Mike Morrice

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Chair, I certainly hope that the housing accelerator fund matches the acquisition fund that ACORN and others are calling for.

I just want to thank the minister and team for—

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Chair, to increase the affordable housing supply, as one last idea for the minister, such advocates as ACORN Canada called for a dedicated acquisition fund to enable non-profits, co-ops and land trust organizations to buy at-risk rental buildings when they come on the market, preventing them from being bought by for-profit corporate landlords. Will the minister listen to these advocates and implement a dedicated acquisition fund?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Chair, just to develop the question, will the minister commit to a consistent definition of “affordable housing” across all the CMHC's programs?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Chair, the 2022 Auditor General report on chronic homelessness recently called for the definition of affordable housing to be consistent across CMHC's programs.

For example, in the national housing strategy, affordable rent is calculated as less than 30% of before-tax income. However, under the national housing co-investment fund, affordable rent is based on rent being less than 80% of market rent. What that means is that rental housing funds would not be going to the lowest income households.

Will the minister ensure that CMHC uses one consistent definition, and put an end to this use of the 80% of market rent definition?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Chair, another option that the minister could consider is the one untapped source of significant revenue to expand affordable housing across the country, which would be to remove corporate tax exemptions for real estate investment trusts.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates this could generate at least $285 million in government revenue over the next five years. This is what could be used to supplement funds for the affordable housing we need. Does the minister believe that removing REITs' tax exemption and directing these revenues to affordable housing would help to address Canada's current housing crisis?

[Business of Supply, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Chair, CMHC's mandate is to help Canadians in housing need by improving access to affordable housing.

I am concerned this is not currently the reality across the country, and I am not the only one. From her 2022 report on chronic homelessness, the Auditor General found “Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not know whether it was addressing the housing needs of and improving housing outcomes for vulnerable Canadians”.

This deeply concerns me because in my community, home prices and rents have skyrocketed, while homelessness has more than tripled since 2018. No wonder the national housing advocate recently shared that the national housing strategy is failing. I have several questions and suggestions for the Minister of Housing to push for CMHC, and the federal government, to get closer to meeting its mandate.

First, we know that real estate investment trusts, REITs, one of Canada's largest corporate landlords, contribute to worsening the housing crisis by buying up existing units and raising rents as they seek to maximize their profitability. Oddly, CMHC has recently loaned $60 million to Choice REIT, one of Canada's largest REITs, which made over $744 million in net profits last year. This is just one of four such agreements with REITs.

Will the minister ensure our national housing agency, with a mandate for improving housing affordability, stops loaning public funds to for-profit corporate landlords at a time when funds are being reduced for non-profit housing providers?

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay for his leadership in introducing a true right to a healthy environment through Bill C-219.

I think this is the third speech I have heard sharing an interest in introducing better legislation before we even get this bill passed. We know that the Conservative Party intends to support this legislation, but it does not even support a carbon tax as a starting point, the simplest environmental policy of any to begin with. What does he think this says about the quality of the legislation in front of us now?

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges would agree with me that the right to a healthy environment needs to be more than a bumper sticker. I wonder if he would share to what extent he is similarly disappointed that reasonable amendments from many parties, including from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which would have ensured that the right to a healthy environment is not just considered but protected, were not accepted?

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 15th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from our colleague from Timmins—James Bay about the implications of not doing more to get toxic substances out of our environment. These are substances such as asbestos, mercury and lead. It continues to be the case through the bill that pollution prevention plans would be optional. Our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands had put forward amendments that would have required pollution prevention plans.

At the current pace of voluntary pollution prevention plans, we will not have the toxic substances in schedule 1 all covered for another 100 years or so. How can the member support the bill as it stands with this voluntary approach?

[Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act, May 15th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North spoke about the committee process in his speech.

He might know that our colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, proposed 24 amendments at committee, none of which were supported. The member spoke about the right to a healthy environment. Several of those amendments would have enhanced that right.

Rather than simply considering the right to a healthy environment, one of the amendments would have ensured that the bill would protect the right to a healthy environment. It would have given the opportunity to ensure companies that did not adhere to that right would pay damages for doing so.

What does the hon. member have to say to this?