Blake Desjarlais

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech was a really important one, because I think it speaks to the incredible support of the House to demand important documents related to the financial accountability of this place. I think New Democrats are also deeply concerned with the issue of ensuring that there is consistency across government. When the Conservatives or the Liberals are in power, it seems that both parties care about financial accountability only when they are opposing or when they are trying to get additional political points.

I have documents here that relate to Ms. Verschuren, the political appointee whom the member is speaking about. She has donated to the Conservatives since 2017. In fact as early as 2013, she donated thousands and thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party.

Will the member reject donations from Ms. Verschuren, the person who was chair and who was found in conflict of interest? Will the Conservative Party stop donations from the person they are accusing of being a Liberal insider and who, as a matter of fact, is donating thousands of dollars to their party?

[Indigenous Affairs, October 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the honourable chiefs from the Prince Albert Grand Council are in Ottawa fighting for their people. In their communities, overcrowding and poor-quality housing are leading to mental, physical and social crisis. Tuberculosis, a disease that ran rampant during the residential school time, is on the rise again in indigenous communities. Children are dying.

Why has the government continued the decades-old Liberal and Conservative tradition of refusing to provide the needed funding to end this cycle?

[Privilege, October 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, it is a great day in this place when Conservatives are speaking to the government's fiscal accountability. I just wish they had done that when it came to their own government.

At the time of Stephen Harper, there were scandals galore and we saw the Conservatives shut down investigative proceedings into these issues all the time. The New Democrats, on the other hand, believe in financial accountability and in ensuring that we have strong trust in our public institutions. The Conservatives seem to only care about financial accountability if it means scoring political points.

If the Conservatives were to form government, would they keep the same appetite for fiscal accountability, unlike during the time that Harper was prime minister?

[Privilege, October 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her tremendous work at the public accounts committee, where this issue arose. I want to ask the member directly about this serious issue when it comes to the financial accountability of the government. There are two members who are neither Liberal nor Conservative at the committee: myself and the hon. member. We often deal with the financial accountability of the government when we see audits related to this work. We have a serious issue that was presented to us, so of course we voted together to ensure that we got accountability for the documents at our committee. This is important.

What I find troubling is that the Conservatives are only worried about fiscal accountability when it means scoring points for themselves. They are not worried about the financial accountability that comes from trying to learn from their own mistakes when they were in government.

Could the member please talk about the fact that there is a lot to be learned from the fact that previous governments in Canada, including former Conservative governments, have had serious issues of accountability and corruption? It is worth investigating those issues as a matter of learning for our committee as well.

Will the member speak about the importance of financial accountability, which all parties should think of as equally important, no matter who is in government?

[Committees of the House, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity to reply to some of the concerns related to the NDP's position on the Conservative housing program proposal.

In an ideal world, a group of concerned Canadians would come together and maybe access the 100% GST tax break, but the reality is, if they are going to be selling public lands, that goes to the group that is the highest bidder. Think of a real estate investment trust that is buying up land. The latest report suggests that 20% of all land is owned by real estate investment trusts. The problem lies in the market. Relying on the market to be the solution or incentive for why people should build homes on land they cannot afford is a silly proposition.

What I am suggesting is that a more realistic approach to the Conservative plan would allow the most wealthy among us, the billionaires, to outbid their neighbour for something they want to buy. To top it all off, the Conservative plan would give them, they just mentioned it, a 100% GST tax break. Therefore, the GST tax break would go to the billionaire who buys the public land, so the people are out of public land where they can build an affordable unit and are out the opportunity to collect revenue for real programs and services. That is why we are opposed to it.

Would the member comment on the importance of investing in social housing that is not on the market to avoid the program the Conservatives' bill would propose? Our solution to build affordable housing on public lands would actually put people in homes. Does he support it?

[Committees of the House, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we share a lot in common in terms of the problem. The problem is clear: Whether it is in British Columbia, in Alberta or here in Ontario, Canadians cannot keep up with the cost of their mortgage or their rent.

However, we differ in terms of the solution. I would agree with the member that the Liberals have spent a lot of money, but they have spent that money giving it out to large corporations like real estate investment trusts and other groups that build for-profit homes and sell those homes for profit. Any public spending should go to public good. In this case, the Liberals' housing strategy is public money for private good.

The Conservatives' solution is more of the same as the Liberals' approach. Rather than investing, however, we would still require municipalities or real estate investment trusts to build the homes that people could afford, but they are not going to do it. Their objective is purely profit.

How can the member square the circle that selling off public land to rich developers is in any way different from giving those same developers a boatload of money or a boatload of public land? The result is the same: Canadians have no homes. We need to have the courage to actually speak about non-profit and social housing. Could the member speak to those two points?

[Committees of the House, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my heart is with those in the member's community who are experiencing homelessness. It is a real tragedy. If we could get unanimous support for the solutions that are offered to build very desperately needed social housing, perhaps we would be able to solve this crisis.

The reality of the rental construction program is that we have a terrible dichotomy between the Liberals, who do not want to do enough, and the Conservatives, who want to get more out of the business by cutting programs that many people rely on. We are stuck in this difficult situation.

We often hear from our constituents that this is an emergency and that we must invest what we can. The rental construction program could have been better. For example, imagine if we required, something the New Democrats fought for, that a portion of rental units had to be below the market rate. There are also additional items that relate to the ownership framework. After 10 years, one could dispose of those assets, transform those assets or transfer those assets to provincial or municipal governments or non-profit agencies.

The solution to the problem with the rental construction program is an acquisition fund. Imagine if we had an acquisition fund of $5 billion that would allow non-profits to buy rental units at a reduced cost because those rental units are subsidized. For example, if Boyle Street Community Services in Edmonton had a chance to buy them, it would—

[Committees of the House, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby, who is an incredible advocate for not only his community but all Canadians in the fight for housing for all.

I want to speak to the imagination of many Canadians, including me. If these programs had not been gutted, we can imagine, for example, that the nearly 800,000 units that were sold off under the Harper government would still be here. They would have families in them. They would have people who can contribute to our economy rather than being on the streets.

Let us go back even further. If in 1993 Paul Martin had not cancelled the national housing strategy, largely getting Canada out of the business of supporting those who do not have homes, we would have nearly $2 billion in revenue today, maybe even more, to put toward social housing, co-op housing and transition housing. We would not have seen the problem get worse, and we could have eliminated the problem by now. What an incredible feat that would have been.

However, there is still hope. There is still a chance to get Canada back on track, to utilize the memory of many Canadians toward the great investments we have made for those who do not have homes. We can reinvigorate our economy. We can reinvigorate the imaginations of Canadians. We can rebuild optimism in our country if we just act, if we have a government that takes seriously the housing situation, not just off-loading the problem to rich developers, as the Conservatives would do, and not ignoring programs, as the Liberals do. A New Democratic government would truly build affordable homes by ensuring we build affordable units, co-op units and non-market homes, and we would end this crisis.

[Committees of the House, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-356.

My biggest problem with Bill C-356, which, as I mentioned in my speech, is an accelerator to the housing crisis that the bill codifies, is using public land that taxpayers have owned collectively for generations and that we have all benefited from given the public good it has provided. Those pieces of land should be used to build non-market homes that people can live in if they cannot afford a market home.

When it comes to housing, the free market has access to almost a majority of the land in municipalities across the country. We are saying that it is important to have a social safety net that provides housing for those who cannot afford it, whether it is because they have lost a job, are a single parent or have suffered tough economic times that have resulted in lower income. They should not have to be homeless just because they lost their job. They should not have to be homeless just because certain things outside of their control were made a reality.

That is why it is so important to have social housing, co-op housing and non-market homes on that land. Then those who cannot afford it can get a roof over their head and have an opportunity to get back on their feet and continue to contribute to our society and economy.

I voted against this bill because it would have given access to that land to rich developers, real estate investment trusts and billionaires, and they would have turned it into mansions to sell for profit.

[Committees of the House, October 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comment in relation to the public accounts committee report on chronic homelessness. For all of our benefit, it would be important for me to cite some of the important recommendations I found within the report, namely four of them.

The first recommendation with which I agree is that Infrastructure Canada must provide a report outlining several things, including estimates on emergency shelter use, its research plan and timelines. These are incredible data points. If we want to see whether investments toward targeted relief programs are working, we need to know the results of those programs. This is one thing that the Auditor General makes clear is important to her. Second, another report must be provided by Infrastructure Canada showing how many communities have implemented coordinated access for housing support services. Third, CMHC must provide a report outlining the housing needs of vulnerable groups and evidence that these groups are receiving housing assistance. Finally, a joint report must be provided by CMHC and Infrastructure Canada indicating what measures are being taken to improve the coordination between federal departments and homelessness agencies.