Adam Vaughan

[Business of Supply, October 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, what happened to Tori Stafford, and the pain and suffering her family have gone through, is unimaginable and breaks the heart of any soul in this country. The debate here today does not diminish the pain nor the loss. It is profound. We all get that. We all know that her killer is in custody and is not walking free.

My question for the Conservatives opposite is very simple. Where was the concern for victims when the reports of 1,500 missing and murdered indigenous women became public? Talk to the parents and the family of Tina Fontaine. Where was the concern for that victim?

Children are victimized in this country far too often. It is painful for every family who loses one. However, there seems to be a hierarchy of concern here. There were 1500 murdered and missing indigenous women, and we could not get police to investigate those cases, let alone convict someone.

The indigenous community in North Bay had to dredge the river to find its missing children, and the party opposite, during the height of that crisis, said that it was committing “sociology” to try to solve that problem. Where was the concern for all the child victims in this country? Why are the Conservatives so selective?

[Child Poverty, October 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it hurts to say this, but Toronto is not the centre of the universe. Unfortunately, it is the centre of child poverty in Canada. Despite historic investments in children, families and housing by this government, more than one in four Toronto children lives in poverty.

According to a social planning council report released, in some federal ridings in Toronto this number is as high as 50%. What is even more disturbing is that a child's race and immigration status are now becoming key determinants to economic hardship. Indigenous children are even worse off, according to the report, and this is shameful. It is heartbreaking, it is wrong and it must be addressed now. Tackling poverty requires governments to invest.

It is complex, but the cost of doing nothing is incredibly expensive. Health costs, public safety impacts, the cost of education are all affected. It is simply cheaper to fight poverty than it is to tolerate it.

I am proud to be part of a government that understands this and is making a difference. Since taking office, we have invested $22 billion in programs that have lifted 650,000 people out of poverty. When it comes to—

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment quickly on the last statement by the member opposite about energy efficiency and the housing program.

Under the national housing strategy, all new builds would be required to obtain 25% above building code in energy efficiency for precisely the reason the member highlighted. Not only does it create durability and better housing build practices, it also reduces the cost of affordable housing. Also, because 60% of greenhouse gases come from the residential sector, it makes a huge contribution in reducing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Therefore, it has been built into the housing program. One would not qualify for dollars if one cannot show energy efficiency. Some housing providers have complained that is a bureaucratic problem, but on the environment, we have to make those achievements.

I also want to be very clear that we did not wait for the national housing strategy to make investments. We spent $12 billion in our first two budgets on new housing programs, new housing starts, repairs and renewing the operating agreements. However, at the end of 10 years, yes, $40 billion more will be spent. In fact, we added close to $2.5 billion in the last budget and so the housing budget is even bigger than $42 billion. When the new additional indigenous housing programs come online, like the $500-million agreement we have with the Métis, we will see those numbers grow, and the housing system is going to continue to grow. We are very proud of the fact that we are building much larger systems.

No expert told us to front-end load the money. All of them told us that we have to build the program, sustain the program and sustain in particular the subsidies. Will the member opposite agree—

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member rise a couple of times today and say that the real solution to the housing crisis is to get a job. The reality is that in Canada the two fastest growing groups that are having housing challenges and the largest growth in homelessness are children and seniors.

I know Doug Ford has some crazy ideas, but I do not think repealing child labour laws is on the agenda. I am going to hold my breath on that one.

However, for seniors, for 90-year old people who may need attendant care to live independently, to have meal services or to have people help them with functions because of their frailty they just cannot complete, is the Conservative Party really suggesting those people go back to work and get a job building a pipeline in order to get the housing they need? Is that really what I am trying to understand from the member opposite?

Obviously, for the bulk of people, 80% of Canadians get their housing needs met through the market. Obviously, a strong economy like the one we have produced, with 500,000-plus new jobs and the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years, is a good example of how to get those people housed.

On those two other examples, I will add one last thing. He is proud of housing first. Is he aware that his government, under housing first, would not fund rent supplements for people if attendant care was on the site? Does he understand the impact that had on people with disabilities? Does he understand the impact that it had on senior citizens? Does he understand how that de-housed people and forced them into shelters or into substandard care? Will he ever take responsibility for that, let alone his challenge to the child labour laws?

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

I could not agree more with the point that was made by the NDP member with reference to the surrendering of operating agreements and the damage that did to people with disabilities, to seniors on fixed incomes and to the most vulnerable Canadians living in co-op housing. The fact that the Conservatives allowed those agreements to expire and literally booted people to the curb is unexplainable and unacceptable. That is why we renewed those agreements and have protected them going forward as part of the new national housing strategy. It is the absolute right thing to do for the most vulnerable Canadians who live in the best co-op housing in our country.

My question for the member opposite though is a different one. She has referenced that she does not like the change in profile for the homeless partnership strategy, now called “reaching home”, and that we no longer require that all programs must spend 65% of the allotment on rent. The reason that was changed was very simple. In Quebec, for example, there are very strong rent supplement programs. It did not need new rent supplement programs. What it needed was supports for mental health treatment and for addiction treatment, meal programs for seniors and attendant care for people with disabilities. It wanted to use that money so people could afford to stay in housing they already had with the provincial supplements.

If we are going to respect provincial jurisdiction, does the member not agree we have to listen and give flexibility to a program, recognizing that housing first works? It is still absolutely an option. The province could spend 100% of the money, but it does not have to absolutely be 65% of it. Does she not agree that provincial jurisdiction should be respected and flexibility should be a cornerstone of this program, to allow local housing systems to meet the needs of the people who have housing requirements?

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in the House with the member opposite and hear his good words, his truth and his demand that we do better, and we have to do better on precisely the issues that were referenced.

I am asking this question not to take the focus away from the challenges in northern Quebec in different indigenous communities but in the honest pursuit of advice from a wise soul.

Urban indigenous housing programs are just as deficient, particularly in cities where a number of indigenous members of both the Cree nation and the Nunavut Inuit nation come south for school, for hospitals and for a whole series of reasons. There is not a structured way to get at providing housing through a first nations or Inuit or Métis lens in some of these communities in urban settings.

I wonder what my colleague's advice would be as we embark upon putting together that urban indigenous strategy. What would his advice be as a good way forward for us so that we could realize their housing needs in parallel with the housing needs he described in rural Quebec?

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

We're better than you at keeping promises.

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to acknowledge and pay respect to the member opposite for his strong and tireless advocacy on behalf of individuals, communities and treaty organizations of the indigenous people of his riding. We respect that and it helps us do our job better, even when it hurts sometimes to listen to the failures that all governments have delivered with regard to those communities.

In terms of the right to housing, let me assure the member that the UN special rapporteur on housing, Leilani Farha, and the minister and I are in constant conversation about how to get this right, to make sure that the right to housing is exactly what the UN expects of us and is consistent with the covenant we have signed. We will not stop working until we make sure we achieve that.

I have a very interesting question for the member opposite. New Democrats complain about our spending money, more money than they promised, and spending money well into the future, more money than they ever envisioned. When they put their platform together for the last election, their total commitment for this calendar year to all indigenous organizations across the entire country for critical infrastructure, which includes housing, water, schools, hospitals, everything, was $25 million. How can I take their tears seriously if $25 million was the extent of their imagination and response?

Would the member opposite not agree that $25 million is a pathetic gesture? Adding in one last piece of context, they were only going to do that if they could balance the budget.

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada housing benefit is an $8 billion program and it is spent through provinces. Provinces are designing how it applies to individuals. It is hard for us to say at this point exactly what that looks like because from province to province and territory it will be different.

However, what we said in the budget, the one the member referenced, was that this was the dollar amount that a person received and this was how many people would receive it. It was simply to try to put it in terms that individuals could understand, because $8 billion does not necessarily translate in someone's rent cheque very easily when trying to conceptualize that. Day by day, person by person it will be different. It will wrap around the person rather than simply be a one-size-fits-all program.

In terms of federal lands, it has been very frustrating. We received a list of federal lands when we asked the departments and on some of those lands there already was public housing. It just was not being used by the department. It was part of a 99-year lease to affordable housing providers in the city of Vancouver.

Getting the surplus piece down pat is absolutely essential. It is part of the $13 billion co-investment fund. We will be using federal lands, like we are in the city of Toronto on the waterfront, to deliver affordable housing to people as part of federal housing programs. It has been very successful.

The final piece of the puzzle to which the member references is housing affordability, which I think is the intent of her question.

As we see in the private market, where 80% of Canadians get their housing needs met, housing costs are being pushed beyond the reach of even semi-affluent Canadians. In the city of Toronto, the average one bedroom apartment rents for $2,300. It requires a $90,000 salary just to live in a one bedroom apartment. We need to focus in very clearly on this part of the market.

There are eligibility components to the program that allow for non-profit home ownership programs that are becoming more and more successful. We continue to work in this area, but it is a tricky area. If new purchasers are put into the market quickly, it will stimulate inflation. If we drop the price of housing quickly, Canadians will lose the equity they have in their homes. On that piece, there is work to be done.

[Business of Supply, September 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we do have the strategy right now. We did not wait for the housing strategy to be launched as a set piece over the next 10 years to double and triple our investments with the provinces, municipalities and indigenous groups immediately. In fact, close to $12 billion has been spent on new housing programs in the first two years of office. To put that into context, that is approximately $10 billion more than the NDP promised. It is real money for real housing. The NDP thinks we can build housing, I guess, with fairy dust.

The issue is this. On the right to housing, what the UN rapporteur talks about, and I have talked to her on a regular basis as we moved forward, is having a systemic approach that requires the government to provide a housing system that people have a right to access, that the system needs to be held accountable in a public way through Parliament and that the remedies have to force government into a position where we have to remedy those situations.

At no point have they talked about individual rights being assigned to Parliament. Those individual rights are covered through provincial law and provincial human rights codes and individual cases are managed under our system by the provinces. However, the national housing system we create needs to be held accountable. People have a right to expect it to meet their needs, but not necessarily deliver a specific house to a specific person in a specific way.