing co-ops. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government that initiated, for the first time, federal government investments in housing co-ops. The Willow Park Housing Co-op happens to be in Winnipeg North. I believe it is the oldest housing co-op in Canada, possibly even in North America. It came into being in the late 1960s.

This government has advanced and promoted the issue of housing co-ops because it is a wonderful alternative that needs to be invested in. All one needs to do is take a look at the demographics and benefits. In a housing co-op, one is not a tenant but a resident, and there is a big difference between the two. Someone asked me once, “What do you mean, resident or tenant?” The easiest way to explain it is that someone is a part owner. If a person is in a co-op and wants to paint the walls blue in their unit, they can do that, but they cannot necessarily do that as a tenant.

There is no profit being driven through a co-op to the degree that we see in the private sector. We find that the costs and rents are substantially lower, especially if someone has been in a co-op for an extended period of time. Many co-op units are actually subsidized through government.

This leads me to non-profit housing units. Traditional non-profit housing units are seen in all federal governments. Even in Stephen Harper's government, there was financial assistance going directly from Ottawa to provinces to ensure that we could maintain and support people in non-profit housing units. A certain percentage of their income would go toward rent payments, based on income.

If we want to resolve the issues of homelessness and housing today, we need a strong national government that recognizes its important role, and we have that. We also need to recognize that it takes more than just the national government.

That is why the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg with the mayor, premier and other politicians talking about the accelerator fund; it was a fund that was making a difference. With the Liberal agenda and the co-operation and assistance of provinces, territories, indigenous people, different communities and the many non-profits that are out there, we have an ambitious plan to see literally several million homes built over the coming years.

We have a tangible plan that includes working with different levels of government and that will make a difference and deliver for Canadians. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party of Canada, the far-right reformers, the MAGA Conservatives, do not have a plan. All they talk about is slogans, bumper stickers and, wherever they can, character assassination. They bring out the negative side of politics. From both my perspective and, I believe, a vast majority of perspectives, Canada is not broken, unlike what the Conservative leader tells Canadians. Canada is the best place in the world to live in and to call home.