Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 79 of 79
View Nelly Shin Profile
CPC (BC)
View Nelly Shin Profile
2021-06-18 11:56 [p.8775]
Madam Speaker, StatsCan released a new housing price index for May. New home prices have increased 11.3% year over year, and this is the largest increase since November 2006. Prices for lumber and other products increased 17.9% from the previous month. It has more than doubled year over year.
Can the Prime Minister explain why he has implemented such incredibly poor economic policies leading to increased inflation and higher home prices, effectively crushing the dreams of young Canadian families looking to buy their first home?
View Adam Vaughan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Adam Vaughan Profile
2021-06-18 11:57 [p.8775]
Madam Speaker, the reality is that our government is the first government in a generation to address the housing crisis in this country, not only from the perspective of affordable housing, but also of housing affordability. The investments we have made in the national housing strategy, now $72 billion, include supports to broaden the supports to the rental housing market being built in this country, as well as creating clear access and bridges to home ownership if that is the choice Canadians make.
Inflation is presenting a serious challenge. We are working to make sure we achieve on our housing goals because Canadians expect us to deliver on the right to housing. They also expect us to deliver a budget that supports this. Why did the Conservatives opposed all these changes?
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-06-18 11:57 [p.8775]
Madam Speaker, last week, Conservatives brought forward a motion that called on the government to address Canada’s housing affordability crisis. We laid out common sense solutions to help Canadians achieve their dreams of home ownership, but the Liberals voted against it. Today, Stats Canada is reporting the largest increase in new home prices in 15 years. Increasing inflation and out-of-control Liberal deficits are only exacerbating the situation.
Why are the Liberals pushing home ownership further out of reach for young Canadians?
View Adam Vaughan Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Adam Vaughan Profile
2021-06-18 11:58 [p.8775]
Madam Speaker, I have to say that listening to the Conservatives talk about housing is really quite astonishing considering they did not do it the entire time they were in office.
The measures we are taking to create and sustain housing affordability are critically important to Canadians, but the pamphlet, or postcard, they produced last week as a budget proposal, which included, for example, the proposal to collapse the entire national housing strategy overnight, makes no sense whatsoever.
When they proposed to temporarily suspend ownership opportunities they think are too generous for foreign offshore owners, they did not even put a time limit on that. Is it a day, a month or a week? It was a pamphlet with slogans. I live in a province that is governed by a Conservative government that uses slogans. It does not work. We need real policies and—
View Michael Cooper Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michael Cooper Profile
2021-06-18 15:27 [p.8807]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.
The Liberals, after failing to deliver a budget for two years, finally got around to delivering one a few months ago. I have to say that the budget delivers. The only problem is that it delivers in all the wrong ways. The Liberals have delivered a historic deficit of $354 billion, the largest deficit in Canadian history, and the Liberals have delivered a mountain of debt, with the national debt projected to reach $1.4 trillion by the end of this year.
To put that staggering figure in some context, the Liberals have managed to nearly double the national debt in the span of less than two years. This Liberal budget delivers yet another near historic deficit for this year of $154.7 billion, with deficit after deficit projected year after year, and no plan whatsoever to see a return to a balanced budget.
The members of the government say, as one of the excuses that they peddle for the massive deficits and massive debt, that it is all about COVID, and that COVID has necessitated all of the spending, except that simply is not true. Indeed, when one looks at program spending for 2021-22 of $475.6 billion, only a little more than 10% of that is attributable to COVID. Speaking of $475.6 billion in program spending, that represents a 40.5% increase in spending from 2019-20 levels. That is right. It is a 40.5% increase in spending in two years under these Liberals.
In the face of this massive, reckless spending, to paraphrase the great late former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, one could accuse the government of spending like drunken sailors. However, as President Reagan would say that at least the drunken sailors were spending their own money. The same cannot be said for the government. Whose money are the Liberals spending? It turns out that a lot of what they are doing is printing money.
In an unprecedented manner, the Bank of Canada is buying the government's debt. There was a $354-billion deficit last year. Of that, the Bank of Canada bought over $300 billion, or over 80%. We have seen, in terms of the supply of money, an increase of some 20% over this past year alone. That represents an increase in the supply of money that we have not seen in this country since 1974, nearly 50 years ago.
There is a price to be paid for all of this borrowing and all of the spending, and we hear the excuses from the government. The Liberals' justification is to say that now is a better time than ever to borrow and spend because interest rates are low.
Interest rates will not always be low, and it must be said that the government does not entirely have control of interest rates. Market forces also help determine what interest rates will be. Putting that aside, there is a cost being borne by everyday, middle-class Canadians in inflation.
Indeed, the consumer price index for April saw an increase of 3.4%. That was its highest recording since September 2011. It was a 10-year record in the consumer price index, and it was broken one month later when it rose by 3.6%. That has hit Canadians hard in the wallet.
We have seen the costs of just about everything go up. Homeowners' replacement costs increased 11.3% from last year, representing the largest annual increase since 1987. Housing prices have skyrocketed 42% in the span of one year. We have seen gasoline prices increase by about 50% from last year.
Regarding essentials such as groceries, the Canada Food Price Report projects that the average family of four will pay $695 more in groceries this year compared with last year. That represents the largest projected increase in the cost of groceries since the report was first published, more than 10 years ago.
I know that for our silver-spoon Prime Minister and other Liberal elites, $695 is chump change. It means nothing to them. For everyday Canadians, at a time when 53% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency, $695 can make the difference between putting food on the table and being able to stay in their homes.
For this budget, we have heard the finance minister talk so much about stimulus. By the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was totally miscalibrated. For all the talk about recovery, I say where are the jobs? There were 200,000 jobs lost in April and 68,000 jobs lost in May. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, and the sixth-highest unemployment rate out of 37 countries in the OECD.
For a government that has spent so much, it has failed to deliver as Canadians fall farther and farther behind. This is a failed budget from a failed Liberal government.
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2021-06-16 14:23 [p.8522]
Mr. Speaker, inflation is at a 10-year high. The cost of housing is up nearly 40%. This is quickly turning into an economic crisis for Canada's working poor and families trying to buy their first homes. The working poor and first-time homebuyers cannot afford more of the same economic incompetence.
Can the government guarantee that housing prices will stabilize and start going down by the end of this summer?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what poses the single greatest threat to Canada's economic recovery today: Conservative partisan games. Canadians need the wage subsidy, the rent subsidy and income support to be extended until the end of September. Our government wants to do that, but the Conservatives' partisan delaying tactics are stopping us from passing the budget and that irresponsible behaviour threatens the well-being of every single Canadian.
View Dean Allison Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise virtually in the House today to speak to such an important topic, a topic that is of interest to all Canadians: jobs and the economy.
First, I would like to point out that here we go again with another omnibus bill by the Liberals. Let me remind the Liberals what their leader, the Prime Minister, said about omnibus legislation: “I wouldn't use them, period.” It is not surprising they are breaking yet another one of their promises. After all, that is the rule for the Liberal government, not the exception. Canadians are tired of their broken promises and poor performance, especially when it comes to creating jobs and growing our economy. Their tenure in the past six years has been a massive economic letdown.
They will try to respond with well-crafted talking points after I am done with my speech, I am sure of that. I must admit that they are pretty good at the rhetoric. In fact, they are probably the best at it. Unfortunately for them, Canadians see what Conservatives see: The Liberals' rhetoric is just that, words, rarely any actions. The same is also true of their record on the economy. The government's philosophy of growing the economy and creating jobs is by doing everything it can to get in the way.
Unemployed Canadians were hoping that the government would put forward a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities. These families are going to feel let down by this budget. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed, hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy, are also going to feel let down. Families that cannot afford more taxes and are struggling to save more money for their children's education or to buy a home are going to feel let down by this legislation.
Speaking of buying a home, it is becoming more and more out of reach for far too many Canadians. The cost of housing continues to rise, making it nearly impossible for first-time homebuyers to enter the market. That is why last week Conservatives demanded that the Prime Minister take immediate action to address the housing crisis in Canada. It does not seem like the Liberals are taking it seriously, however. In fact, they voted against addressing the growing housing affordability crisis.
On a larger scale, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that a significant amount of Liberal spending in the budget will not stimulate jobs or create economic growth, as is always the case with that side of the House. It is very clear that the Prime Minister's stimulus fund was more about spending on Liberal partisan priorities than anything else. The Prime Minister will add more to our national debt than all previous prime ministers combined.
What has the Prime Minister achieved with all this spending? For one, Canada has consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7 and a record economic decline. In fact, the Liberal government has spent more and delivered less than any other G7 country. This bears repeating, considering the Liberals come up with all sorts of talking points on excuses for their failures. The government and the Prime Minister have spent unprecedented amounts of money, more than all previous Canadian governments combined. The Edmonton Sun writes, “Canadian babies born on federal budget day 2021 had more than $28,000 of debt the moment they open their eyes.” That is each Canadian's share of the federal government's $1-trillion debt, and it is only going to go up.
The Liberal government has delivered less than any other G7 country and is responsible for one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7, along with a record economic decline. Last week, Statistics Canada reported that Canada's unemployment rate climbed to 8.2%. It also reported that 68,000 jobs were lost in the month of May alone. We lost 68,000 jobs while our American cousins added 559,000 jobs. What is more, businesses in the U.S. are hiring at such speed that they cannot find enough workers to fill vacant positions.
Yes, it is also important to keep things in perspective. I cannot say this enough. We support getting help to those who have been hit hard by the pandemic, and to the government's credit, programs rolled out and have helped many people. Conservatives were there with the government, working together to extend emergency support programs during the crisis. We have worked tirelessly to make these programs more effective, and I think my hon. colleagues across the aisle would agree.
We are also fully aware that the jobs lost in May were, in large part, due to provincial restrictions put in place as a result of the third wave of the pandemic. That is a fact, but why did the third wave come with such ferocity, forcing provincial governments to implement yet another lockdown? Why did Sean, a small business owner in my riding, in business for the past 30 years, have to take on $160,000 in additional debt just to stay afloat, and that is after he spent his life savings?
The answer is the government's delays in procuring vaccines, the government's delays in closing the border and the government's ineffective rapid-testing strategy. Why did the travel and tourism industry and so many other sectors have to suffer so badly and for so long? By the way, many of those businesses are not coming back. The answer, once again, is the government's delays in procuring vaccines, its delays in closing the border and its ineffective rapid-testing strategy.
I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the travel and tourism industry has been nearly crushed. It is terrible, what has happened to those businesses. I have heard many of the sector's concerns in the tourism recovery caucus, headed by my colleagues from Niagara Falls and Banff—Airdrie. My two colleagues have done an incredible job staying connected to stakeholders, listening to industry challenges and taking action where they can. These are two great members of Parliament, and I commend them on their efforts, as we all try to deal with the fallout of this pandemic in its hardest-hit areas.
Back to my question, why are so many small businesses hurting to this extent at this time? The answer is simple. For the most part, they were not allowed to stay open, because of the government's and the Prime Minister's failures to act on vaccines, the border and rapid testing. Furthermore, this is what the National Post had to say about the Liberal government's pandemic response: “The Liberals' most galling pandemic failure—they couldn't even master basic inventory control”. That is a pretty accurate statement.
Last year, the Prime Minister was denied vaccines by the Chinese communist regime, and, most importantly, he did not sign contracts with other companies until it was too late. That is a classic example of putting all eggs in one basket. In this situation, the Prime Minister relied on a Chinese-based company, which basically means that he relied on the Chinese communist regime. What could possibly go wrong? In doing so, he neglected other companies working on the vaccine, which delayed procuring vaccines from them.
This failure to act is why we are seeing many countries, including our neighbours to the south, ahead of us by at least three months in their vaccination efforts and reopening plans. I think we have all seen the packed sports events on TV in many U.S. cities, but here in Canada we are still on lockdowns.
It is important to mention that Conservatives were first to call for strong and clear border measures at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, the Liberals dragged their heels, going as far as to say that border control measures do not work, while calling us racist for suggesting that border measures are necessary to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
We also fought hard to get Canadians better tools to stop the spread of COVID-19, like vaccines, therapeutics, rapid tests and better data. Those tools now exist; however, the government has not come up with a comprehensive and effective plan to use them to safely lift the restrictions. The government loves to blame provincial premiers, but let us face it, the Liberals do not provide the necessary tools for the premiers to defend their provinces properly against the virus. They left premiers scrambling. Without the responses, the resources or proper action by the federal government, the premiers implemented the only tool they thought would work: lockdowns.
At this time, as we hopefully see the last of this pandemic, the government needs to start thinking of ways to secure the future of Canadians. This could be done by creating jobs, introducing policies that result in better wages, and introducing policies that help small businesses, especially now when so many are struggling, to get back on their feet.
In conclusion, this is not a growth budget. It fails to put forward a plan to encourage Canada's long-term prosperity and leaves millions of Canadians behind. We were very clear that we wanted to see a plan to return to normal that would safely reopen the economy and get Canadians back to work, and that is not what this legislation would do. We were also looking for a plan to create jobs and boost economic growth. Once again, that is not what this legislation would do. For those reasons, I cannot support it.
I would also like to say, to those watching at home, that Canada's Conservatives got us out of the last recession. We can, and we will, do it again. We are ready, we have a plan and we will get it done.
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2021-06-15 14:19 [p.8462]
Mr. Speaker, it is not just the job market that is becoming unstable. Yesterday The Globe and Mail reported that a private investor purchased hundreds of Toronto homes just to turn a quick profit. It is no wonder housing prices are up nearly 40% this year. First-time homebuyers literally cannot afford more of the same from the government.
Does the Prime Minister really expect first-time homebuyers to compete with billionaire investors?
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
2021-06-15 14:20 [p.8462]
Mr. Speaker, our government introduced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy. As part of that strategy, we introduced the first-time home buyer incentive, which will help families achieve the dream of home ownership by lowering monthly mortgage payments without increasing down payments. We recently also expanded the first-time home buyer incentive to enhance eligibility in Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria by raising the qualifying income threshold to $150,000.
Maybe the leader of the official opposition can do something to support our budget, which helps first-time homebuyers.
View Erin O'Toole Profile
CPC (ON)
View Erin O'Toole Profile
2021-06-15 14:21 [p.8463]
Mr. Speaker, the minister admits it is his plan that is failing, and it is worse. According to Bloomberg, Canada is in danger of experiencing a housing market crash similar to the 2008 financial crisis. Unlike the Liberals and the minister, the Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure Canada's future, including for first-time homebuyers.
Can the Prime Minister guarantee Canadians that housing prices will stabilize and ultimately decrease before the end of the summer?
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
2021-06-15 14:21 [p.8463]
Mr. Speaker, our record speaks for itself. We are the only party that has taken concrete action to create more affordable housing. We brought in the national housing strategy, now worth more than $70 billion. We brought in the first-time home buyer incentive. We brought in the Canada housing benefits. We increased supports for the rental construction financing initiative. On every single one of these measures, the Conservatives voted against them. Not only did they do nothing while they were in government, but they continue to do nothing in opposition. The leader of the official opposition should turn around and help Canadians by supporting this budget.
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
2021-06-15 15:03 [p.8470]
Mr. Speaker, home prices have risen to an all-time high. While the minister is patting himself on the back, young Canadians and families are simply giving up the Canadian dream of owning a home due to historic price increases of almost 30% since last year.
Can the minister tell us, if his housing plan is truly perfect, why Canadians across the country are giving up on owning homes?
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
2021-06-15 15:03 [p.8471]
Mr. Speaker, our national housing strategy is investing in the first-time home buyer incentive, which is a real help for first-time homebuyers.
What did the Conservatives do when they were in office? All they could offer first-time homebuyers was a $750 credit. What a joke.
The national housing strategy is working. Since coming into office, we have invested over $27.4 billion in affordable housing. In Edmonton, the city the hon. member comes from, we recently announced $46.5 million through the rental construction financing initiative to build over 250 rental units. This is a national housing strategy that is working even in Edmonton.
View Alice Wong Profile
CPC (BC)
View Alice Wong Profile
2021-06-11 13:21 [p.8301]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the budget implementation bill and give some thoughts about the budget. The document itself, as tabled by the Minister of Finance, was 725 pages long. It is the largest budget document in federal history. Unfortunately, quantity does not necessarily mean quality.
In terms of quantity, we have record spending and deficits. This fiscal year and the last fiscal year are ranked one and two, and both contain the largest amount of spending and the largest deficits in recorded Canadian history. It is not even close to the third-highest deficit. The current deficit that will have to be paid by Canadians will total over half a trillion dollars. That is just for the last two years. There is surely more to come. If we write on a piece of paper the number 5 followed by 11 zeros, that is nearly the amount of accumulated deficit incurred since Confederation. We are far from where we were when the Prime Minister promised “a modest short-term deficit” six years ago.
Canadians will be paying for this spending for decades. Since all of the spending comes from borrowed money, we will also be paying interest. We are not paying off the debt today, but its effects will drag on our economy like an anchor weighing down a swimmer in the ocean.
Right now, interest rates are being held low. The Bank of Canada is purchasing government debt off the open market, which puts downward pressure on interest rates. This allows the government to borrow and spend, but this is impacting the lives of everyday people in my riding of Richmond Centre.
Consequently, the price of everything is increasing. Indeed, with easy credit due to low interest rates, the prices of real estate have skyrocketed. Young constituents of mine cannot afford a place to live, while older folks are sitting on a windfall. Rents are getting higher because landlords must afford to finance and pay back higher and higher levels of debt. Unaffordability of places to live is one of the consequences of huge government deficits.
Higher prices are also seen in everything else, ranging from food to gasoline, services, and the list goes on. Disruptions in supply chains due to COVID-19 are not helping. Everybody at street level can see this happening. Prices were bound to rise, but the government's fiscal policy is making things a lot worse than they should be.
I do concede the point that last year in March, we knew a lot less about COVID-19 than we do today. Governments around the world reacted in different manners, but most were consistent in providing emergency supports to the population while we figured things out.
Beyond that, there was no excuse for what we have seen out of the government over the past half-year or so. The Liberal government has been very slow to bring us back on the path to recovery. Nothing illustrates this more than the snail pace of COVID-19 vaccinations that we have seen. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars were wasted in this initial effort.
We should be a first-world nation with first-world results, but instead the Liberal government has been lagging badly. Most Canadians at this point, including myself, are in the category of receiving a partial vaccination. Compared to our fully vaccinated friends down south in the U.S. and compared to countries like Israel, we have underperformed. This will cost us, and we see it in the budget today.
We see plenty of media out there showing obvious evidence that things are heading back to normal in places outside of Canada. People are attending sporting events, socializing and exercising without having to wear masks. Indeed, we are seeing hints of that occurring today from our provincial governments. However, people remember the initial promise of the federal Liberals when they said it would take two weeks to flatten the curve, which did not turn out as expected at all.
With this uncertainty, why would anybody want to make preparations for a recovery that may or may not occur? The rug has already been pulled from the floors of the restaurant industry in British Columbia, twice, with incredibly short notice.
My point is that the government's failed response to the COVID-19 vaccinations has directly resulted in the necessity of additional emergency spending support. Tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars would not have had to be spent had we seen one the leaders rather than a laggard in our COVID-19 response.
However, the current Liberal government has made so many missteps that will slow down this road map. The slowness of our government's COVID response has also caused distortion in the labour market. I speak to businesses that cannot find employees because government benefits are competing with them, competing with businesses that want to hire. Going back to my original point about costs, it means the cost of labour is rising and this results in increased prices for everything. The volatile economic climate caused by the government's missteps is stalling our recovery.
At least before COVID-19, Richmond was home to a vibrant tourism sector. Today, we have travel centres and tourism-sensitive areas of the economy that are completely shut down. We need to create an environment that would get this sector back to where it was. We support tourism, but not virtualism. This is what I have been telling people here in Richmond.
While nearly every industry from coast to coast to coast has felt the negative effects of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the hospitality and tourism industries have been especially hard hit, from international border closures, to provincial border regulations and stay-at-home orders, the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Canadians, either directly the in tourism hospitality industry or in an adjacent field, have been hammered by COVID-19.
I have heard from countless constituents who work for airlines, the travel infrastructure, hospitality and in the tourism industry and they have all told me the same thing: “we need help”.
I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my colleagues from Niagara Falls as well as Durham for their efforts in bringing the voices of those in the tourism industry to parliamentarians and to this place to be heard, and indeed, they were heard.
Richmond Centre is also home to the YVR airport and to many great aerospace firms that operate and maintain our airlines, airplanes and helicopters. The budget funding needs to be implemented in conjunction with an aerospace strategy that allows us to compete in the global marketplace.
The final area I want to touch on is one which is extremely close to my heart. For a number of years, I was very fortunate to be able to serve not just Richmond, but Canadians from coast to coast—
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, for many families in my riding, the dream of home ownership is just that: a dream. The Liberals' answer is the first-time home buyers' incentive, but it has been a failure and few Canadians are using it. The worst part is the latest idea to raise the program's max home price to $722,000. This is completely tone deaf, and will obviously change nothing for my community.
Do the Liberals know how much the average home in South Surrey and White Rock costs?
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ahmed Hussen Profile
2021-06-10 14:50 [p.8226]
Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot in the national housing strategy to ensure that Canadians are assisted with their housing needs. We introduced the first-time home buyers' incentive, which will help families achieve the dream of home ownership. The Conservatives have never been leaders in affordable housing solutions for Canadians.
They do not support the national housing strategy, which is working. It is like choosing to swim across a crocodile-infested river because one does not want to use the bridge out of fear that the bridge will fall down, even though the bridge is working, in this case the national housing strategy. It does not make sense, and Canadians see right through that.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
moved:
That, given that,
(i) the cost of housing continues to rise out of reach of Canadians,
(ii) current government policy has failed to provide sufficient housing supply,
the House call on the government to:
(a) examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market;
(b) replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers;
(c) strengthen law enforcement tools to halt money laundering;
(d) implement tax incentives focused on increasing the supply of purpose-built market rental housing units; and
(e) overhaul its housing policy to substantively increase housing supply.
He said: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
In the Building the Future Together report, Canadians told the government that the most important outcome from the national housing strategy would be “an increase in the supply of housing that they can afford and that meets their needs.”
At a time when many expected the cost of real estate to drop, prices skyrocketed to stratospheric levels, leaving young Canadians, new immigrants and those seeking to enter the housing market with a general feeling of hopelessness as their dream of home ownership slipped away.
I table this motion today because housing is farther out of reach than ever before, and we find ourselves in an affordability crisis across the housing continuum. I will be using my time to speak to each aspect of the motion and to address the integrity measures, demand policies and supply deficit in our housing system. This crisis is multi-faceted and there are no easy solutions, but the status quo is not okay.
My first point addresses Canada's foreign buyer issue. We need to calmly, openly and comprehensively talk about the very real and at times negative role foreign buyers play in Canada's residential real estate markets. We know the actions of foreign speculators and investors are increasing home prices for regular Canadians.
Dr. Josh Gordon's report, “Reconnecting the Housing Market to the Labour Market: Foreign Ownership and Housing Affordability in Urban Canada”, has found that the decoupling of housing prices from local incomes can occur, and arguably is occurring in Vancouver and Toronto especially, when there is substantial foreign ownership in the market. This is defined as “the use of untaxed foreign income and wealth for housing purchases”.
While he makes good use of the data at hand, in my conversations with Dr. Gordon it became clear that the available data is insufficient. CMHC, StatsCan, and provinces and territories need to be collecting better data for this reason. For instance, a CMHC study found that in 2016-17, one in five new Vancouver condos was owned by non-residents, but we need more current and more comprehensive data. Housing in Canada must be for Canadians, first and foremost.
If we do not have the data, we cannot achieve this objective. The government's own parliamentary secretary for housing publicly admits that our system works better for foreign investors than for Canadians trying to find homes. However, the government's solution is a proposed 1% annual tax. It has not even begun consultations on this yet, and the exemptions are already longer than my arm.
Will the government commit to a meaningful disincentive to foreign buying of Canadian real estate? Why not a 10% tax? Better yet, the government should do what this motion calls for and freeze the flow of foreign money into our residential real estate sector until the supply deficit has been met and Canadians can afford homes in their own country.
People are losing faith in the institutions that are supposed to protect their interests. When the pandemic ends, and before foreign investors come back to our markets in force, we need to know who is purchasing homes and the sources of the funds they are using. UBC Professor Paul Kershaw of Generation Squeeze has suggested harnessing foreign investment for the types of housing Canada needs, such as co-operatives and affordable purpose-built rentals.
Point number two addresses first-time home buyers. We must ensure that there is a pathway for hard-working Canadians to achieve home ownership, but this dream is quickly moving out of reach for the middle class. Home ownership should not be based on being born to wealthy parents. It should be based on hard work and a fair system.
Habitat for Humanity recently shared that “home ownership matters for every social determinant of health”. Home ownership lifts families and helps them build bright futures for themselves.
The Liberal government, unfortunately, is absent on this issue. Its first-time homebuyer incentive program is a failure. Its original objective was to help 200,000 Canadians over three years. We are now in year two, and it has helped approximately 10,600 families. How on Earth can the government consider this program successful?
Why does it not look at extending amortization periods and mortgage terms to reduce monthly payments and provide more security for both lenders and borrowers, or help young families save for down payments through tax incentives?
What about adjusting mortgage qualification criteria in favour of first-time home buyers rather than investors, or expanding some of the initiatives from the private sector, including new shared equity programs?
The third point is money laundering in Canada. Yet another failure of Canada is our inability to address money laundering. The reason terms like the “Vancouver model” and “snow-washing” exist is because our nation is a global case study in how not to stop money laundering. Not only are our laws and regulations ineffective, but we poorly enforce the ones we have. Report after report shows that Canada largely fails to successfully convict money launderers. Almost three-quarters of people accused go free, a 2019 Global News investigation found. The Toronto Star found that 86% of charges laid for laundering the proceeds of crime were withdrawn or stayed. B.C.'s Attorney General shockingly found years ago that Ottawa had assigned precisely zero RCMP officers to fight money laundering in B.C. That only changed after January of this year.
At the finance committee, Transparency International highlighted that the 2016 release of the Panama papers showcased Canada's global reputation as a desirable place for dirty cash. Five years later it found that nothing had changed.
The government needs to implement recommendations from the numerous experts who have explored this issue. These include Peter German's “Dirty Money” reports parts 1 and 2, the Expert Panel on Combatting Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate and the ongoing Cullen commission of inquiry into money laundering in B.C.
The fourth point is purpose-built rentals. Purpose-built rental construction has not kept pace with demand. Quite simply, there are no incentives for developers to build rental units in Canada and this needs to change. Much of Canada's current rental housing stock was built in the 1970s and 1980s through the multiple unit residential building program, or MURB. It was not a grant or a loan program, but a tax incentive program that unlocked the private capital of Canadians and directed it to rental housing. According to the Library of Parliament, MURB is estimated to have led to the construction of 195,000 units of rental housing at the lowest estimate. Studies have indicated that number could be as high as 344,000 units. It did all of this for the comparably low cost of $1.8 billion in forgone revenue, and that is in today's dollars.
The government is spending $70 billion on the national housing strategy, including provincial money, for 125,000 units. At some level, the federal Liberals know this is the way to go, hence the rental construction financing initiative, but this still ties developers to the federal bureaucratic process, which is slow. The Rental Construction Financing Initiative, RCFI, has quietly become the largest single funding envelope of the national housing strategy. Now at $25.75 billion, it promises to deliver 71,000 units of housing in approximately 10 years. This is not a great comparison with MURB's 195,000 units for $2 billion.
CMHC's new CEO, Romy Bowers, shared with the HUMA committee that the private sector is the only way we will meet Canada's housing needs. I agree. There are additional tools that could unshackle contractors as well. For instance, why not waive the GST for the construction of purpose-built market rental housing, or allow those with aging rental stock to defer the capital gain when selling provided the money is reinvested in rental housing? Increasing the nationwide stock of purpose-built market rental units serves to better everyone along the housing continuum. Canadians have never had more disposable income. Why not direct that to a social policy that could do some good?
The fifth point is increasing supply. We know Canada has a housing supply shortage. According to a recent Scotiabank report, Canada has the lowest number of housing units per 1,000 residents of any G7 country. Experts have been saying this for years, and COVID illustrated it better than anything else. Now many but not all of the policy levers to increase housing supply rest with provincial and municipal governments. Yes, red tape at these levels is a problem, but the federal government should incent the removal of restrictive zoning and NIMBYist bylaws by making any infrastructure investment conditional on their removal. Of course, any infrastructure funds must be accounted for transparently, unlike the current government's haphazard approach condemned by the Auditor General in report 9—
View Luc Berthold Profile
CPC (QC)
View Luc Berthold Profile
2021-06-08 11:20 [p.8075]
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to the motion moved today by my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
Housing is of fundamental importance to Canadians across the country. Most Canadians dream of having a house, a residence, a home, a place of their very own. Housing is also an essential need for many others who unfortunately do not have access to housing or the ability to buy a home. In other words, as the motion says, the cost of housing has increased so much that buying a house is quite simply not an option for many Canadian families right now, and especially young families. The cost of housing continues to rise as we speak. To sum up the situation we are currently facing, Canada's housing market is out of control.
Over the past two years, total housing sales in Canada increased by 75%, compared to the United States, where home prices increased by just 13%. In the past year, the average house price increased by 32%. That increase is nearly twice as high as the increase in the United States.
Available data from Canadian Real Estate Association statistics indicate that, in Quebec, housing prices have increased significantly since the start of the pandemic. In April 2020, the average cost of a house in Quebec was just under $340,000. By April 2021, the average cost of a house had climbed to nearly $450,000. That is a 32.6% increase.
Here is a brief overview of what has been happening in Quebec's regions. According to the Quebec Professional Association of Real Estate Brokers, in the first quarter of 2020, single-family home prices rose by 32% in Gatineau and 29% in Montreal. In Quebec City, prices went up by 15%; in Saguenay, 24%; in Sherbrooke, 32%; and in Trois-Rivières, 21%. The market is absolutely crazy. That is not my opinion. That is what Michel Girard said in his analysis of the real estate market, an article entitled “Un marché immobilier fou raide”, published on April 3.
Over the last year, residential construction has increased by 22%, despite the rising cost of materials, and has brought the share of housing in Canada's GDP to 9.3%. That is a record.
What are the Liberals doing about this unacceptable situation? Do they even realize the extent of the crisis?
The ministers, of course, have their canned answers and their talking points that they can repeat ad nauseam today, but they are once again unable to present a credible plan to fix the problem.
In May, the Bank of Canada reported that household debt and market instability had increased over the last year, as we have just seen. On the subject, the Bank of Canada said, “The vulnerability associated with elevated household indebtedness is significant and has increased over the past year.” It also said, “If house prices and household incomes were to fall in the future because of a shock to the economy, some households could need to cut back on spending. This would slow the economy and possibly put stress on the financial system.”
The Governor of the Bank of Canada pointed out six vulnerabilities that could lead to the collapse of Canada's financial networks if they were affected by a severe external shock, such as a recession. Two of the six vulnerabilities identified were related to housing. The first is the high level of debt that Canadians have been forced to take on in order to buy a house and the second is the ever-increasing cost of housing and accommodations.
Bank of Canada researchers believe that households whose mortgages represent over 450% of their income are particularly vulnerable to bankruptcy. There are already very telling figures with regard to bankruptcy and financial hardship. According to Government of Quebec real estate statistics, the number of acts of financial difficulty increased by 49% from April 2020 to April 2021, going from 357 to 533 acts, even though interest rates are still very low right now.
Generally speaking, when Canadians are continually forced to increase their already high levels of debt because of an imbalance between supply and demand, Canada's future growth is at risk.
Unfortunately, the government is not really doing anything when it comes to giving Canadians access to affordable, or even adequate, housing. The current policy has failed to create a sufficient supply of housing to meet the demand in Canada. As a result of this failure, young Canadian families are having more and more difficulty obtaining affordable housing. That is a reality that far too many young couples and families are facing as first-time homebuyers. Housing options are limited and out of reach. The pandemic boom, as we could call it, has resulted in a 30% increase in housing prices in many cities and towns in Canada.
One of the Liberal government's solutions in budget 2021 was to impose a 1% tax on foreign owners of vacant housing. Unfortunately, this policy is nothing but a farce. What is 1% to ultra-rich foreign business people who see their investment grow by between 20% and 40% in a single year? This is merely a minor inconvenience for wealthy foreigners. Meanwhile, the situation is a disaster for many Canadians who continue to put their dreams of owning a home on hold. The fact is that speculative foreign buyers in the Canadian real estate market distort the market and ultimately put home ownership out of reach for Canadian families and workers.
Rather than simply inconveniencing foreign buyers, the government should seriously consider a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreigners. If the government really was concerned about foreign speculation, it would have taken concrete action by now.
Why does the government refuse to do something about the fact that the Canadian housing market is secure for foreign investment but unaffordable for Canadians? Why is the government turning its back on young families while continually allowing foreigners to buy up properties on the market in order to make a quick buck and, in many cases perhaps, pursue illicit activities?
Steps should also be taken to get rid of the Liberal government's failed first-time home buyer incentive. This program, designed to provide eligible buyers with an interest-free government loan, is a huge failure. A year and a half into this three-year program and only 9,100 homebuyers have used it. That is a far cry from the 100,000 buyers the Liberals anticipated would use the program when they introduced it. Not only did Canadians reject the idea of the government having a financial stake in their home, but this program does nothing to resolve the accessibility problem currently plaguing Canada's housing market.
Housing experts note that the program's eligibility rules simply do not reflect the reality of the skyrocketing prices of homes in Canada's largest cities and, as we are now seeing, in the majority of the towns and municipalities in every province across Canada. The $1.25-billion amount that was given to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to operate this program could certainly be better used to legitimately help first-time homebuyers in Canada.
The housing supply is insufficient, so the government needs to focus on building more housing. As a result of policies introduced by Pierre Elliott Trudeau in the 1970s, Canada has not managed to build enough housing to meet the needs of our growing population, which led to the crisis we are now seeing. While low interest rates and other economic factors did contribute to this situation, the policies unfortunately did nothing to address the housing shortage plaguing our market.
In conclusion, Canadians cannot ignore this issue any longer. We need to ensure that Canadians no longer have to shoulder the cost of the Liberals' mismanagement. We need real measures to even out the housing market and provide housing for the young families and Canadians who really need it.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-06-08 12:06 [p.8083]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
The housing issue is a major cause of concern. Like food and clothing, housing is an essential need. Any self-respecting society must at least be able to ensure that every individual has access to housing.
The cost of housing must also be reasonable. These concerns are shared by virtually every country, city and village in the world. No place in the world seems to be immune to rental and real estate market disruptions, despite the fact that we do not live like Jack London’s People of the Abyss.
When a problem arises, solutions appear to be varied and complex, and several crises have shown that, when the situation gets out of hand, it can be serious and long-lived, causing much suffering. We need to take this very seriously, we need to be concerned about the housing shortage and skyrocketing rents, and we have to take strong and concrete action right now.
It has become difficult to access not only affordable housing, but home ownership as well. People’s ability to become homeowners must be protected at all costs. On this, I would like to refer to Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. In this book, Piketty stresses the historical importance of the emergence of the middle class. Higher income levels allowed the middle class to build up a little capital, which largely manifested in the purchase of property. It was a real revolution, and we must preserve our gains.
Preserving the ability of the working class to become homeowners is a crucial issue for anyone who wants to live in a society where wealth is not over-concentrated. Today, though, how can a person who earns $45,000 a year, the median salary in Quebec, buy a $690,000 house, the median price of a home in Montreal?
Even a $385,000 house is virtually out of reach. Still, that is the median price of a house in the most affordable area, the north shore of Montreal. Even with two salaries it is very difficult to afford buying, even a condo.
We are witnessing an alignment between income and real estate and rent prices. Prices of real estate are rising, making it a good investment for people who can afford it. However, rising real estate costs reduce home ownership opportunities for the less fortunate, which is eroding the middle class. The situation is leading us away from the type of society we want.
Skyrocketing real estate prices have led to a boom in rental costs. Individuals and families are spending far too large a percentage of their income on housing. As a general rule, housing costs should not exceed one third of income, and ideally they should account for about a quarter. Unfortunately, this is less and less the case. We are now at the point where this basic need is becoming less and less affordable.
Let me give two examples. Today, if I want to rent a small apartment in Montreal, I will have to pay $1,200 a month. This is 30% higher than in 2019, and three and a half times more than I was paying when I was in university about 20 years ago. Obviously, salaries have not increased by 30% since the beginning of the pandemic, and they have not tripled in the past 20 years. The upshot is that many individuals and families are devoting a much larger proportion of their income to housing. The corollary is that they have to cut down on other costs. First they cut out the little extras and treats, but they soon find themselves having to choose which basic needs to forgo. That is the point that regular folks have reached, and it is not acceptable.
My second example concerns Saint-Jean-de-Matha. About 15 years ago, I went to see a small house for sale on a nice lot right in the middle of town. The house was really cute. The seller, a friend of mine, was embarrassed to ask for $34,000 because he had bought the house from another friend a few years earlier for $25,000. That is how things are in Saint-Jean-de-Matha: everyone knows each other, and everyone is friends with one another. He ended up selling his house for $30,000 because he could not bring himself to price it at full market value. Today, that house or its equivalent would sell for at least $150,000. However, salaries have not increased 500% in the past 15 years. The price will probably even continue to rise, because $150,000 is well below the median house price on the north shore, never mind in Montreal proper.
In recent decades, there has been an overall increase in residential real estate prices and rents. Of course, all this has gotten worse since the beginning of the pandemic. It is not all that surprising, since people spent more on housing during the pandemic. There were fewer places to spend money, and people wanted to spend the lockdown in a bigger place with more space. However, this latest surge in prices is highlighting a problem that has existed for decades. There are several factors involved, and there is no simple solution for stabilizing the market. Low interest rates played a role. Mortgage payments are monthly. When interest rates fall, people can buy a more expensive home and keep the same monthly payment. That makes sense.
However, when interest rates begin to rise again, then they are in trouble. That is why I agree with the new measure that requires people to demonstrate their ability to pay a higher interest rate before they obtain financing. That should help bring the market to a more acceptable level.
Obviously, the issue of foreign investors is troubling. The promise to grant citizenship to a person who comes and buys a $500,000 condo has always been a bad idea. The goal was to attract capital, but it caused real estate prices to climb and reduced the number of available housing units, since these condos usually sit empty. This sucks the life out of the downtown cores, because there are not as many people living there. We need to revise this policy, and I am not certain that the 1% tax will help.
We are having the same type of problem with foreign money laundering in real estate, which is causing prices to shoot up and reducing the number of housing units available. We need to address this problem as well, since it is unacceptable and extremely detrimental.
We also have to tackle the issue of Airbnb and other sharing platforms. The prospect of renting one's home to a tourist is appealing, but it becomes problematic when many homes are rented to tourists and are no longer used to house people. That exacerbates scarcity and drives up rent. That has to change.
The government plays an essential role in the social housing supply. When it plays its role well, it supports low-income individuals and families and indirectly helps keep prices more realistic across the market. Unfortunately, Ottawa has been neglecting that role for nearly 30 years. New investments are still nowhere near historical levels, and that has consequences. When Ottawa chose to cut funding for social housing, it was well aware that its decision would lead to misery and distress, and it knew full well that its actions would contribute to the problems we are having today.
I welcome the new funding for social housing and homelessness. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough. Actual dollar amounts may have increased, but Ottawa has in fact reduced its funding as a percentage of GDP. We need the government to keep up, not gradually fall behind. I also condemn the lack of predictability and the unjustified delays in transferring the money to Quebec.
The Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, points out the importance of specifically targeting social housing.
Whether it is co-operative, non-profit or public, social housing protects tenants from exorbitant rent increases, repossessions and renovictions.
We must also remember the whole issue of housing for first nations people, especially in urban areas. That is very important.
Let us also consider that with such an increase in housing prices and rent, we should expect an increase in residential construction, because an increase in the housing stock will help rebalance market forces. We must figure out how to juggle the land shortage and the issue of urban sprawl, while bearing in mind concerns about climate change. This increase is also held back by the availability of resources. Building housing takes time, and we are currently seeing that the construction sector cannot meet demand. As a result, prices are increasing, especially for building materials.
I would like to remind my colleagues that Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over housing. Since housing needs vary considerably depending on the socio-demographic context, the provincial and municipal governments are in a better position to assess and identify their residents' needs, since they are closer to local issues. They are asking the federal government to increase funding for social housing and to immediately transfer the necessary funds to Quebec and the provinces, no strings attached.
In conclusion, I would like to remind members how important it is to have a healthy real estate market. The well-being of regular people and the less fortunate depends on it. That is the type of society we want to live in. We must also watch out for real estate bubbles. Think about the bubble in Tokyo in the 1990s, when the land value of downtown Tokyo surpassed the value of the entire state of California, or the subprime crisis in the U.S. When these bubbles burst, there are always terrible consequences, and we need to avoid them at all costs.
View Denis Trudel Profile
BQ (QC)
View Denis Trudel Profile
2021-06-08 12:21 [p.8086]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by echoing the comments made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP earlier regarding the tragic events that occurred in London yesterday.
Like all Canadians, I was shocked by what I heard about this tragic event. We obviously still have not found the right words in this country to ensure that events like this do not happen again. On behalf of all Quebeckers and all Canadians, my thoughts go out to little Fayez Salman, who is about to go through a truly difficult time. We need to do more, and we need to do better. I think this is the responsibility of all Canadians, including all parliamentarians. That is what I wanted to say about what happened in London.
Now, as for the motion before us, I am quite happy to be talking about it, to say the least. At the same time, a question comes to mind. This is a Conservative motion. Today in the House, we are going to talk about housing, at the behest of the Conservatives.
I have been an MP for a year and a half. I was elected a year and a half ago, and I am the Bloc Québécois housing and homelessness critic. I do not recall seeing the Conservatives rise once on the issue of housing. I do not remember seeing that at all.
Are they doing this because there is an election on the horizon? They might be thinking that it is time to talk about housing, which seems to be an issue since there is a housing crisis. No, I did not forget. I have just never heard them say a word about it. I am not always here, but it is an important issue. There is a housing crisis going on in Quebec and Canada. In fact, it is more complicated than that. There was a housing crisis before. Now there is a pandemic housing crisis, and there will be a housing crisis later.
I recently spoke with members of the Réseau SOLIDARITÉ itinérance du Québec. According to them, we are going through a health crisis, but we are facing a social crisis that could last five to 10 years. They think that the adverse effects of the current pandemic will linger for years.
The government we have right now is not doing anything, or at least not enough. There are problems with housing, and the government needs to step up. I want to give some context about how this crisis is playing out in Quebec. What is the issue?
Right now, there are 450,000 households in Quebec in serious need of housing. That is equivalent to about five or six federal ridings' worth of people who are spending 30% of their income on housing or living in substandard or inadequate housing. Some people may be paying a reasonable amount, but to share a one-bedroom apartment with seven other people. That does not work.
Some 200,000 households are spending more than 50% of their income on housing. These figures are from before the pandemic. Last, but not least, is a shocking figure that I have been repeating in the House for the past year and a half. I do not even understand how we can allow this to happen. Before the crisis, 82,000 households in Quebec were spending more than 80% of their income on housing.
To give members an idea of what that means, 80% of an income of $20,000 means that $16,000 is spent on housing, with nothing or practically nothing left over. If we divide the remaining $4,000 by 12 months, members can just imagine what kind of life that is. My mother called it living in squalor. We are letting that happen.
Right now, in Quebec, 40,000 households are on the waiting list for low-rental housing in Longueuil, Saint-Hyacinthe, Rimouski, Brossard and Montreal. There are 23,000 households on the waiting list in Montreal alone.
We are talking about numbers. With regard to homelessness, Mayor Valérie Plante said that it appears the homeless population doubled during the pandemic. It went from 3,000 to 6,000 because people were made vulnerable by the crisis. We saw it last year in the streets. People set up camp along Notre-Dame Street. This year, they have been moved, but it does not seem as though the situation has been resolved.
We know that house prices have increased by about 20%. That also contributes to making people vulnerable. Obviously, the federal government has a role to play in this. Obviously, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. In 2017, the federal government launched a major, multi-billion dollar strategy, saying that it would house everybody, that nothing like this had been done in 30 years, and that everyone would see that the government was going to take care of people, people who were vulnerable and at risk.
I do not remember how many billions were promised as part of that strategy. For three years, the federal government spent money everywhere in Canada except Quebec. The crisis raged on, but no money was spent, not a penny. It took three years to sort the situation out, and the Canada-Quebec agreement was signed in October of last year. However, I have heard that sectoral agreements are still being signed and that things are still being worked out.
Earlier, while I was asking a question that my colleague, as usual, did not answer, I provided a striking example relating to renovations. The agreement includes nearly $1.2 billion to renovate decrepit low-rental housing. That is a good thing, and we are happy about it because our cities are full of boarded-up low-rental housing that we need to invest in.
In early May, as part of the agreement that was signed three years after the national housing strategy was launched in 2017, it was announced that 500 new units would be renovated in Montreal. However, no one could move into these units for three years.
If the agreement had been signed three years ago, we could have housed a single mother in my riding who was the victim of domestic violence. She made the headlines in the Journal de Montréal about a month ago. This poor woman does not have a home and is in a vulnerable position. She was trapped in a toxic relationship, but the government is doing nothing to help. In Longueuil, a single mother in her situation needs a two- or three-bedroom apartment, which costs between $1,500 and $1,700 a month. There are none to be had. If the federal government had acted quickly, instead of trying to get its flag on the cheques to show that it was the one providing housing for people, this woman would already have a place to live.
The government has finally reacted. Let us put the agreement aside and talk about the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, that was launched by the government last fall. I must admit that it is not a bad program, but it is grossly underfunded.
The first part of the program was for the big cities and had a budget of $500 million, which is scandalous in and of itself. Of that $500 million, Toronto received $200 million, Montreal $57 million and Quebec City $7 million or $8 million. Why is that? In Quebec, we have 23% of the population, but we received only 11% of the money. Is that because our needs are not as great? I never got a decent answer to that question.
The second part of the RHI was for everyone: non-profit organizations, other organizations and towns, among others. An application portal was opened and that is when we really saw the crisis come to the surface, when the program received applications for projects worth a total of as much as $4.2 billion. However, the envelope for that second part of the program was only $500 million.
The applications were for projects for people with real needs, desperate needs: victims of spousal abuse, addicts, people suffering with mental illness. We know what mental illness is. We have talked about it quite a bit throughout the crisis. We could have taken care of those people.
The organizations that submitted project applications were not just a bunch of guys who had nothing better to do between periods in a hockey game and so decided to submit a project to address domestic violence before the start of the third period. The application process is complicated, and these are serious individuals who know and care about the needs of their communities. The projects were valued at over $4 billion, but there was only $500 million in the envelope. When we talk about underfunding and say that people's needs are not being met, that is what we are talking about.
Meanwhile, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents municipalities across Canada, whether it be Calgary, Toronto, Victoriaville or Rimouski, applied for $7 billion under this same program. It saw an opportunity and thought that it was a good program and that the government was reinvesting.
In closing, while I have probably made my point to the members of the House, I would still like to reiterate that the government is not doing enough and not moving fast enough. We are not taking care of people and ensuring they are properly housed. We need massive reinvestment in social housing and we need it now.
View Kenny Chiu Profile
CPC (BC)
View Kenny Chiu Profile
2021-06-08 13:10 [p.8093]
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Shepard.
I am the father of two young adult daughters who, in the not-so-distant future, with their effort and determination, like countless other young Canadians, will be entering the home-buying market. Similar to countless other young Canadians, my daughters are living at home, watching the never-ending stream of media reports saying housing in Canada is entirely unaffordable. Young Canadians looking to enter the market cannot do so on their own, nor should they bear the expectation that they should at this time, especially in my home city of Richmond. Even with hard work and saving up for a down payment, the reality is that many will still require parental support, something I will likely be blessed to be able to give my daughters, but something that is not available to everyone.
We see Canadians faced with a sudden expectation adjustment, one reminiscent of our Prime Minister's comment that this generation could be the first generation in many decades to be worse off than their parents. I, for one, would like to point out that the rampant, reckless spending and deficit spending prior to or after the pandemic and the types of policies being implemented by his government will pretty much guarantee that outcome.
The reality is that much-anticipated tax expansion and government programs will not address the affordable housing shortage or the underlying causes of our housing crisis. To the contrary, the tax burden imposed by reckless spending over the past six years, even excluding pandemic relief, will tie the hands of future governments and prevent them from tackling other housing priorities such as homelessness and poverty.
Home prices have skyrocketed over this past COVID year and the dream of home ownership is becoming more distant for Canadians to attain. The national average home price was a record $678,000 in February 2021, up 25% from the same month last year. In my home city of Richmond, single detached home prices are up 20% in the past year, averaging at $1.5 million, far above the rest of the country. I find it ridiculous and ironic that Canada, with the world's second-largest land mass and sparse population, has to suffer such a housing crisis. The difficulties Canadians face are certainly exacerbated by the government's mismanagement of supply in our housing markets. Its incompetence is not limited to only home ownership.
The Liberal government has done nothing to address the rental market as an affordable option for Canadians either. Increasing supply within the rental market would be a boon for renters trying to make ends meet in increasingly unaffordable conditions. The government's ideas so far do nothing to address the real issues affecting affordability in our real estate market, namely through the lack of housing supply. To top it off, the two-years-too-late Liberal budget failed to rule out the introduction of capital gains taxes on the principal residences of Canadians. Punishing those who have a home as a way to pay for the government’s current or future excessive and poorly managed spending does not help solve the housing crisis.
The Liberals' national housing strategy has been defined by funding delays and cumbersome, difficult-to-navigate programs. It has consistently failed to get funding out of the door in a timely fashion for the projects that need it most. The national housing co-investment fund is one of the worst-offending programs, as we have heard from the member for Vancouver East.
However, members do not have to listen to me on this. Housing providers across the country have called it “cumbersome” and “complicated”, which is slightly higher praise than what the Liberals received on their first-time homebuyer initiative, a program that has proven to be a fatally flawed, dismal failure. It was intended to help 20,000 Canadians in the first six months, but has only reached 10,000 in over 18 months. It did not accomplish its primary objective of improving affordability in high-cost regions. These changes will not help prospective buyers in Victoria, Vancouver or Toronto.
When the Liberals' only solution to affordable home ownership is to take on a share of a Canadian's mortgage, and when their solution is actively discouraged by brokers, the government should realize that it is time to change direction, not double-down on poor policy. The Liberals should be helping Canadians by giving them the tools to save, lowering their taxes and creating jobs. For example, by incentivizing the use of RRSPs, Canadians could leverage their own savings to purchase a home.
Once again, the bureaucratic, Ottawa-knows-best approach is hurting our communities. It goes to prove that the Liberal government consistently misses the concerns of Canadians, such as concerns over legislative and enforcement gaps that have allowed the drug trade to launder illicit money through our real estate markets; concerns over supply, funding and support program criteria for long-term care homes; and the concern to fix the shortfalls of the national housing co-investment fund, a program that housing providers across the country have voiced their criticism of, stating that the application process is too cumbersome and the eligibility criteria too complicated.
Canadians cannot afford more inaction. Only Conservatives are focused on ensuring Canadians are not left paying the price for Liberal mismanagement. Conservatives recognize the severity of the nationwide housing affordability crisis faced by Canadians.
I believe in a bold vision for my home of Richmond, one where every family who works hard and saves responsibly can achieve home ownership. I believe that the future of housing in Canada will be built on proper management of our nation's supply. Following consultation with my colleagues, I was pleased to learn that Conservatives share a belief in a nationwide plan to get homes built as part of Canada's economic recovery.
We believe in real action, not lip service, to address the consequences of money laundering and the negative impacts it has in our society. Our plan to secure the future will prioritize the needs of Canadians before foreign investors, provide meaningful housing solutions and put families in the housing market. Conservatives have advocated and will continue to advocate for improvements to mortgage policies, to the taxation system, to combat money laundering, to increase housing supply across the continuum, and to address rampant speculation and unfair profiteering.
Canada needs a plan to get our economy back on track, but over a year into the pandemic the Liberal government, like a ship that has lost its anchor, is still operating lost at sea. In response, we Conservatives have developed Canada's recovery plan that sets a course to secure Canada's future, including the modest dream of owning a home.
View Tom Kmiec Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tom Kmiec Profile
2021-06-08 13:25 [p.8095]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be following my colleague from British Columbia on this debate. As many members will know, this is my second Parliament and I have been talking about housing for two Parliaments now.
I was a big critic of the first-time home buyer incentive. The member for Spadina—Fort York and I traded barbs over it on the floor of the House. We disagreed over the initial program goals that were set out. I said from the very beginning that the program was going to fail, and it failed. It failed first-time home buyers and it failed Canadians, regardless of the housing market they were in. There is no such thing as a Canadian real estate market: There are housing markets all across Canada. It failed people in Toronto, it failed people in Vancouver and it failed people in my home community of Calgary. It was going to fail from the beginning. It was an election gimmick to try to get re-elected. It was rolled out two months before an election, and it was not going to succeed.
There is a lot in this opposition day motion I could speak about, but I want to focus on housing specifically and the simple law of supply and demand. There is not enough supply and there is a heck of a lot of demand. I am one of those homeowners who recently sold his house and now I am renting. I got out of the housing market because it is so red hot right now with everybody trying to get in, not just in the city of Calgary but all across Canada.
The first-time home buyer incentive was originally supposed to help 100,000 Canadians. I have been doing Order Paper questions and I have been doing access to information requests and releasing them to the public so people could see this. I have been criticizing the government on podcasts, in interviews and in op-eds I have written for the Postmedia Network.
I think 10,000 applications have been approved. “Applications approved” does not mean that the person who applied actually went through with seeking the loan. The two are fundamentally different. It is less than 10% of what the Liberals were supposed to achieve with the first-time home buyer incentive and the shared-equity mortgages they were trying to sell. I have read the operational manual that CMHC put out for brokers to use. It is an abject failure in delivery, and it is failing two years afterward.
The reason I bring it up is because I hear the same thing from constituents. The Liberals have had years to try to address the housing shortages across Canada. They have been wasting time, playing at the edges and coming up with these gimmicky programs to try to deal with issues that are very local in many situations. People look at postal codes in major cities when trying to buy a home because they want to be in a specific school district for their children. People look at how close homes are to transit in order to get to where they need to go.
During this pandemic, we have also seen that a big premium is now being placed on being able to work from home and having solid home Internet and Wi-Fi connections. I have caucus colleagues in major urban areas, some of whom are on the Zoom call right now, who have difficulty joining our calls while having their video on because their connections are poor in major urban areas.
That is how people shop for real estate. They look at price and they look at location. It is hyper localized. They cannot compare real estate from two extreme edges of the suburbs of Toronto. It is the same thing for Calgary. In the southeast corner of the city, where I live, and the northwest corner of the city, two very different housing markets exist. In northwest Calgary, people have to take into account that they are going to get damaging hail. In the southeast part of Calgary, that is going to happen way less often.
The reason I like so much of what is in this opposition day motion is because we are addressing some of the fundamental concerns Canadians have. We are calling for the government to really look at things like doing away with the first-time home buyer incentive. It is a failed program. It has already failed. The Liberals keep trying to change it. It is never going to work, so they should just abandon it.
The motion is calling for things like anti-money laundering efforts. Especially in markets like the Lower Mainland and parts of British Columbia, but in other parts of the country too, money laundering is having a local impact on certain types of housing.
We need a more defined debate. There are different market segments. For single-family detached homes, the prices are going up a ridiculous amount. I want to talk about asset price inflation in a broader way in a moment. With respect to condos and townhouses, condo prices have been going down all over Calgary because the City of Calgary approved a whole bunch of building permits over the past two years. A lot of supply is coming onto the market and there is way less demand.
There is an immense amount of demand now for single-family detached homes and even duplexes and townhouses. People are moving up into the market real estate space because they want to be able to work from home. They have children.
I am one of those parents who is doing virtual home-schooling this week, so I have my kids at home. They are being very quiet and very good right now so I can address the House and speak about my constituents who are being impacted by the gimmicky plays of the Liberal government in addressing fundamental market issues. There is not enough supply coming on and there is too much demand.
Let us talk about asset price inflation. The super low interest rates are driving not only a lot of speculative buying, but just plain buying by people who see an opportunity and are looking after their self-interest better than the government can. They see an opportunity to buy into a market they could not buy into before. I have seen chartered banks offering less than 1% interest rates for a five-year mortgage, which is a standard mortgage in Canada. Who can compete with that? Prior generations could only dream of it. My uncle, who has a home in Markham, used to talk about paying 18.5% interest in the 1980s. I have a hard time convincing young Canadians this is going to happen and I am a millennial, one of these old millennials who is turning 40 this year.
The unbelievably low interest rates today are also driving people to compete for a limited amount of supply in many markets across Canada. The government has created gimmicky programs, like rental programs. One of its programs proposes to allocate billions of dollars to support the construction and repair of 35,000 affordable housing units, but a Canada housing survey in 2018 said that 9% of Canadian households, which is 1.3 million, had purchased a home in the five previous years. The Liberals are talking about tens of thousands of units, but that is not enough. They should go big: way bigger than they are talking about here. I have heard Liberal MPs say that they will go bigger and they have, with over $600 billion worth of spending. This is still not enough, because the fundamental issue is market supply and demand with extremely low interest rates driving people into the market.
That brings us to the next problem, which is that incomes have not kept up with asset price inflation. A young family may try to put money aside to save for a 5% down payment. The asset price on the single-family detached home or townhouse it is looking at exceeds its ability to save every single month and year. As the family tries to put a nest egg aside for a down payment, the asset price of the home goes up faster than it can save. That is the problem for young people and young families today. The member who spoke previously, my colleague from British Columbia, has two daughters who are in exactly this type of situation. They cannot save fast enough to make up the difference in the price of housing today, which is being driven up by super-low interest rates and these gimmicky plays from the Liberal government. and their ability to save due to their incomes.
The Liberals are raising income taxes. They have increased carbon taxes. They are nickel-and-diming Canadians all across the country. I live in a province that did not want a carbon tax and was stuck with it, because that is what the federal Liberals decided was the wisest course of action. It has an impact on the ability of people to save for down payments.
I have been a big critic of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which wasted millions of dollars trying to rebrand itself as “housing Canada” instead of focusing on its core business, which should be providing a mortgage insurance product. Its rates are too high. It is in the Public Accounts of Canada that it has been paying the federal government every single year while charging premiums on first-time home buyers in order to make up the difference.
I have a Yiddish proverb for the consideration of members who are paying attention to this debate: “You can make the dream bigger than the night.” The Liberals have dreamt big, really big, with all of these gimmicky programs. They have tried to solve a market problem with even more government, so that every time a program does not turn out there is even more government and another government program, or it is fiddling at the edges of a government program that exists to try and fix it.
The fundamental reality is this. Young people cannot save fast enough to get into the hottest markets such as Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary and Edmonton. The asset prices are out of control and people cannot save fast enough. Much of what we propose in this opposition day motion will address that. I am so glad we have put if forward. I have been speaking about housing for years and trying to get the attention of the federal government away from its gimmicks and onto real solutions.
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, despite a ministerial policy directive requiring the CRTC to promote competition, affordability, consumer interests and innovation in its telecommunications decision, the CRTC has fallen short in reducing prices charged by the big players to the smaller, more competitive players in the telecom industry.
Can the hon. minister explain what the government is willing to do to make these services more affordable for Canadians, especially at this time?
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
2021-06-08 15:08 [p.8113]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler for his continued advocacy.
I can assure this chamber that our government has been relentless in promoting competition and improving the quality and coverage of telecom services across our country. We are fully committed to ensuring that Canadians pay fair prices for mobile and wireless services, regardless of their postal code. Let me emphasize that we cannot afford to leave anyone behind. We will continue working with service providers to make telecommunication services more affordable for all.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Mr. Speaker, the irony with the government is that it purports to spend more addressing affordability than any other government in the history of Canada, yet never before has the dream of home ownership been harder to attain for average middle-class Canadians and people working hard to join them, as we have heard a thousand times from the government. It has never been harder for them to enter the housing market and provide the security, stability and economic opportunities that come with home ownership.
As I asked during question period, can the parliamentary secretary tell us if it was the plan of the Liberal government for housing prices to skyrocket to the stratosphere and leave Canadians behind?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-08 15:20 [p.8115]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder where that very same enthusiasm was when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, or Brian Mulroney or other prime ministers. If they are critical of this government on the housing file, I think members have to give their heads a shake.
At the end of the day, we have seen not only investments but a national government working with indigenous communities and provinces and municipalities to improve the quality of our housing stock while at the same time supporting Canadians in being able to buy homes for the first time. If previous governments had done what we have been doing over the last couple of years, we would not be in the situation that we are in today.
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise an issue that I raised earlier. I think there have been a lot of good comments today on things that can be done, but I raised the issue earlier that high immigration levels can also impact housing prices, and I think that is a fact. I think it increases the demand side of things.
There are some Canadians who are concerned with our economic state coming out of COVID. Does the Liberal government plan to go back to our high immigration levels immediately once borders open, or will there be a period of letting the economy and the housing market get back on track?
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
Lib. (MB)
View Kevin Lamoureux Profile
2021-06-08 15:27 [p.8116]
Madam Speaker, Canada is a diverse nation that is recognized around the world as the place to be in many situations, and we owe that to immigrants. We are a nation that is very much dependent on immigration. I believe that Canada will continue to grow and prosper well into the future, in good part because of solid immigration policies. In many areas immigration has kept communities alive, and to a certain degree growing.
I would invite my friend, if he doubts that, to come to Manitoba. I can give him some very specific examples of some communities he can visit. I would not want anyone to undervalue the potential contributions of aggressive immigration into Canada.
View Leona Alleslev Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Manning.
I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this very important opposition motion on housing. Canada does have a housing crisis. Every day, citizens from my riding and across Canada come to me with heartbreaking stories on the challenges they face in putting a roof over their head. Many tell me they can no longer afford to stay in their homes, others share that they cannot find anywhere at all to live. I hear from young families who are forced to live far from their places of work, because it is all they can find and young people who are losing hope that they will ever be able to own a house of their own.
Nearly one in 10 Canadians experience hidden homelessness. One in seven Canadian households cannot find decent housing without spending 30%, or more, of their income. In my riding, in the greater Toronto area that number is drastically worse. The average Toronto household costs over $850,000 where Canada’s average is $562,000, with many Toronto buyers taking nearly 75% of their household income to cover home ownership costs.
The blatant truth is that there is not enough housing available and the housing that is available is simply too expensive. The critical shortage of housing and the corresponding skyrocketing of housing prices is a serious problem that is getting worse, and not one that will fix itself.
Economists at the big banks have been increasingly sounding the alarm over Canada’s housing market. Big bank economists do not typically use strong language on any topic, so when they do, we must take note and treat it with the severity that it deserves. In February, economists at the National Bank highlighted the warning signs of widespread price surges, vulnerable borrowers with high debt and uninsured mortgages.
A Royal Bank economist in late March stated that a policy response was required to address a housing market that has not had an “overheating of this scope since the late 1980s.” This position was further reinforced by Bank of Montreal economists who stated that “policy-makers need to act immediately” to respond to the “housing fire” that Canada is currently living through.
Canada’s national housing affordability crisis requires a comprehensive federal government approach combined with a sense of urgency that takes concrete action to implement it. Today’s opposition day motion calls on the government to do just that.
This crisis in Canada is a complex issue, but today I would like to focus on the three main areas that I think should be considered in any federal government approach: tax structure changes, including addressing vacant and non-resident foreign ownership, rampant housing speculation and money laundering; employment and the quality, not just quantity, of jobs; and longer-term thinking around the total cost of ownership of housing, and how targeted initiatives could make housing more affordable while also achieving our national goals around environment and climate change.
What is taxed, how it is taxed, and the information and documentation that is provided in support of those taxes are important tools that a federal government could use to influence the foundations of our economy, including the housing market.
Many of the housing market issues are associated with shortages in supply, with renters being disproportionately affected. Renter households are four and a half times more likely to be in housing need, largely due to a severe shortage in rental properties. However, often the shortage is because properties are being left vacant rather than there not being enough properties. One such example is the explosion in the use of properties for short-term rentals such as Airbnbs. There are significant tax advantages that currently, perhaps inadvertently, incentivize owners of vacant properties to use them as for this purpose rather than as housing for longer-term renters.
While tourism is certainly a key component of our economy, the ability for families to secure long-term rentals for housing must also be prioritized. Perhaps if the tax structures were altered to, as a minimum, level the playing field between the two usage types, more property owners would choose to offer their properties for long-term rentals increasing the available supply.
What is also affecting the supply of shelter is the extent to which owned properties are simply being left vacant. Many of these properties are non-resident, foreign-owned. A temporary freeze on this type of ownership would be a substantive measure toward increasing the supply. Furthermore, a review of the tax conditions on properties that remain vacant for extended periods of time would also be important to look into.
The real estate market has been extensively exploited by money laundering, further compounding the problem of both the supply and the cost of housing. It is estimated that $47 billion is laundered annually across Canada with a significant portion, with some estimates as high as 68% of that being in the real estate market.
Nearly half of all real estate companies are not complying with key aspects of the FINTRAC anti-money laundering regime and Canadian authorities are failing to prosecute these financial crimes. Compliance and enforcement of Canada’s anti-money laundering must be a priority. Additionally, the introduction of beneficial ownership to increase transparency would be a significant measure that would increase the availability of housing supply and in turn reduce housing prices.
Finally, tax changes that would temper the rampant speculation in the housing market should also be explored. The purchase of properties for the sole purpose of “flipping” is contributing to the rapid price increases. Perhaps, the practice of “flipping” should be viewed in the context of a business operation and not as a principal residence.
Clearer residential requirements, including rules that disallow multiple principal residences within a certain period or time frame without supporting justification, such as a move for work, could all be important tax changes that should be considered, again to increase the housing supply and cool the drastic pricing increases.
While cost of housing may be a critical piece in the accessibility to a place Canadians can call home, it is not the only one. A steady and reliable income is as important on the path to home ownership. With over 30% of the Canadians precariously employed, addressing the housing crisis must include measures to increase not only the quantity, but also the quality, of jobs.
The last area that must be considered in addressing housing affordability is the standard and quality of available housing. The cost of a home is more than just the purchase price. It is also the annual recurring cost of heating, cooling, maintaining the house and much more. Significant technological advances offer much greater energy efficiency, lower carbon footprints and greater resilience against climate change events.
However, building codes lag far behind and government housing investments do not demand compliance with these higher standards. While a tax incentive to retrofit existing properties may be beneficial, the advantages of all-new builds meeting the highest possible standards and the corresponding contribution to home affordability should not be overlooked.
The national housing crisis must be urgently addressed. It requires real action to review detrimental tax treatments, address money laundering and rampant speculation, and support long-term environmental and sustainable thinking. Today’s opposition motion puts forward important actions that will give more people a real chance at securing a decent and affordable roof over their head, and in turn, secure Canada’s future. I urge everyone in this House to support this critical motion.
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
CPC (AB)
View Ziad Aboultaif Profile
2021-06-08 15:43 [p.8118]
Madam Speaker, before I begin discussing the motion at hand, I would like to give my condolences to the family that was attacked in London on Sunday evening. Four people were attacked and killed by an individual who was only motivated by hate for this innocent family, solely due to their Islamic faith. This kind of violence does not belong in the world, let alone in Canada.
Targeting men, women and children solely due to their beliefs is an act of hatred, pure and simple. It is something that cannot be tolerated in a free and just society, and my heart goes out to the family. We owe them, as a society, to work together to find a cure once and for all.
To begin with the issue of the day, I can say with confidence that one of the biggest challenges Canadians face in their lives right now is the cost of housing. Frankly, when I look at some of the real estate prices in some of Canada's largest cities, I struggle to think of how I would pay for one of those homes, and I am not talking about mansions here. Even starter homes are starting to get ridiculously expensive in this country. I took a look at some of Vancouver's real estate listings, and my mind was blown.
I think the cheapest house I found was two bedrooms and a little over 900 square feet for just under $500,000. I took a look at some of the listings in Toronto, and it was even worse. I could not find a single house available for under $500,000, just small condos or apartments.
One of the most ridiculous listings was a 500-square-foot bachelor pad for $500,000. That is about the size of my office back in my constituency, and I can barely fit my desk in there. I have no idea how someone would fit their entire life into something that size.
As I mentioned, the cost of housing is one of the biggest problems that Canadians are facing in their lives right now. I know that my colleagues the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon wrote an update published in the Toronto Sun last week that discussed a lot of the causes of the, frankly, ridiculous cost of housing in this country. Obviously, I think it raised several good points, otherwise I would not be discussing them personally, and I think many Canadians would agree with this once they take a minute or two to think it over. The lack of supply of housing in Canada is one of their most compelling arguments.
I did the math, and from 2009 to 2019, the population of our country grew by 10.5%. That is about four million new Canadians. Obviously, there will be plenty of families in there, so I am not saying that we need four million new homes, but the lack of supply of housing is pretty well documented. This lack of housing supply has had some pretty clear consequences for Canadians.
The price of housing has boomed in nearly every major city in the country, with Edmonton and Calgary proving to be the only exceptions. Toronto, for instance, has seen the price of housing triple over the past 15 years. I think that goes a long way to explaining the 500-square-foot room for $500,000. Ultimately, I think that represents a national tragedy. The cost of housing in many of Canada's cities is, in many ways, an exclusionary barrier to families that are looking to fulfill their dreams of owning their own homes.
I am sure that this is similar for many Canadians as well as many of our colleagues, but I grew up with this dream. It is a pretty simple one, but simplicity carries universality. It is a classic dream to grow up, find a job, fall in love, start a family and buy one's own home to live in with that family.
I am fortunate that I have been able to fulfill that dream. I am sure it is similar for some of my colleagues, or maybe most of my colleagues, but it is not a similar story for a lot of Canadians. There are thousands of families across the country that are blocked from fulfilling that dream because of the cost of housing.
Maybe all people can afford now is to rent an apartment, or they cannot afford a big enough house so their children can live comfortably. Maybe they are forced to live in a bad neighbourhood where it is not safe for their kids to play outside because it is all they can afford.
Just as important, this is not just a barrier for families. It is a barrier for students who are moving away from home for the first time. It is a barrier for recent graduates looking for a new home as they enter the job market. It is a barrier for seniors who are looking to downsize after their retirement. It is a barrier to every Canadian from coast to coast. It is a slap in the face to all of them, quite frankly, especially with the ongoing pandemic, meaning that Canadians have been struggling while real estate prices keep chugging up and up.
The prohibitive cost of housing in many of Canada's cities is, frankly, a barrier that people are struggling to cross. It is not like a chain-link fence that we find at schoolyards. It is much closer to the walls of Jericho, tall, imposing and not crossable, but just like biblical walls, these walls can be brought down.
However, we cannot do it through the failed infrastructure and housing support programs of the government. We need to increase the supply of housing in our major cities. It is logical that our population cannot continue to grow while our housing supply barely adds new homes for Canadians. It is simple, but it is more than that.
While this is unique in every city across the country, there is a substantial amount of red tape and municipal regulations that prevent the construction of new housing. While we obviously cannot legislate municipal affairs, the federal government can work with the provincial governments and municipalities to improve the situation. We can encourage cities to cut red tape and make building new homes easier to alleviate the supply issues in many of our larger cities.
The federal government already issues gas tax rebates, carbon tax rebates and more to municipal governments. Why not other transfers such as from the thus far useless infrastructure bank or any one of the other dozens of programs? The municipal rules and regulations are a massive driver of the increase in housing prices and, to top it off, are all the government's failed programs.
Back in the 1980s, there was a tax rebate program for building new homes called the multiple unit residential building program. In today's dollars, it cost $9,000 per home built in foregone government revenue. I would say that is pretty good. The Liberal government's equivalent, the rapid housing initiative, costs 23 times that per home. That is with the $9,000 adjusted for inflation.
Clearly the government's current approach is not working. Clearly it is not helping Canadians afford homes. That is why we need a different approach. It is clear that the government needs to stop the endless, poorly thought-out infrastructure program. It is clear that the made-in-Ottawa programs are not working.
Despite all of the government programs designed to make affording down payments easier, and all the various tax credits related to home ownership, the walls remain up. It is time to stop marching around the city. It is time to blow our horns and tackle the issues of lack of supply and over-regulation of housing construction. It will bring down the wall of prohibitive housing costs in Canada's major cities.
This is what we need to do to make housing more affordable for Canada and Canadians. This is what we need to do to make sure that Canadians can fulfill their dream of home ownership. That is what my Conservative colleagues and I support, so Canadians right now or 50 years from now can fulfill their dreams.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the distinguished member for Kingston and the Islands.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to pay my respects to the four Canadians who were taken from their family and friends. This absolutely breaks my heart. I know all Canadians have their thoughts with this family and with the nine-year-old boy for whom we all wish a full recovery. May light overcome such darkness, and, yes, we must root out all forms of discrimination, including Islamophobia. It needs to be called out. It needs to be condemned. At this time, we all stand shoulder to shoulder with Muslim Canadians across this country.
I am pleased to contribute to this very important debate that we are having, as this issue impacts all Canadians from coast to coast. I would like to thank the hon. member for raising the issue of housing. It is a frustrating period for many Canadians who are trying to purchase their first home. High housing costs, especially in urban centres, continue to put financial pressure on many middle-class and low-income Canadians. COVID-19 has exacerbated existing housing affordability and homelessness issues and the public health risks of substandard and crowded living quarters.
This government knows that a long-term plan for a faster-growing Canadian economy must include housing that is affordable for Canadians, especially young families. Stable housing is critical for communities and for a strong middle class. Affordable housing is also essential for economic fairness and growth.
Investments to make housing more affordable for the most vulnerable, coupled with measures to limit foreign speculation in the housing market, will help ensure that our economic recovery is an inclusive one that helps more people join the middle class.
That is why the government has a plan as part of budget 2021 to invest $2.5 billion and reallocate $1.3 billion in existing funding to speed up the construction, repair or support of 35,000 affordable housing units.
Since 2015, this government has made historic investments to increase supply and make housing more affordable. For example, under Canada's first national housing strategy, we are on track to deliver over $70 billion in investments by 2027-28 that will support the construction of up to 160,000 affordable homes and increase Canada's housing supply.
We also introduced the rapid housing initiative to address urgent housing needs for vulnerable Canadians in all regions of Canada. The $1-billion program will be expanded with an additional $1.5-billion allocation from budget 2021.
At least 25% of that money will go towards women-focused housing projects. Overall, this new funding will add a minimum of 4,500 new affordable units to Canada's housing supply, building on the 4,700 units already funded.
The funding is available to municipalities, provinces and territories, indigenous governing bodies and organizations, and non-profit organizations. Funding will be used for the construction of modular housing as well as for the acquisition of land and for converting existing buildings into affordable housing units. Most recently, the federal government announced it is aligning the minimum qualifying rate for insured mortgages with that for uninsured mortgages, subject to review and periodic adjustment, that being the greater of the borrower's mortgage contract rate plus 2%, or 5.25%. This will apply to insured mortgages approved as of June 1, 2021.
The government also recently expanded access to the first-time home buyer incentive to make sure more middle-class Canadians in Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria and cities of the like can benefit from this support. The program reduces a first-time home buyer's mortgage payments to make buying a home more affordable.
Another factor contributing to unaffordable housing prices for many Canadians in some of our biggest cities is speculative demand from foreign non-resident investors. That is why on January 1, 2022, the government will introduce Canada's first national tax on vacant and under-used residential property owned by non-resident non-Canadians. Houses should not be a passive investment vehicle for offshore money. They should be homes for Canadian families, many of whom reside in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.
The tax will require owners other than Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada to file a declaration as to the current use of the property, with significant penalties for failure to file. Revenues generated through this tax will help support the government's significant investments in making housing more affordable for all Canadians.
I would like to turn back to some of the other housing measures contained in the budget. Budget 2021 proposes $600 million over seven years to renew and expand the affordable housing innovation fund. To date, this program has committed funding to support the creation of over 17,600 units, including more than 16,300 affordable housing units and units for persons with accessibility challenges. This new funding would support the creation of up to 12,700 more units.
This is an investment of $315.4 million over seven years through the Canada housing benefit to increase direct financial assistance for low-income women and children fleeing violence to help with their rent payments.
The budget also proposes $118.2 million over seven years through the federal community housing initiative, to support community housing providers that deliver long-term housing to many of our most vulnerable.
Of the $1.3 billion of previously announced funding that has been reallocated, $750 million under the national housing co-investment fund will accelerate the creation of 3,400 units and the repair of 13,700 units. Some $250 million under this program will support the construction, repair and operating costs of an estimated 560 units of transitional housing and shelter spaces for women and children fleeing violence.
We are providing $300 million through the rental construction financing initiative, which will be allocated to support the conversion of vacant commercial property into housing. This funding will target the conversion of excess commercial property space into 800 units of market-based rental housing.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2021-06-08 16:28 [p.8124]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock.
We have a decision to make as to whether we want to be a property-owning democracy or a landed aristocracy. That might seem stark, and it is, but it is also true. It is 100% true if we look at the facts.
According to CMHC, for a house to be affordable it should not consume more than 30% of a family's income. Currently, in Canada, the average house would consume 50% of the average family's household income. In other words, the average house is two-thirds more expensive than the average family can presently afford. That is just the average. Across Canada, there are more extreme examples.
For example, in Toronto it takes 68% of the average family's income to own the average house. In Vancouver it is 79%, and that is 79% of pre-tax income, which means that it is mathematically impossible, not just difficult, for the average Vancouverite to own the average home. Why is that? It is because people do not have 79% of their pre-tax income left when the government is done with them. Even if they spent 100% of their post-tax income, it would not be enough. Even if they ate no food, bought no clothes and had zero recreation they would not have enough money, as average Vancouverites, to own the average home.
What is causing that? Why is it that Vancouver is the second-most expensive housing market in the world when we compare average income with average house price? Toronto is number five. Both of them are ahead of Manhattan, London, England, and San Francisco: places with more people, more money and much less land. Is it because we do not have enough land in Canada? We are the 10th-least population dense country in the world. There are more places where there is nobody than there are places where there is anybody in Canada. If we spread our population out equally across the land, there would be only one person standing on every three CFL-sized football fields. That is how much land we have in this country, yet somehow we have a housing shortage. Clearly, it is not because of a lack of land.
Could it be there is a booming economy that is driving up housing prices? Of course not. The GDP went down $120 billion last year and has not recovered.
What else is it? Is it COVID? COVID should have reduced housing prices. When CMHC testified at the finance committee at the beginning of COVID, it said that the pandemic would reduce housing prices by 14%. The Bank of Canada said it would be a disinflationary event, and it should have been. People were moving farther out into the country where per-square-foot costs are actually lower. Furthermore, their jobs were threatened so they would be less inclined to get approved for mortgages, and their earned wages were down, which means they would have less money with which to pay, which should have driven down housing prices. Instead, housing prices went up. They started going down in April 2020 before rocketing up 40% since that time.
What is the real cause? The answer is that the government is restricting supply and ballooning demand.
Let us start with supply. Here in Canada we have one of the slowest processes on Earth to get from buying land to building on it. In some jurisdictions this takes seven years. In Canada in general, it takes forever to get anything approved. In fact, out of 37 OECD nations, we are ranked number 36 for the time it takes to get a building permit for a warehouse, and it is not much different for housing.
Toronto's per-unit-of-housing cost of government is 50% higher than the average in United States municipalities. The charges alone consume almost a quarter of a million dollars in costs for every new unit of housing built in Toronto. The global cost of government for a new unit of housing in Vancouver is $600,000. That is just to pay the cost of government.
This, of course, keeps aristocratic, leafy neighbourhoods gentrified and keeps other people out. It makes the rich richer because they get to have an exclusive domain over these neighbourhoods, where no one else can build and get in. That is very good if someone already has a house as it increases their wealth, but those who are not yet in are shut out. It is as if there was a wall built around these neighbourhoods, where only the rich are allowed inside the wall and everyone else has to try to pay the gatekeeper to get in, but of course most cannot afford to do so. Therefore, the government restricts supply.
What does the government do with demand? It has pumped $356 billion of brand new, created currency into the financial system. The Bank of Canada began printing money in March of 2020, and from February of that year to February of this year the money supply grew by $354 billion. What was the size of the federal deficit? It was $354 billion, exactly the same number, so the printed money was to pay for the government's overspending.
What did that do to inflation? As we know, inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon. As the supply of money goes up, prices rise with it, and this started with housing prices. In fact, from Q1 2020 to Q1 2021, the money that went into the financial system and the mortgage system increased new mortgage borrowing by 41%. Does anyone know what the price increase was for housing between April of last year and April of this year? It was 42%. The newly created money jacked up mortgage borrowing by 41% and housing prices by 42%. Is it coincidence? Of course not. These are the simple laws of supply and demand, and they are working very well for the very rich.
For someone who owns a $10-million mansion, the increase in that person's home value, depending on which month to month is chosen, is somewhere between $3 million and $4 million. That is money that individual gets for doing absolutely nothing. For a working class person with the dream of buying a home, that dream just got more remote and more unlikely. Furthermore, landlords are about to raise people's rents because the cost of property has risen. He or she will use this, perhaps in some cases unavoidably so, to raise the rents of the people who live there. The wages of working-class people measured in the amount of real estate they can buy are down in value by 30% to 40% in just one year. Meanwhile, the wealth of the super rich is way up. Printing money raises the prices of the things that the poor must buy and that the rich already own. It is a colossal wealth transfer from the working wage earner to the wealthy asset owner.
What do we do? Sometimes the answers are actually simple: not easy, but simple. We should open up the country to construction so we build more homes and increase supply, and we should stop printing money in order to avoid pumping helium into prices. In other words, we should start building and stop printing. It is more about what the government should stop doing than what it should start doing. It should allow people to keep the value of their dollar, to buy things that are of worth with that dollar and build things that will make their lives better. That is how we restore our property-owning democracy. It is how we go back from today's aristocracy to what Canada should be, which is a meritocracy.
View Kerry-Lynne Findlay Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, the reality in my riding of South Surrey—White Rock is that the dream of working hard, saving up, taking out a mortgage and buying a home to raise a family has become completely unrealistic. It has gone from challenging, but hopeful, to impossible.
A constituent of mine recently sent me a listing in White Rock. It had two bedrooms, two bathrooms and was 1,600 square feet. It was a modest place to raise a family, built in the 1960s. It sold in December 2020 for just over $900,000. Now it is listed for more than $1.25 million. If it sells at asking, and most right now are selling over asking, that is a 23% increase in a matter of months.
How about the South Surrey home that was sold in February for $1 million and then listed again in April 2021 for $1.35 million? No, this is not an issue that arose overnight. I recently saw a small home listed in White Rock for $750,000. It sold in 2015 for less than half that. Housing prices should not double in a six-year period.
The average dwelling in my riding now costs about $900,000. In the Fraser Valley, average prices have risen 20% year over year, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association. What are normal Canadians, who earn Canadian incomes and pay Canadian tax rates, to do? For first-time buyers, the dream of home ownership has become a nightmare.
The Liberals' latest answer is to increase the qualifying interest rate across Canada for insured mortgages. Now it will be even harder for Canadian families to qualify. According to James Laird, president of CanWise Financial and co-founder of Ratehub.ca, this will decrease the value of the mortgage a family could afford by roughly 5%. Then we add on the B.C. property purchase tax of 2% on the first $100,000, and 1% on every $100,000 after that. That money goes into the provincial general revenues and is simply lost to the buyer.
Will this increase in the qualifying rate for mortgages cool a red-hot housing market? We see no sign of that. Does it make first-time home ownership more feasible? Absolutely not. It is designed to make it harder to get a mortgage. What it does do, by diminishing buying power, is chill new developments. Developers are the first to realize they might not be able to sell as many units under the new mortgage rules. The rising cost of lumber does not help either.
What we really need to do is increase supply. It is economics 101. Price is largely determined by two things: supply and demand. Of all G7 nations, despite our vast geography and comparatively low population, Canada has the fewest housing units per capita. One way to increase supply is to slow the rampant speculative foreign buying that is distorting our housing supply and squeezing Canadian families right out of the market.
Data for 2019 from the Canadian housing statistics program showed more than 6% of properties in B.C. were owned, at least in part, by a non-resident of Canada. That number is even higher in Vancouver, rising to 11.6% of condominiums there. At first, the government was, and has been, dismissive of this issue, calling those who raised it xenophobic. B.C. workers simply are not able to live in Vancouver. It is seen by many now as a vacation destination.
The parliamentary secretary for housing has said that Canada has become “a very safe market for foreign investment”, adding, “but...not a great market for Canadians looking for choices around housing”.
The latest Liberal budget, the first in over two years, promises to address foreign buying through a consultation on a tax that would apply to foreign buyers. The Surrey family of four forced into an endless cycle of renting because of a skyrocketing real estate market do not want consultation. They want affordable housing. They want to join the middle class. How many times have we heard this Prime Minister's phrase, “the middle class and those wanting to join it”? Seriously, we need a little less talk and a little more action, please.
How else can the government increase supply for prospective Canadian homeowners? It is through policies that encourage building more homes. The Liberal government needs to incentivize home construction and slash through the endless red tape. We need to make it easier to get shovels in the ground, and build. The complex web of bureaucracy that must be navigated to build in this country is extremely costly and time consuming.
The C.D. Howe Institute estimates that red tape and regulations add more than $600,000 on average to the cost of a new home in Vancouver. This is staggering. Sure, much of this is municipal and provincial, but we, in this federal legislature, have a role to play.
A highlight of my parliamentary career was being awarded the Golden Scissors Award from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in 2015, an award for slicing through red tape. The government needs to get its scissors out to start clipping away, and it needs to challenge its regional counterparts to do the same.
Enhancing transit is another key part of the equation. Better, faster transit that reaches further beyond existing boundaries would create a whole new world of possibility for residential real estate development, allowing more commuters to live in areas beyond the downtown cores.
In the Lower Mainland, we need SkyTrain expansions to Langley and South Surrey. We have been waiting far too long for the replacement of the George Massey tunnel, a key artery along Highway 99 that serves commuters from White Rock, Surrey, Delta and more. There were 85,000 commuters a day in 2019. With only four total lanes of traffic, that means constant congestion.
Plans for an expansion were first announced 15 years ago. It is past time to allocate the funds and work with local governments to get these projects done. Better transit infrastructure encourages growth, development and home ownership. Let us unlock this new supply.
The Liberals’ infrastructure plan simply is not working. Their Canada Infrastructure Bank, which was established to disburse $35 billion to infrastructure projects over 11 years, has completed a grand total of zero projects in four years. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said that the Infrastructure Bank is likely to fall short of its mandate, predicting only $15.9 billion of the $35 billion will be spent by 2028.
Speaking of over-promising and underperforming, the Liberals’ first-time home buyer incentive is also failing. The shared equity mortgage program offered first-time buyers 5% on existing homes and up to 10% on new constructions, resulting in lower monthly mortgage payments, but with the catch the government owns that 5% to 10% of the home, to be repaid to the government after 25 years or when the property is sold.
Let us say a family in White Rock decides to purchase that two-bed, two-bath I mentioned earlier at the $1.25-million price tag. Using this 5% incentive would effectively be a loan of $62,500. Wait a minute, I was carried away with the promise of this program for a moment. This family actually could not qualify for this program at all because the limits on the program are such that it is not available. In other words, it is completely unworkable in my riding all together. Despite the fact that such a program could result in usurious repayment rates, it is irrelevant in my riding anyway.
Canadians were told the shared equity mortgage program would help 20,000 Canadians buy a home in the first six months. Instead, it has served fewer than 6,000 over seven months. Again, the Liberals over-promised and under-delivered. Two years in, and there is less than one-tenth of the Liberals’ promised uptake.
Canadians are not using the program because it is a bad deal. Home ownership is critical to ensuring lasting prosperity and financial stability of the middle class. Conservatives know this. Let us address speculative foreign ownership, cut through the bureaucracy, encourage new builds, increase supply and make the dream of home ownership a reality.
I listened to the Liberals all day during this debate brag about spending $27 billion on housing, so why is the supply of new builds, rentals and upgrades still a crisis? I guess they have not actually been in charge for the last five and a half years. They talk more about former prime minister Harper than Conservatives do, and today, they even reached back 30 years to former prime minister Mulroney.
We are here in 2021 to address 2021 and future Canadian issues, not to gaze back into history. This is why my colleagues and I have put forth this motion today. We are tired of the inaction, the waste, the talking points and the rapid decline of affordable housing in this country, particularly in ridings like mine.
Why not put all that profligate spending into something Canadians actually care about, such as affordable rentals, home ownership and infrastructure to support both? We need a lot less talk and a lot more action.
View Derek Sloan Profile
Ind. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I made a comment earlier about immigration. I want to be clear that I think Canada has done a great job welcoming people from all over the world, but that does not change the fact that high immigration levels impact housing prices. I see here in front of me a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation study that shows that economic growth and immigration strongly influence the demand for housing. I have Statistics Canada information here that shows that, in 2019, 150,000 newcomers came to Toronto, but fewer than 30,000 housing units came online.
Does the member agree that we should take a look at how immigration impacts housing prices in Toronto and our other big cities?
View Darrell Samson Profile
Lib. (NS)
Madam Speaker, it is a twofold approach. We need more immigrants to work and contribute to our great country, and we need to ensure that there is enough housing for all Canadians, including immigrants. That is why our government is investing billions of dollars to support all communities across this great country.
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
2021-06-08 17:29 [p.8133]
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
It is my privilege to rise in the House to speak today. Housing is an issue that was important to me before becoming an MP, because in my previous job I owned a small home-building business and we built about 60 homes in the space of 10 years. Today I want to share some of the knowledge I gained over the years of building houses.
The question I want to address is how the federal government impacts the cost of housing. First of all, I want to talk about regulations. Many regulations are provincial and local, but the federal government does have significant impact when it comes to the Canadian building codes. They are set by the National Research Council every few years and then adopted by the provinces.
We always speak about the positive changes that come out of the building code changes. For example, most recently there was lots of talk about insulation, insulated basements and insulated concrete floors, etc. We must remember that everything costs more when we add new features and new things to buildings. There are more materials, more labour and sometimes more costs for testing, such as when we have to test for radon, for example.
We have to be careful when we introduce new rules, new legislation and new building codes because we have to balance the cost of these improvements with the cost that will end up in the cost of the home. If we introduce too much bureaucracy and too much cost, then that affects the consumers and the affordability of houses.
We need simple programs, not complicated bureaucratic ones. A good example of that is in Saskatchewan, with the Saskatchewan home renovation tax credit. Essentially, if people have a project that fits the category, they get the work done, get the receipt, put it on their tax return and get the money back as a tax refund. It is quite simple.
We can contrast that to the Canada greener homes grant recently introduced by the Liberals, which is quite a bit more bureaucratic. For that, people have to actually get an audit done, first of all, to measure the baseline efficiency of their house. Then they get the work done, and then they have a second audit to see if there is an improvement. It is a program with excessive bureaucracy.
I want to contrast that with the CERB program. Of course, that was a program that gave $2,000 a month to people at the beginning of the pandemic. This was a program with almost no rules, no audits and very few checks. It was just money for everyone. Now, it was a pandemic, I understand, but in hindsight I think nearly everybody would agree that it was a little too easy to get money out of that program. If we compare that to the greener homes grant, where there is all this bureaucracy, essentially the government is assuming that people are trying to cheat and trying to get money they do not deserve.
We need to find a balance here, where there are appropriate checks and care given, but it is not too bureaucratic and does not create too many onerous problems. It needs to be simple.
The second thing I want to talk about is monetary policy. This is perhaps the most important. When my wife and I bought our first house in 1989, we paid an interest rate of 13%. To put that in perspective, if a 2% interest rate today is a $1,000 payment, if the interest rate were to change to 13%, that $1,000 payment becomes $2,700. Even if the interest rate only went up to 5%, that $1,000 payment still becomes $1,500 a month.
The government has made a trillion-dollar bet that interest rates are going to stay low forever, but history tells us otherwise. From 1965 to now, the average five-year mortgage rate was approximately 9%. There was a 20-year period in there from 1975 to 1995 when the average rate was about 12%. It is only in the last decade that the average mortgage rate has been below 5%.
Where are interest rates going in the future? Nobody knows for sure. However, the failed policies of the Liberal government are causing significant deficit spending. Deficit spending eventually causes inflation, and inflation will drive house affordability further out of reach for Canadians.
High prices also cause people to opt into high-ratio mortgages. I had an example of a customer who planned to build a house with me with a 5% down payment. I explained to them what the bank did not want to explain, which is that the CMHC charges them a fee for a 5% down payment mortgage, and that fee is 4%. Essentially, it wipes out their down payment completely. Once the customer understood that, they chose to wait and try to save for a larger down payment.
This is where the government can lead. Instead of the government's failed first-time home buyer program, people need a real program. We could increase amortization periods, improve mortgage terms and possibly create a tax incentive to allow people to save for their down payment.
The third area that I want to talk about is rental housing. There has been very little new rental housing built in Saskatoon recently, and in fact in Canada. The simple reason is that developers can make more money by building condos. The government may need to introduce some measures to gently prod the market toward more rental products.
This was done before, around 1980, through the program called the MURB program. This incentivized investors to build rental properties, and it worked great. There were 195,000 units built at a cost of about $2 billion in today's dollars. Let us compare that to the Liberals' national housing strategy. It proposes to build 71,000 units for $26 billion. It would be $26 billion to get 71,000 units, as opposed to $2 billion to get 195,000 units. It seems to me that the program from 40 years ago has a much better ROI, and perhaps the Liberal government should look at that program as it designs its program.
In February we hosted a town hall to discuss housing. What I heard was that affordable housing is key, not just for the obvious things, but for physical and mental health. In Saskatoon at any given time, there are approximately 475 homeless adults. I have received over 210 emails and letters on this issue since becoming an MP. The rapid housing initiative was supposed to address Saskatoon's housing needs, but there was no money in the big city stream for Saskatoon, and in the project stream, applications from Saskatoon were all denied by the government.
I supported three projects in Saskatoon West. I wrote letters and spoke to the parliamentary secretary. The Lighthouse application consisted of an acquisition and upgrading of a motel facility to add residential transitional housing. What was the result? There was no funding. The Saskatoon Tribal Council currently runs the White Buffalo Youth Lodge in my riding, and it has many housing options for indigenous people. It also proposed to buy a hotel and convert it to housing. What did the Liberals do? They denied it. The Salvation Army project in my city was the same story. The Liberal rapid housing initiative failed Saskatoon.
I want to remind the House of the homelessness partnering strategy of the former Conservative government. The HPS of the Harper government earmarked funds for certain regions and then let those regions decide for themselves what specific projects to fund. In Saskatoon, a board of local experts was created to make these investment decisions. They took the decision power away from the politicians and gave it to local people on the ground. They knew exactly where the money needed to be spent. With the rapid housing initiative, those decisions remained in Ottawa, with the politicians. Is it any surprise that Saskatoon, with no hope of a Liberal politician, failed to get any money?
Right now in Saskatoon, rental rates are high, availability is low and the quality is poor. This disproportionately affects single mothers, indigenous people, low-income people and new immigrants. It is especially hard for those living on social assistance, as the allowance for rent is not enough to cover the actual cost of rent.
Conservatives have solutions to Canada's housing crisis, and they are in the text of the motion today. If we put that together with our plan for mental health, we really have something good. I hope the Liberals heed the call. If not, Conservatives will secure our housing when we are elected.
As I close, I could not help but think of immigrants and newcomers as I was putting together these thoughts today. I could not stop thinking about the Muslim family killed in London, Ontario, on Sunday. It takes great bravery to leave one's home, country and family to make a new life in Canada. It takes strong courage to begin living in a country where one has few friends or family, and often one does not speak the language. It is difficult to find a good home to live in, as we have been talking about today. However, someone should not have to worry about their basic safety. That is one of the reasons they chose Canada.
To my good friends Hasan, Ilyas, Afzal, Mohammad, Sadiq, Assad, Sayad, and to all Muslims in Saskatoon and Canada, I am so sorry that one hate-filled man has caused so many to live in fear. He does not represent Canada. I am sorry that they feel afraid on the streets; they should not. To all Canadians, let us work hard to make our streets safe for all ages, all genders, all nationalities and all religions.
View Jenny Kwan Profile
NDP (BC)
View Jenny Kwan Profile
2021-06-08 17:39 [p.8135]
Madam Speaker, Chief Shining Turtle has indicated that there is a great need to have CMHC's section 95 program funding for home construction increased to adjust for the inflation in building costs and materials. For example, the band receives about $148,000 in CMHC subsidies to build a house, but with housing costs running at $400 per square foot, a 1,000-square-foot home would cost over $400,000. The band is not able to assume that kind of financial burden, yet CMHC representatives fail to provide a workable solution. Chief Shining Turtle is calling for a bold strategy, not just tinkering around the edges.
Does the member agree that the federal contributions need to match today's cost of construction in the minimum?
View Brad Redekopp Profile
CPC (SK)
View Brad Redekopp Profile
2021-06-08 17:40 [p.8135]
Madam Speaker, the cost of construction these days is really unfortunate. That is part of why I am talking about the building codes. We have to make sure that what we are implementing for building codes is reasonable given the costs that are associated with them.
Many factors come into play when it comes to costs. We have to have a strong labour force. That is achievable. We need to have a good trade policy so that we have reasonable access to materials that come in from overseas, because the materials that we get provide a large part of the cost of the building.
We also need funds to match the costs. Every new homebuyer faces that issue. They are faced with the same problem. They are faced with a very large amount of money needed to pay for the houses they want. It is a problem across the board.
View Nelly Shin Profile
CPC (BC)
View Nelly Shin Profile
2021-06-08 17:42 [p.8136]
Madam Speaker, housing is a basic need for survival. It is not something we should tamper with lightly. People live in a complex ecosystem of currency and the interdependencies of economics and laws that govern its flow, at least in our part of the world. Outside the offerings of charity and benevolence, currency is required to buy and sell goods and services, and this includes homes.
Homes are where families are raised and provide a means for stability and safety. They are established to foster love and security and the thriving of their lives. A home provides autonomy for individuals and young families to grow their own legacy. The home is an anchor for the dignity and flourishing of those who dwell within. There are different types of homes required to meet the needs of people in different seasons of their life journey, including seniors. In the context of a complex world system, an individual's capacity to meet housing needs is intricately interdependent with the world one lives in and the opportunities facilitated by the governing entities.
In understanding these basic principles, it is incumbent on all tiers of government to work together to ensure that, in the midst of an economic continuum, the basic needs of the people are safeguarded so that necessities such as housing are accessible to all Canadians, regardless of their financial position. However, despite an upset of skyrocketing prices in the housing market, triggered by non-resident foreign buyers and money laundering, the government has done little to protect the priority of middle-class Canadians to access housing they can afford. The government has failed to act meaningfully to help first-time homebuyers and incentivize purpose-built market rental housing to fill the housing gap. It has now been made more difficult with inflation and the rising cost of lumber.
I have been raising the issue of housing shortage since the start of the 43rd Parliament. My first question period intervention was in response to the throne speech, and I raised the issue of affordability and the ineffective mortgage stress test. I only need to listen to the stories of my constituents to know that no matter how much the Liberal government claims to have taken action to solve the housing crisis, there is little fruit to show for its work.
I would like to share the story of Jordan, a constituent who lives with his wife and two young children in Coquitlam. He reached out to my office to tell me that he will ultimately be leaving the city he has called home for over 30 years because of housing prices. The last thing he wants to do is leave, but he says that he has little choice in the matter unless he goes into obscene amounts of debt once his current lease is up. As we know, many Canadians are very close to insolvency, just $200 shy. He is perplexed that while his salary is well above the national average, he cannot live in “what has been a working-class neighbourhood since its inception.” He regrets that “the only way to get into the market at this point is to be lucky enough to have parents who have cashed out at the top and are willing to transfer the necessary wealth to their kids.”
Jordan's is not the only story I have heard about long-time residents with deep roots in the community who have had to leave because they cannot keep up with the hiking housing prices. I have spoken with a constituent of Port Moody who is living with his wife and children at a parent's house, renting a floor that is below market rental value so they can save up for a down payment on their first home. However, given the skyrocketing prices, he is beginning to accept the possibility of moving further out of the city to afford a home, even though his children have begun settling into the neighbourhood and feel like it is their home. This breaks their parents' hearts. It is very sad.
Whenever I speak with young families trying to enter the housing market, I am told they cannot dream about owning a home to raise their children. However, there are common-sense steps the government can take without just talking about them or throwing money around without a meaningful strategy. The motion put forth by my colleague calls on the government to:
(a) examine a temporary freeze on home purchases by non-resident foreign buyers who are squeezing Canadians out of the housing market;
(b) replace the government's failed First-Time Home Buyer Incentive with meaningful action to help first-time homebuyers;
(c) strengthen law enforcement tools to halt money laundering;
(d) implement tax incentives focused on increasing the supply of purpose-built market rental housing units; and
(e) overhaul its housing policy to substantively increase housing supply.
In Coquitlam, the average price of a house is $1.1 million, according to MLS stats. This is an annual increase of 23%. However, regardless of the percentages that fluctuate, at large, the price range for first-time homebuyers is so beyond reach that there is no room for them to jump into the market. It should not be controlled by foreign non-residents.
According to a report from CMHC, “properties that have at least one non-resident owner amount to 6.2% of those in British Columbia, and in Vancouver it is 7.6%. The proportion of non-resident participation is highest for condominium apartments. The proportion of condominiums that had at least one non-resident owner was 10.4% in British Columbia. The largest differential in median assessment values between non-resident and resident-owned homes was in single detached houses in British Columbia, at $236,000, which is 36.7% higher than the median assessment value of resident-owned single detached houses.”
The government needs to put a freeze on home purchases by foreign buyers in order to recalibrate the housing market and make it one that reflects the needs of everyday middle-class Canadians. Middle-class Canadians need hope, as every Canadian needs hope about their future. If they get into the market, their house payments should not have to be so high that they live in debt for the rest of their lives.
As I look at the young people, it really is a prayer. I just wish I had more hope for young people as they graduate from university. They look at what is out there, and it is very daunting. They couch surf in their friends' homes. They live in their families' basements. They do not know how to move forward. It is not very much different for families who have children or for couples, because they are also staying in their homes.
In closing, I hope that I could ask the government to just step aside and with moral courage take these issues seriously, to attack crimes like money laundering, to sit down and really crunch numbers and strategies that work with mortgages, and to set their trajectory on helping middle-class Canadians find the hope to dream about their family and their future with a home where they could flourish under the safety of their own roof.
View Dave Epp Profile
CPC (ON)
View Dave Epp Profile
2021-06-07 15:02 [p.8024]
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Internet costs are among the highest in the world and this is one of the few countries where they continue to rise. On May 27, the CRTC reversed its own decision to reduce the broadband access costs from the large telecoms to the smaller Internet service providers, such as TekSavvy, headquartered in Chatham. Whereas the railway secured Canada's future 136 years ago, Canadians need reliable, reasonably priced access to broadband to secure our future today.
Is the government breaking its own promise to reduce rates, or what is the plan?
View François-Philippe Champagne Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that we share the same goals of affordability, competition and innovation. That is why we have been relentless in promoting competition to lower prices while working to improve quality and increase the coverage of telecom services across our nation.
As the member knows, we are ensuring that Canadians pay affordable prices for reliable Internet services regardless of where they live in our nation. Every time I have a call with telecom companies or Internet service providers, I always push for better outcomes for consumers and for lower prices. I will continue to do that.
View Earl Dreeshen Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, rural Canadians have been waiting years for accessible, affordable and reliable Internet service. Last week, the Liberal-appointed chair of the CRTC, who has previous ties to big telecom companies, slashed hopes with a reversal of the commission's previous decision on wholesale access rates.
My constituents are tired of this backroom lobbying by large telecom companies. Why does the Liberal government consistently refuse to stand up for Canadian consumers, and why has it abandoned its election platform commitment to affordable Internet services?
View François-Philippe Champagne Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, I would say that we are standing up, and we share the member's goal, and I think the goal of all members in this House, around affordability, competition and innovation. The member will know that our government has been relentless in promoting competition to lower prices while working to improve the quality and increase the coverage of telecom services in Canada. We are ensuring that Canadians pay affordable prices for reliable Internet services, regardless of their postal code.
We will keep working with service providers and we will fight for—
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2021-05-31 14:30 [p.7621]
Mr. Speaker, in a stunning reversal, the CRTC has decided to increase the wholesale fees that small Internet service providers are forced to pay to the large telecom oligarchs in the country. This, of course, reinforces the exceptionally high prices that Canadians already pay for connectivity that is much less expensive in other OECD countries. It also runs against the Liberal promise to reduce rates by 25%.
Is it not time that we change this uncompetitive oligopoly and provide more competition and choice to consumers?
View François-Philippe Champagne Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, our government has been relentless in promoting competition to lower prices, while working to improve the quality and increase the coverage of telecom services in Canada.
We are ensuring that Canadians pay affordable prices for reliable Internet services, regardless of where they live in our nation. We will keep on working with service providers and industry partners to drive investment and make telecommunication services more affordable and accessible for all Canadians.
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
CPC (ON)
View Pierre Poilievre Profile
2021-05-31 14:31 [p.7621]
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the opposite of what the Liberals promised. During the election, they said they would work with the regulatory agencies to force a 25% reduction for consumers. However, now we see the CRTC raising prices.
Of course, these increases are going to be passed on to consumers, and obviously we do not have enough competition in Canada. What will the government do to make the system more open to competition and create a true free market?
View François-Philippe Champagne Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. He should know that our government is constantly fostering competition to drive down prices across the country, while at the same time working to improve quality and, of course, expand the coverage of telecommunications services in Canada.
We are working to ensure that Canadians pay an affordable price for effective Internet services, wherever they live. We will continue to work with service providers and partners to drive investment and make Internet services more affordable for Canadians across the country.
View Martin Shields Profile
CPC (AB)
View Martin Shields Profile
2021-05-28 11:47 [p.7559]
Madam Speaker, heritage department memos reveal that Bill C-10 has the potential to grant the CRTC regulatory powers to affect online services, including sports streaming, news sites, podcasts and apps. The Liberals are still pressing for the bill to be passed, which would cause tech giants to pass down the tax increase costs to my Bow River constituents by 50%, approximately.
Why did the minister ignore his department officials and proceed to present this destructive bill that will pick winners and losers based on unknown criteria?
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dabrusin Profile
2021-05-28 11:47 [p.7559]
Madam Speaker, once again, the Broadcasting Act has not been modernized in over 30 years. Bill C-10 is about bringing us that update, and it is an important update that will support Canadian jobs and Canadian creators.
If the member would like to, he can continue to follow the debate and work with us to help our creators, but the Conservatives have been vowing to block this law from going ahead since before it even went to committee. This is about web giants contributing to our creators. Why will the Conservatives not help us to make that happen?
View Marc Dalton Profile
CPC (BC)
Madam Speaker, seniors have been coming to my office quite upset. The issue is that they have received a link for the census, but they have no ability to go online.
They are very capable of using computers, but they have no home Internet because they simply cannot afford it. They cannot make video calls to see their grandchildren, and they have been unable to visit during COVID. They cannot access free Wi-Fi because most of the places that offer it have been locked down.
This is not a luxury. It is basic connectivity, yet the Liberal government has done nothing to spur competition and make Internet rates more affordable.
View Maryam Monsef Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, in the best of times, living without high-speed Internet is difficult. During COVID, particularly for our elders, it has been incredibly difficult.
Our government continues to work to connect Canadians to this essential service, and it has been working on this since taking office back in 2015. I would say that tens of thousands of Canadians are already on their way to getting connected to this high-speed Internet service because of the investments we have made. We have made 10 times more investments in broadband than all other governments combined. We will not stop until—
View Tim Uppal Profile
CPC (AB)
View Tim Uppal Profile
2021-05-27 13:28 [p.7487]
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House on behalf of my constituents of Edmonton Mill Woods.
In the lead-up to this budget, the longest lead-up ever, as we went over two years without a budget, there were dozens of news stories and trial balloons talking about how innovative this budget was going to be. We heard time and again about how this budget would be a stepping stone for the Liberal government to build back better, whatever that means. Instead, at 739 pages and nearly a quarter of a million words, the longest budget in the history of our great country is also the greatest disappointment.
There is no plan to deal with inflation. There is no plan to make the dream of home ownership more attainable for Canadians. There is no plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for families and young people across this country. Instead, we are left with a budget that says so much, proposes so little, and leaves Canadian jobs, productivity, and economic growth behind.
Let me start by looking at the full picture. In my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods and right across Canada, there are countless families and businesses on the brink of losing everything. The jobs numbers that came out earlier this month revealed that another 207,000 people across Canada had to come home and tell their family and loved ones one of the most difficult things to hear, that they had lost their job.
To be clear, Alberta’s economic problems didn’t just start because of this pandemic. The Liberals' Bill C-69, which many people called the “no more pipelines” bill; Bill C-48, the tanker ban; and general disregard for the energy sector have driven away billions of dollars of investment and, with it, thousands of Canadian jobs. The government has failed to produce a plan for one of Canada’s largest economic sectors, the energy sector.
There are some things in this budget that we and our Conservative team are in favour of. For so many Canadians who continue to struggle throughout this pandemic, the budget does have the extension of emergency programs that our Conservative team supports, measures like the wage subsidy, rent subsidy and other recovery benefits, but there are still issues that remain with some of these programs. My office has heard from so many Canadians. It has heard repeatedly from small businesses that opened just before the pandemic or during the pandemic, which have been left behind by these wage subsidy and rent subsidy programs. When asked about it, the Liberals continue to repeat what everybody already knows, that small businesses are the backbone of our community, yet they continue to do nothing to rectify this issue, leaving many small businesses, and the Canadians employed by them, behind.
One thing that I know would bring jobs to Alberta and to Canadians from coast to coast is pipelines. Our natural resources sector accounts for nearly two million jobs and nearly one-fifth of Canada’s GDP. There are mentions of pipelines in this budget. They talk about a vaccine pipeline, a talent pipeline, an innovation pipeline and a PPE pipeline, but no mention of a pipeline to carry our natural resources. Once again, the Liberal government continues to ignore our energy sector, which will be instrumental in our economic recovery coming out of this pandemic. Instead, we continue to import oil from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, where there are much lower environmental standards and horrific human rights records. Talk about a failure.
Perhaps the biggest failure, and the focus of my speech today, is the government’s failure to take inflation seriously. Canada’s inflation rate in April was 0.6%, or roughly 7% on an annualized basis. For the average family in my riding of Edmonton Mill Woods, that means the inflation tax is going to take nearly $6,500 out of their pocket this year. This has been seen right across the board, as Canadian consumer prices are climbing at the fastest pace in a decade. The average family will pay nearly $700 more in groceries this year because of inflation. Everything from meat and vegetables to cereals and bread has increased by about 5%. Gas prices are continuing to increase dramatically. As Bloomberg reported last week, they have increased more than 60% in a year.
Perhaps the most explicit case I can make here is with lumber prices, which have increased by 300% over the last year. As Kevin Lee, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders' Association, points out, this drastic rise in lumber costs will add tens of thousands of dollars to the average price of a home.
This leads me to another area of failure in this budget, which is the lack of any semblance of a plan to address overwhelming housing affordability issues in Canada, which has pushed the dream of home ownership further out of reach for far too many Canadians. Prices across Canada are skyrocketing, with young families who were saving for their first home at the beginning of this pandemic even further behind than when they started.
This has led to feelings of hopelessness. A poll from the Royal Bank of Canada released last month revealed that 36% of non-homeowners under the age of 40 have given up on ever buying a home and 62% of respondents said they expect the majority of people will be priced out of the market over the next decade.
What is the government doing to address this concern of people being left out of the market? The hallmark of this budget’s efforts on housing affordability is a 1% tax on foreign owners of vacant housing, which will simply be seen as a very minor inconvenience for wealthy foreign investors who have seen their investments appreciate by 42% this past year. This will not solve the problem at all. Instead, the current government should be focused on the root of the problem, which is the shortage of supply right across Canada.
As a recent Scotiabank report points out, Canada has the lowest number of housing units per capita of any G7 country. If Canada set the modest goal of simply catching up to the United States, Canadian builders would have to complete an extra 100,000 homes. To catch up to the U.K., it would require an extra 250,000 homes. To put these gaps in perspective, we have had an average of 188,000 home completions in the last 10 years.
I believe this serves as a perfect microcosm of the government’s philosophy. When it identifies a problem, it does not address the root cause. Instead, it takes a small reactive step, creates a new government agency or program for it, and then dumps millions, if not billions, into it.
The budget introduces another $101 billion in new spending, pushing our debt-to-GDP ratio to over 50% over the next few years. What are we getting out of this increased spending and debt? The budget predicts that the growth rate will slow steadily starting in 2022, all the way down to 1.7% growth in 2025.
As Robert Asselin, the former policy and budget director to Bill Morneau and policy advisor to the Prime Minister, said of this budget, “it is hard to find a coherent growth plan.... [S]pending close to a trillion dollars [and] not moving the needle on…growth would be the worst possible legacy of this budget.” While the budget is entitled, “A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth, and Resilience”, there seems to be much concern about whether or not it will deliver on jobs or growth.
The budget has no investments to address the structural problems that have plagued productivity and our ability to compete on the global stage. There is no plan to address the unprecedented level of investment that is fleeing Canada. There is no plan for regulatory and tax reform to help us win on the global stage. There is no comprehensive innovation strategy to ensure Canadian tech start-ups keep their job-creating investments here at home.
This budget is not meant for the growth of the economy. I believe Canadians are looking for hope that things will soon get better and they will still have a bright future to look forward to. They want their jobs and small businesses back. They want their lives and communities back. They want the hope of being able to afford a house. Simply put, they want to return to normal and live the Canadian dream.
This budget fails to deliver. There is no growth plan. It is not meant for the people of Edmonton Mill Woods, Alberta or our future generations. It is a failure. That is why we will not be supporting it.
View Marty Morantz Profile
CPC (MB)
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about the promises made and promises kept. I recall that in the 2019 campaign, a promise was made on reducing cellular phone bills by 25%. I am somewhat concerned that in the 721-page budget document that was presented recently there was not a mention of that promise. Will this promise be kept or will it be another on the long list of promises that have been broken by his government?
View Francis Drouin Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the member's question is very timely. I would invite him to look at a report that was published a few days ago. On average, cellphone bills have gone down by 25%. I forget the name of the report right now, but it is online. He just has to google it, and he can read it. There has been a reduction of at least 25% on average.
View Jeremy Patzer Profile
CPC (SK)
Madam Speaker, I am wondering what the government's plans are to deal with Canadians who are at risk of slipping into energy poverty. The regulations on the clean fuel standards printed in the Gazette show a very clear picture that middle- and lower-income Canadians are at risk of slipping into energy poverty because of increases in transportation fuel and home heating expenses.
How is this going to address that concern?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Madam Speaker, the clean fuel standard is an important part of reducing the carbon content of liquid fuels, and we certainly are working to ensure that it is implemented in a manner that is going to be affordable to all Canadians. That includes increasing accessibility to biofuels and hydrogen through the monies we have allocated to stimulate economic activity in those areas.
I find it a little bizarre that the hon. member is actually asking that question. He might want to review the Conservative Party pamphlet on climate change. It advocates for a more aggressive clean fuel standard, which will have other effects—
View Anthony Rota Profile
Lib. (ON)

Question No. 479--
Ms. Rachel Blaney:
With regard to consultations held by the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages since January 2021 to launch a regional economic development agency for British Columbia: (a) how many meetings were held; (b) who attended each meeting; (c) what was the location of each meeting; (d) excluding any expenditures which have yet to be finalized, what are the details of all expenditures related to each meeting, broken down by meeting; (e) what is the itemized breakdown of the expenditures in (d), broken down by (i) venue or location rental, (ii) audiovisual and media equipment, (iii) travel, (iv) food and beverages, (v) security, (vi) translation and interpretation, (vii) advertising, (viii) other expenditures, indicating the nature of each expenditure; (f) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (g) of the contractors and subcontractors in (f), what is the initial and final value of each contract; and (h) among the contractors and subcontractors in (f), what is the description of each service contract?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 480--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to communications, public relations or consulting contracts signed by the government or ministers' offices since January 1, 2018, in relation to goods or services provided to ministers offices: what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) the start and end date, (ii) the amount, (iii) the vendor, (iv) the description of goods or services provided, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or tendered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 481--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to meetings between ministers or ministerial exempt staff and federal ombudsmen since January 1, 2016: what are the details of all such meetings, including (i) individuals in attendance, (ii) the date, (iii) agenda items or topics discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 482--
Mr. Brad Redekopp:
With regard to the relationship between the government and Canada 2020 since January 1, 2016: (a) what is the total amount of expenditures provided to Canada 2020, broken down by year, for (i) ticket purchases, (ii) sponsorships, (iii) conference fees, (iv) other expenditures; and (b) what is the total number of (i) days, (ii) hours, government officials have spent providing support to Canada 2020 initiatives or programs or attending Canada 2020 events, broken down by year and initiative or event?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 483--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to contracts provided by the government to McKinsey & Company since November 4, 2015, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) what is the total amount spent on contracts; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date and duration, (iv) the description of goods or services provided, (v) topics on which goods or services were related to, (vi) specific goals or objectives related to the contract, (vii) whether or not goals or objectives were met, (viii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or tendered?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 485--
Mr. Ben Lobb:
With regard to meetings between the government, including ministers or ministerial exempt staff, and MCAP since January 1, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: what are the details of all such meetings, including the (i) individuals in attendance, (ii) date, (iii) agenda items or topics discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 486--
Mr. Rob Moore:
With regard to An Act respecting the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, since October 21, 2019: (a) how many directives has the Attorney General issued to the director of public prosecutions as per (i) subsection 10(1) of the act, (ii) subsection 10(2) of the act; and (b) broken down by (a)(i) and (a)(ii), what (i) were those directives, (ii) was the rationale for these directives?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 488--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to Canada’s relationship with the Government of China, since October 21, 2019: (a) what is the total amount of official development assistance that has been provided to the People’s Republic of China; (b) what are the details of each project in (a), including the (i) amount, (ii) description of the project, (iii) goal of the project, (iv) rationale for funding the project; (c) what is Global Affairs Canada’s (GAC) best estimate of China’s current annual military budget; and (d) what is GAC’s best estimate of the total annual budget of China’s Belt and Road Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 489--
Mr. Phil McColeman:
With regard to the government’s announcement of $2.75 billion to purchase zero emission buses: (a) what is the estimated median and average amount each bus will cost; (b) in what municipalities will the buses be located; and (c) how many buses will be located in each of the municipalities in (b), broken down by year for each of the next five years?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 491--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the Highly Affected Sectors Credit Availability Program: (a) how many applications have been (i) received, (ii) approved, (iii) denied; (b) what are the details of all approved fundings, including the (i) recipient, (ii) amount; and (c) what are the details of all denied applications, including the (i) applicant, (ii) amount requested, (iii) reason for denial?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 492--
Mr. John Nater:
With regard to the government funding of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the genocide of the Uyghurs in China: does the government know which of the projects currently funded by the AIIB and located in China are using forced Uyghur labour, and if so, which ones?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 495--
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant:
With regard to how the Canadian Armed Forces deal with sexual misconduct: (a) since November 4, 2015, what is the total number of alleged incidents of sexual assault; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by type of allegation (for example male perpetrator and female victim, male perpetrator and male victim, etc.); (c) what is the breakdown of (b) by type of force, (for example Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, etc.); (d) for each breakdown in (c), in how many cases did the (i) Canadian Forces National Investigation Service assumed jurisdiction, (ii) local military police detachment assumed jurisdiction, (iii) local unit assumed jurisdiction; (e) for each breakdown in (c), in how many cases (i) were charges laid, (ii) were cases proceeded by a summary trial, (iii) were cases proceeded by a courts martial, (iv) was there a finding of guilt, (v) were administrative actions taken, (vi) was the complaint withdrawn or discontinued by the victim; (f) since November 4, 2015, what is the total number of alleged incidents of sexual harassment; (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by type of allegation (for example male perpetrator and female victim, male perpetrator and male victim, etc.); (h) what is the breakdown of (g) by type of force (for example Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Naval Reserve, etc.); and (i) how many of the incidents in (h) resulted in (i) an investigation, (ii) a finding of harassment, (iii) administrative actions or sanctions, (iv) disciplinary actions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 498--
Mr. Tako Van Popta:
With regard to government statistics related to small businesses: (a) how many small businesses have debt levels that put them at serious risk of insolvency or closure; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by sector?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 503--
Mr. Blake Richards:
With regard to the government's statistics and estimates related to small businesses: (a) how many small business have filed for bankruptcy since March 1, 2020, broken down by month; and (b) how many small businesses have either closed or ceased operations since March 1, 2020?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 505--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to call centres across the government, from fiscal year 2019-20 to date, broken down by fiscal year, department and call centre: (a) what is the rate of inaccurate information provided by call agents; (b) what is the annual funding allocated; (c) how many full-time call agents have been assigned; (d) how many calls could not be directed to a call agent; (e) what is the wait time target set; (f) what is the actual performance against the wait time target; (g) what is the average wait time to speak to a call agent; (h) what is the established call volume threshold above which callers are directed to the automated system; and (i) what is the method used to test the accuracy of responses given by call agents to callers?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 506--
Mr. Daniel Blaikie:
With regard to the compliance monitoring of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) since its inception, broken down by period of eligibility, category of eligible employers (corporation, trust, charity other than a public institution, partnership, non-resident corporation), value of claim (less than $100,000, $100,000 to $1 million, $1 million to $5 million, and over $5 million), size of business (small, medium and large), and industry sector: (a) how many prepayment review audits were conducted; (b) of the audits in (a), what is the average audit duration; (c) how many postpayment audits were conducted; (d) of the audits in (c), what is the average audit duration; (e) how many times has the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) determined that an amount of the CEWS is an overpayment; (f) to date, what is the total amount of the CEWS overpayment; (g) how many notices of determination for overpayment have been issued; (h) what is the total amount and interest refunded to date as a result of the notices of determination for overpayment; (i) how many applications for the CEWS have been denied; (j) of the applications denied in (i), how many were subject to a second level review; (k) of the second level reviews in (j), what was the average processing time for the review; (l) of the second level reviews in (j), in how many cases was the original decision upheld; (m) of the cases in (l), how many of the applications were the subject of a notice of objection or an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada; (n) what was the rate of non-compliance; (o) excluding applications from businesses convicted of tax evasion, does the CRA also screen applications for aggressive tax avoidance practices, and, if so, how many applications were denied because the applicant engaged in aggressive tax avoidance; (p) among the businesses receiving the CEWS, has the CRA verified whether each business has a subsidiary or subsidiaries domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction of concern for Canada as defined by the CRA, and, if so, how many of the businesses that received the CEWS have a subsidiary or subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions of concern for Canada; and (q) among the businesses in (p), has the CRA cross-referenced the data of businesses submitted for the CEWS application and their level of risk of non-compliance with tax laws?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 507--
Mr. Kenny Chiu:
With regard to government statistics related to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on racialized Canadians: (a) how many racialized Canadians, in total, were employed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic or as of March 1, 2020; (b) how many racialized Canadians are currently employed; (c) how many racialized Canadians, in total, have left the workforce since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic; (d) what information or statistics does the government have on how the pandemic has hurt self-employed racialized Canadians; (e) how many businesses owned by racialized Canadians have seen their earnings decrease over the pandemic, and what was the average percentage of those decreases; and (f) how many businesses owned by racialized Canadians have ceased operations or faced bankruptcy as a result of the pandemic?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 508--
Mr. Dan Mazier:
With regard to Service Canada, since January 2020, and broken down by month: (a) how many calls did Service Canada receive from the general public via phone; (b) what was the average wait time for an individual who contacted Service Canada via phone before first making contact with a live employee; (c) what was the average wait or on hold time after first being connected with a live employee; (d) what was the average duration of total call time, including all waiting times, for an individual who contacted Service Canada via phone; and (e) how many documented server, website, portal or system errors occurred on the Service Canada website?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 509--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Fall Economic Statement 2020 and the additional $606 million over five years, starting in 2021-22, to enable the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to fund new initiatives and extend existing programs aimed at international tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance, broken down by year: (a) how does the CRA plan to allocate the additional funding, broken down by CRA programs and services; (b) what is the target number of auditors to be hired in terms of full-time equivalents, broken down by auditor category; (c) what portion of the additional funding is solely directed to combating international tax evasion; and (d) what portion of the additional funding is solely directed to aggressive international tax avoidance?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 510--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the government's commitment to launch consultations in the coming months on modernizing Canada's anti-avoidance rules as stated in the Fall Economic Statement 2020: (a) is funding already allocated to the consultation process, and, if so, what is the amount; (b) are staff already assigned, and, if so, how many full-time equivalents are assigned; (c) what is the anticipated list of issues and proposed changes to the consultation process; and (d) when is the consultation process expected to begin?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 511--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to budget 2016 and the government's commitment to provide $350 million per year in ongoing funding to enable the Canada Revenue Agency to combat tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance, broken down by fiscal year, from 2016 to date: (a) how much of this annual funding has gone to programs and services for (i) high-risk audits, (ii) international large business sector, (iii) high net worth compliance, (iv) flow-through share audits, (v) the foreign tax whistleblower program; (b) has this annual funding resulted in the hiring of additional auditors, and, if so, how many additional auditors have been hired, broken down by the programs and services in (a); (c) has this annual funding resulted in an increase in audits, and, if so, how many audits have been completed, broken down by the programs and services in (a); (d) has this annual funding resulted in an increase in assessments, and, if so, how many reassessments have been issued; (e) has this annual funding resulted in an increase in the number of convictions for international tax evasion, and, if so, how many convictions for international tax evasion have occurred; and (f) how much of this annual funding was not spent, and, if applicable, why?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 512--
Mr. James Bezan:
With regard to Canada-Chinese military cooperation, since January 1, 2017: (a) how many joint exercises or training activities have occurred involving the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of the People’s Republic of China; (b) what was the date of these exercises or training activities; (c) what was the nature of these exercises or training activities; (d) what was the location of these exercises or training activities; (e) how many PLA and CAF personnel were involved; (f) what was the rank of each of the PLA personnel involved; (g) what were the costs of these exercises or training activities incurred by the Department of National Defence; and (h) who is responsible for approving these exercises or training activities?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 513--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and Health Canada respectively: (a) what scientific evidence, expert opinions, and other factors went into the decision to extend the dosing schedule up to four months between doses of the COVID-19 vaccines; and (b) what is the summary of the minutes of each meeting the NACI had in which dosing timelines were discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 514--
Ms. Michelle Rempel Garner:
With regard to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC): (a) how many doctors and other designated medical professionals have been employed by the agency, broken down by year since 2015; and (b) what percentage of PHAC employees do each of the numbers in (a) represent?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 516--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to all contracts awarded by the government since November 1, 2019, broken down by department or agency: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to (i) a foreign firm, (ii) an individual, (iii) a business, (iv) another entity with a mailing address outside of Canada; (b) what is the total value of the contracts in (a); (c) for each contract in (a), what is the (i) name of the vendor, (ii) country of the vendor's mailing address, (iii) date of the contract, (iv) summary or description of goods or services provided; and (d) for each contract in (a), was the contract awarded competitively or sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 517--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), since January 1, 2019: (a) what was the call volume, broken down by month and by type of caller (personal, business, professional accountant, etc.); and (b) what was the (i) average, (ii) median length of time callers spent on hold or waiting to talk to the CRA, broken down by month and type of caller?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 518--
Mr. Dave Epp:
With regard to government statistics on wireless service prices for Canadian consumers: (a) what was the average wireless service price as of November 1, 2019; (b) what is the current average wireless service price; and (c) what is the average decrease in wireless service price since November 1, 2019?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 520--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to government contracts, since January 1, 2020, and broken down by department or agency: (a) how many tendered contracts were not awarded to the lowest bidder; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including the (i) vendor, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) date and duration of the contract, (iv) description of goods or services, (v) reason the contract was awarded to the vendor as opposed to the lowest bidder?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 521--
Mr. Blaine Calkins:
With regard to government statistics on the effect of the pandemic on the workforce: what are the government's estimates related to how many Canadians, in total, have left the workforce since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 522--
Mrs. Kelly Block:
With regard to government contribution agreements: (a) how many contribution agreements ended or were not renewed since January 1, 2016; (b) what is the total value of the agreements in (a); and (c) what are the details of each agreement in (a), including the (i) summary of agreement, including list of parties, (ii) amount of federal contribution prior to the agreement ending, (iii) last day the agreement was in force, (iv) reason for ending the agreement?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 525--
Ms. Jag Sahota:
With regard to the report in the March 9, 2021 Toronto Star that federal officials are researching and monitoring problematic supply chains, in relation to the use or forced labour to produce imported goods: (a) which supply chains are problematic; (b) how many supply chains have been identified as problematic; (c) in which countries are the problematic supply chains located; (d) what specific issues had the government identified that made the government identify these supply chains as problematic; and (e) has the government purchased any products that were either made or potentially made from forced labour, since November 1, 2019, and, if so, what are the details of the products, and why did the government purchase products that were potentially made using forced labour?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 528--
Ms. Jag Sahota:
With regard to the government's plan to use the savings of Canadians to stimulate the economy: what are the government's estimates or calculations related to the average per capita amount of savings for each Canadian family?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 531--
Mr. John Barlow:
With regard to government programs, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many programs were ended or have been suspended since January 1, 2016; (b) what are the details of each such program, including the (i) name of the program, (ii) date the program ended or was suspended, (iii) reason for ending or suspending the program, (iv) dollar value in savings as a result of ending or suspending the program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 533--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to government contracts, since October 21, 2019, broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation, or other government entity: (a) how many contracts have been awarded to companies based in China or owned by entities based in China; (b) of the contracts in (a), what are the details, including (i) the value, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date the contract was awarded, (iv) whether or not a national security review was conducted prior to the awarding of the contract, and, if so, what was the result; and (c) what is the government’s policy regarding the awarding of contracts to (i) companies based in China, (ii) companies with ties to the Chinese Communist Party?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 534--
Mr. John Williamson:
With regard to foreign investments, since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how many foreign takeovers of Canadian companies have occurred in accordance with the Investment Canada Act; (b) how many of the takeovers were initiated by Chinese state-owned enterprises; (c) for the takeovers in (b), what are the details, including (i) the name of the company doing the takeover, (ii) the name of the company subject to the takeover, (iii) whether a national security review was conducted, (iv) the result of the national security review, if applicable; and (d) what is the government’s policy regarding foreign takeovers initiated by Chinese state-owned enterprises?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 535--
Mr. Charlie Angus:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, since May 2019: (a) what is the number of meetings held with Canadian and foreign investors, broken down by (i) month, (ii) country, (iii) investor class; (b) what is the complete list of investors met; (c) what are the details of the contracts awarded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, including the (i) date of the contract, (ii) initial and final value of the contract, (iii) vendor name, (iv) file number, (v) description of services provided; (d) how many full-time equivalents were working at the bank in total, broken down by (i) month, (ii) job title; (e) what are the total costs of managing the bank, broken down by (i) fiscal year, from 2019-20 to date, (ii) leases costs, (iii) salaries of full-time equivalents and corresponding job classifications, (iv) operating expenses; (f) how many projects have applied for funding through the bank, broken down by (i) month, (ii) description of the project, (iii) value of the project; (g) of the projects in (f), how many have been approved; (h) how many projects assigned through the bank have begun operations, broken down by region; (i) of the projects in (h), what is the number of jobs created, broken down by region; (j) what is the renumeration range for its board of directors and its chief executive officer, broken down by fiscal year, from 2019-20 to date; (k) were any performance-based bonuses or incentives distributed to the board of directors and the chief executive officer, and, if so, how much, broken down by fiscal year from 2019-20 to date?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 536--
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): (a) how much private sector capital has the CIB been able to secure for its existing projects; (b) what is the overall ratio of private sector investment dollars to public investment dollars for all announced CIB projects; and (c) what is the ratio in (b), broken down by each project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 537--
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to infrastructure projects announced by the government since November 4, 2015: what are the details of all projects announced by the government that are behind schedule, including the (i) description of the project, including the location, (ii) original federal contribution, (iii) original estimated total cost of the project, (iv) original scheduled date of completion, (v) revised scheduled date of completion, (vi) length of delay, (vii) reason for the delay, (viii) revised federal contribution, if applicable, (ix) revised estimated total cost of the project?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 538--
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to applications for Infrastructure funding between November 4, 2015, and September 11, 2019, and broken down by each funding program, excluding the Gas Tax Fund: what is the (i) name of program, (ii) number of applications received under each program, (iii) number of applications approved under each program, (iv) amount of funding commitment under each program, (v) amount of funding actually delivered to date under each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 539--
Mr. Andrew Scheer:
With regard to applications for Infrastructure funding since October 22, 2019, and broken down by each funding program, excluding the Gas Tax Fund: what is the (i) name of program, (ii) number of applications received under each program, (iii) number of applications approved under each program, (iv) amount of funding commitment under each program, (v) amount of funding actually delivered to date under each program?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 542--
Mr. Matthew Green:
With regard to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) high net worth compliance program, broken down by year, from November 2015 to date: (a) how many audits were completed; (b) what is the number of auditors; (c) how many new files were opened; (d) how many files were closed; (e) of the files in (d), what was the average time taken to process the file before it was closed; (f) of the files in (d), what was the risk level of non-compliance of each file; (g) how much was spent on contractors and subcontractors; (h) of the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the initial and final value of each contract; (i) among the contractors and subcontractors in (g), what is the description of each service contract; (j) how many reassessments were issued; (k) what is the total amount recovered; (l) how many taxpayer files were referred to the CRA's Criminal Investigations Program; (m) of the investigations in (l), how many were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada; and (n) of the investigations in (m), how many resulted in convictions?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 544--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the processing of applications by Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC): (a) how many applications did IRCC process each month since January 2020, broken down by month; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by visa category and type of application; (c) how many applications did IRCC process each month in 2019, broken down by month; (d) what is the breakdown of (c) by visa category and type of application; (e) how many IRCC employees were placed on leave code 699 at some point since March 1, 2020; (f) what is the average duration the employees in (e) were on leave code 699; (g) what is the current processing times and application inventories of each visa category and type of application; and (h) what specific impact has the pandemic had on IRCC’s ability to process applications?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 545--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to the Canadian Experience Class Program and the round of invitations issued on February 13, 2021: (a) what is the total number of invitations extended to applicants with Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) scores of (i) 75, (ii) 76 to 99, (iii) 100 to 199, (iv) 200 to 299, (v) 300 to 399, (vi) 400 to 430, (vii) 431 and higher; and (b) what is the distribution of the total number of invitations across the individual categories of points within each factor of the CRS?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 546--
Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan:
With regard to compliance inspections for employers of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 13, 2020, to the present: (a) what is the total number of inspections conducted; (b) what is the total number of tips or allegations received through the 1-800 tip line or on-line portal reporting any suspected non-compliance or in response to information received, and broken down by type of alleged non-compliance; and (c) what is the total number of confirmed non-compliance, and broken down by type of non-compliance?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 547--
Mr. Scott Duvall:
With regard to the proposal, as indicated in the 2020 Fall Economic Statement, for an additional $606 million over five years, beginning in 2021-22, to enable the Canada Revenue Agency to fund new initiatives and extend existing programs aimed at international tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance: (a) what specific modeling was used by the government to support its assertion that these measures to combat international tax evasion and abusive tax avoidance will recover $1.4 billion in revenue over five years; (b) who did the modeling in (a); (c) what were the modeling projections; and (d) does the $1.4 billion estimate come solely from the proposed additional $606 million over five years or does it also come from the 2016 budget commitment of $350 million per year?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 548--
Mr. Scott Duvall:
With regard to events hosted by Facebook, Google, Netflix, and Apple that ministers have attended, since November 2015, broken down by each company, year, and department: (a) what is the number of events each minister attended; (b) of the attendance in (a), what were the costs associated with (i) lodging, (ii) food, (iii) any other expenses, including a description of each expense; and (c) what are the details of any meetings the minister and others attended, including (i) the date, (ii) the summary or description, (iii) attendees, (iv) topics discussed?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 549--
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs:
With regard to government contracts awarded to Cisco, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity: (a) broken down by year, what is the (i) number, (ii) total value, of all contracts awarded to Cisco since January 1, 2016; and (b) what are the details of all contracts awarded to Cisco since January 1, 2016, including (i) the vendor, (ii) the date, (iii) the amount, (iv) the description of goods or services, (v) whether contract was sole-sourced?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 551--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to loans approved by the Canada Enterprise Emergency Funding Corporation (CEEFC) under the Large Employer Emergency Financing Facility, broken down by approved loan for each borrower: (a) what are the terms and the conditions of the loan in terms of (i) dividends, (ii) capital distributions and share repurchases, (iii) executive compensation; (b) for the terms and conditions of the loan in (a), from what date do these terms apply and until what date do they expire; (c) what are the consequences provided for in the terms and conditions of the loan if a company does not comply with one or more of the terms and conditions in (a); (d) by what process does the CEEFC verify that the company complies with the terms and the conditions in (a); and (e) has the CEEFC appointed an observer to the board of directors of each of the borrowers, and, if so, what is the duration of his mandate?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 552--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to housing: (a) since 2010, broken down by year, how much insured lending did the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation approve for rental financing and refinancing to real estate income trusts and large capital equity funds; (b) of the insured lending in (a), how much is associated with the purchase of existing moderate-rent assets; (c) broken down by project receiving funding in (a), what is the (i) average rent of units prior to the acquisition, (ii) average rent of units for each year following the acquisition up until the most current average rent; (d) broken down by province, funding commitment status (e.g. finalized agreement, conditional commitment), whether funding has been advanced and type of funding (grant or loan), what is the total funding that has been provided through the (i) National Co-Investment Fund, (ii) Rental Construction Financing Initiative, (iii) application stream of the Rapid Housing Initiative?
Response
(Return tabled)

Question No. 553--
Ms. Jenny Kwan:
With regard to the government’s contracting of visa application services: (a) on which dates did Public Works and Government Services Canada and Public Services and Procurement Canada each become aware that Beijing Shuangxiong is owned by the Beijing Public Security Bureau; (b) since learning of the ownership structure of Beijing Shuangxiong, what reviews have been conducted in response to this information, and when did they begin; (c) regarding the process that resulted in the awarding of the contract to VFS Global in 2018, (i) how many bids were submitted, (ii) did any other companies win the contract prior to it being awarded to VFS Global, (iii) what was assessed in the consideration of these contracts, (iv) was the Communications Security Establishment or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service involved in the vetting of the contracts; (d) is there an escape clause in this VFS Global’s contract that would allow the government to unilaterally exit the contract; and (e) the government having tasked VFS Global with the creation of digital services, what measures are being taken to ensure that the government is not providing VFS Global with a competitive advantage in future bids?
Response
(Return tabled)
8555-432-479 Regional economic developme ...8555-432-480 Contracts for goods or serv ...8555-432-481 Meetings with federal ombudsmen8555-432-482 Canada 20208555-432-483 Contracts with McKinsey &am ...8555-432-485 Meetings with MCAP8555-432-486 An Act respecting the offic ...8555-432-488 Canada-China relationship8555-432-489 Purchase of zero emission buses8555-432-491 Highly Affected Sectors Cre ...8555-432-492 Asian Infrastructure Invest ... ...Show all topics
View Charlie Angus Profile
NDP (ON)
View Charlie Angus Profile
2021-04-22 11:11 [p.6007]
Madam Speaker, Elk Lake is a tough and scrappy town founded by Jack Monroe. He was a vaudeville superstar who also fought Jack Johnson and was a war hero. Descendants in Elk Lake are as tough as Jack Monroe, so I am very pleased that Eacom put $8.9 million into the Elk Lake sawmill to keep it sustainable.
I am glad to see some federal money going into supporting forestry, but my concern is that people are being gouged and totally ripped off on the price of lumber right now. When I go home to people in Elk Lake and my surrounding communities, they cannot even build a woodshed because of the price.
I would ask my colleague this: What does he think we need to do at the federal level? A two-by-four has gone from costing two bucks to eight bucks. It is completely affecting people's ability to build and do renovations at a time when we need to kick-start the economy.
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
CPC (NS)
View Chris d'Entremont Profile
2021-04-22 11:12 [p.6007]
Madam Speaker, not only are we seeing the same thing here, but we do not have access to those kinds of products.
Another issue here in southwest Nova Scotia is that the housing market has gone up as a lot of people have decided to move here. A young couple trying to buy their first home and get into the workforce cannot afford to, because of mismanagement and how this pandemic continues to go on. Everybody has moved here. It is positive for the people selling their homes, and positive for the real estate agents, but where are people, who have modest means and want to move here, ever going to be able to get into a house or build their own because of the access to those kinds of products?
View Earl Dreeshen Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, today is Canada's Agriculture Day. It is my honour to table in the House a petition from my constituents of Red Deer—Mountain View, as well as from other residents of Alberta, on such an important day for farmers.
The petition calls on the Liberal government to exempt all direct and indirect input costs incurred by farmers as a result of the carbon tax. This ill-conceived tax costs Canadian farmers tens of thousands of dollars each year and puts them at a competitive disadvantage internationally. Even worse, the Liberal government's carbon tax will nearly triple by 2030.
The petition also calls on the government to immediately cancel implementation of the clean fuel standard. Studies estimate that the so-called clean fuel standard will represent a total cost to the Canadian economy of $7 billion to $15 billion. Canadians cannot afford another tax on top of an ill-conceived tax.
View Marwan Tabbara Profile
Ind. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians already found it difficult to make ends meet and this pandemic has only made things worse. To reduce the cost of living, the government asked telecommunications providers to lower their already high prices by 25% over three years.
Can the minister explain how the government will make sure those prices really do come down?
View François-Philippe Champagne Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, we understand the concerns of Canadians and families when it comes to their cellphone bills. That is why our government is taking action to make services more affordable in keeping with our commitment to bring down prices by 25%. The latest affordability tracker is now public so people can see for themselves where prices are going.
The good news is that the tracker shows that prices for most plans have decreased between 10% and 18% in Canada.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
2021-01-28 11:47 [p.3690]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the virtual Parliament to speak to the agreement that was signed between Canada and the United Kingdom, what they are calling a “trade continuity agreement”, and the legislation that would implement that here in Canada.
It has been a bit of a rocky road to get here, and there are a number of problems with the way this has unfolded and that do bear description here in the House. However, I want to start by talking a bit about the nature of trade.
This is another agreement in the vein of corporate globalized trade that we in the NDP recognize has not been good for workers. Canada has signed a number of these free trade agreements, whether the original NAFTA or CETA or the TPP, and various reforms at the WTO. All of these have coincided with a period when a lot of well-paying jobs that fed families and provided the kinds of benefits that Canadians expect as part of a good quality of living, whether that is a decent pension, health benefits or other things that come with a good job, left the country. It is not a coincidence that this happened as these agreements were signed which made it easier for big corporations and some of the biggest economic players to move their capital and operations around to find places with the lowest standards for how they treat their workers and the planet. All of that was done in a context where the taxes these folks pay were continually being reduced as well. Therefore, what was saw was a period when working Canadians lost a lot of their good employment that provided them with a good livelihood, while the people at the top were able to move their assets around and keep more and more of the economic pie for themselves.
It has not worked out well for everyday Canadian workers, and it is why we do not like the model. That does not mean we do not like trade.
The NDP is very well aware of all of the opportunities that exist for Canadian businesses, including some of our small businesses, when trade is done right, for them to be able to expand their reach. We just want to see agreements that allow those opportunities to translate not into gross profits for a few Canadians at the top, but into more good-quality jobs for Canadian workers who will produce the things that get traded with other countries. However, if it just means that all of the value-added work goes somewhere else, that is not in the ultimate interests of Canadians, and there is a fair bit of evidence to suggest that that has been the trend over the last 30 years or so.
Why am I talking about that? Trade between Canada and the United King is as old as Canada, and at least with Europeans. We have had a long-standing trade relationship; it is an important one. A lot of the similarities and affinities between Canada and the United Kingdom provide for creating a real gold-standard trade agreement. If we listen even to the conservatives in the United Kingdom, they talk more about climate change and have put more emphasis on putting climate change at the forefront of their new trade agenda than even the Liberals here have done. There is a real opportunity to work with them and others in the United Kingdom to create a gold-standard deal that takes seriously the impacts of globalized trade for climate change and seeks to control and reduce those impacts.
We have an opportunity to create a gold-standard deal that takes seriously the rights of workers and human rights and seeks to actually incorporate those into the deal, not in a side letter that is not enforceable but actually into the core of the deal, to ensure that workers will be fairly treated and that if there is additional wealth created by an increase of trade between our two countries, it will find its way to workers and not just to the people at the top.
I would also hope that our good relationship with the United Kingdom will allow for an agreement that recognizes and takes seriously the rights and role of indigenous people in Canada, so that we do not run roughshod over those in the way that an agreement is concluded.
However, we do not have that here with this agreement. What we have, after knowing this was coming for a long, long time, is effectively a carbon copy of CETA, which was agreement in the corporate model that I just described and that we do not agree with. We did not agree with it at the time because we knew that an agreement like CETA and its intellectual property provisions was going to put upward costs on the price of pharmaceutical drugs in Canada when we already pay among the highest price for prescription drugs in the western world.
Why would we conclude an agreement that makes those drugs more expensive? Why then would we carbon copy that agreement when we have an opportunity to do something different with our largest trading partner in the European Union, representing about 40% of our trade with Europe? That does not make sense to New Democrats, who have been elected to Parliament on a mission to reduce the price of prescription drugs for Canadians.
It does not make sense when we think about the integrity of our democratic institutions. These same corporate trade deals have also put serious limits and inhibitions on democratically elected governments to regulate in the public interest. That was also a part of the reasons for our initial opposition to CETA, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. Now, I recognize that those would not coming into force immediately upon the passage of this legislation, but I find it shocking, frankly, that they are even in there at all, because we have not heard the British government talk about the need for investor-state dispute settlement clauses.
Those are the clauses that have allowed foreign corporations to sue the Canadian government for hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 30 years. Those are the same clauses the Deputy Prime Minister herself said in the House last June were one of the biggest achievements she was most proud of from the CUSMA negotiations. In her words, "the investor-state dispute resolution system, which in the past allowed foreign companies to sue Canada, will be gone.”
Here they are again, not because our trading partner was asking for them. How did they even get into the agreement? If Britain does not want them and Canada does not want them, why are they there and why is possible for them come into effect, which is the default incidentally, after three years if another decision is not taken in the meantime?
We object to these being present at all, and I am interested to know who at the table was concerned to put them in there, given that our government was trying to take credit for having signed an agreement with the United States and Mexico that finally got rid of them, which we thought was a good thing.
The other thing CETA did that we oppose was further attack the supply-managed sectors in Canada. We heard comments earlier that I agree with completely. The way we procure our food and supply our food is not as if it were commodity like any other, and so we want to make sure that our agricultural producers are compensated fairly for what they produce and that we can support those local producers and that our food supply chain is secure.
All of these agreements tend toward a more globalized food supply chain. If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that when it comes to the things that really matter and that we cannot do without, we should not be depending on international supply chains. Supply management in Canada is a great tool to ensure that our local producers are paid fairly for the work they do, can stay in business and that Canadian consumers can get the products they need to eat at a fair price reliably.
Those were things we did not like about CETA. We had lots of time, and, frankly, when it came to signing CETA in the first place, it was a mystery to us in the NDP that the government rushed ahead with it. The Conservatives had negotiated this deal, the Liberals came to power, and in the meantime Britain decided to hold a referendum on whether to remain in the European Union. New Democrats thought it might be significant to the nature of trade between Europe and Canada whether the United Kingdom was a part of Europe or not, considering that it represented about 40% of our trade with Europe.
It still strikes me as totally ridiculous that the government decided to go ahead and pen a deal with Europe when we did not know if the United Kingdom was leaving the European Union, which we subsequently found out it was, and that 40% of trade with Europe was not going to be captured by that deal. It does raise problems. We will see what happens as we try to negotiate a successor agreement and what that will mean for the supply-managed sector. New Democrats are very concerned that there are further concessions in the offing. We will believe it when we see that that it is not really on the table for the Liberals, because we have seen them break that promise before.
The other thing that bears mentioning when it comes to CETA is the following quote from a report called “Taking Stock of CETA: Early Impacts of the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement”. It states:
Between September 2017 and May 2019, total Canadian exports to the EU, measured monthly, were essentially flat. Meanwhile, over the same period, total imports from the EU increased by over a third (33.8 per cent). This imbalance has resulted in a doubling of the monthly Canadian trade deficit with the EU, from –1.51 billion dollars in September 2017 to –3.43 billion dollars in May 2019.
In recent decades, the United Kingdom is the only major European country with which Canada has consistently run a trade surplus. But since September 2017, the Canadian merchandise trade surplus with the U.K. has shrunk significantly (falling by two-thirds), with exports declining by 32 per cent while imports rose 14 per cent.
That is an assessment of the deal on whether it is working for Canada. The government did not bother to negotiate a different agreement. It is asking for a carbon copy of an agreement that has seen Canada's trade deficit with Europe increase. Even the empirical evidence on the deal so far suggests that this has not been a wondrous deal for Canada.
I have a lot of sympathy for Canadian businesses that want certainty in an uncertain time. I think the government really let them down in terms of the process, but it did not just let them down in November and December when it failed to get this legislation before the House and passed before December 31. The government let them down a long time ago, when it walked away from the negotiating table and was not even trying to negotiate the kind of gold-standard deal that I spoke about earlier, or any kind of different deal at all.
Here we find ourselves, past the deadline. These businesses have already gone through that jarring uncertainty and what it means for their business models, so I understand their disappointment. I think the government ought to have behaved in a way to try to provide a lot more certainty about what was coming, but I think it is a disappointment that, in addition, all we are getting is the same as we had in CETA with all of the problems that were there, and with all the evidence that shows that this has not been a deal that is working out very well for Canada.
I would say perhaps one of the only redeeming aspects of this entire farce of a process around negotiating our post-Brexit trade relationship with the United Kingdom is that it afforded an opportunity for certain committees of the House to reaffirm our commitment to the Good Friday Agreement, which Canada played an important role in brokering. New Democrats, my colleague from Saint John—Rothesay at the foreign affairs committee and I, presented a motion at the international trade committee and the foreign affairs committee that passed, I am glad to say unanimously, affirming Canada's support for [Technical difficulty—Editor] wants to be part of a trade relationship with the United Kingdom that in no way jeopardizes the Good Friday Agreement and, in fact, seeks to reinforce that peace, which was hard won in the nineties.
That is maybe one of the only silver linings to what otherwise was a terrible process. There was no real meaningful consultation with businesses, with unions or with Canadian civil society on what this trade relationship ought to look like. I stress this again, because the government likes to talk as if the deadline snuck up on us or as if we did not know it was coming. We have known for years that Britain was leaving the EU, and it was incumbent upon the government of the day to do the work so that whenever that deadline came there was actually something in place, yet there was no meaningful public consultation process on this.
The trade committee, on its own initiative, held some hearings in Parliament but, of course, like many things due to the pandemic, these were severely interrupted. It does not explain why there was not some effort by the government, in the years leading up to that, to try to engage people meaningfully on the question of the Canada-U.K. trade agreement or to try to involve Parliament, for that matter.
I would like to add that while we are talking about the abomination of process that is this deal, it bears mentioning that the government will talk about this as a transitional deal. I think that is misleading.
I get that our partner in the United Kingdom and the Canadian government perhaps committed in good faith, and it is in the agreement for all to read that they are going to start negotiating toward a successor deal within a year. I think there is some expectation that within three years the deal will be concluded. A couple of things will get more difficult after that three-year time horizon if a successor deal has not been concluded.
The fact remains that a transitional deal implies a temporary deal. The fact that it is a transitional deal, and the fact that it is essentially a carbon copy of CETA, are the reasons the government is saying that we should not be too concerned that there has not been a great process around it all: “Do not worry, we are going to negotiate another deal and it is really just like what we had.”
However, there were problems with what we had. The NDP is not satisfied with CETA. The NDP does not agree that CETA is the be-all and end-all of a trade agreement anyway, and I can tell members that a lot of Canadian workers across the country feel the same way. That fact notwithstanding, when we talk about a transitional deal it implies a temporary deal, and there is nothing temporary about this deal.
This deal has already been signed. The government has done the deed and the legislation, I gather from the debate today, is going to pass. New Democrats will be voting against it, but it is going to pass, and in a timely way. We all know, after what we just went through with Donald Trump, the pandemic and everything else, that three years is a long time in politics. A lot can change, and good intentions sometimes do not bear the fruit that people thought they would.
If, in three year's time, Canada and the U.K. do not conclude a successor agreement, this is what we are stuck with, and we will have been stuck with it after no meaningful engagement with the Canadian public or the Canadian Parliament except for this debate and whatever process will ensue at committee, which is something we are being asked to hurry up with and rush. The government has created a context where there is a legitimate need to act with some swiftness, because Canadian businesses have not had an opportunity to plan for an alternative, even though I think an alternative could have served Canadians better.
There is no sunset clause in the deal. There is no sunset clause in the legislation before us. In other words, there is nothing that compels Canada and the U.K. in any strong sense to conclude a successor agreement that might realize the potential for that gold standard in trade rather than repeating the same old corporate model that has not been serving Canadians well over the last 30 years. To me, that is a real disappointment, and I caution Canadians that this is not just some kind of transitional thing that is going away any time soon. It will only go away any time soon if it becomes a priority of our government and the government of the U.K., and political circumstances allow them to conclude a deal.
If we think back to where we were three years ago, nobody would have predicted what has happened in the interim. It would be a shame if this is the deal that Canada gets stuck with to define our trading relationship with the United Kingdom, because I think we can do a heck of a lot better.
I think we can do better when it comes to not having any provisions at all, like the investor-state dispute settlement provisions that cost Canadian taxpayers money and limit the ability of their democratically elected governments to regulate in the public interest.
I think it would be a shame if we did not get an agreement with the U.K. that takes climate change seriously and tries to mitigate the effects of globalized trade.
I think it would be a shame if we did not get an agreement with the U.K. that recognizes, in some kind of meaningful and enforceable way, the rights of indigenous people in Canada.
I think it would be a shame if we did not get an agreement that took upward pressure on prescription drug costs seriously. At the very least, if the Liberals are going to continue to sign deals like this, they could get a national pharmacare plan in place and help to do something that would bring those pharmaceutical drug prices down for Canadians, both their out-of-pocket costs and the incredible costs on provincial government ledgers for those pharmacare programs that do not benefit from the purchasing power of the entire country.
I hope we are going to get there, and that is certainly where our emphasis is going to be, but in the meantime, it is hard to say yes to a deal that is unimaginative and part of a broken international trade culture.
View Gerald Soroka Profile
CPC (AB)
View Gerald Soroka Profile
2020-12-01 15:03 [p.2772]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal clean fuel standard will increase the cost of fuel by 4¢ per litre. This increase in cost will have disproportionate effects on Canadians living in rural areas, like so many of my constituents. Rural Canadians do not have the same transportation options as those in urban centres.
Will the government make concessions for rural residents to even the playing field or will it continue gouging rural Canadians?
View Jonathan Wilkinson Profile
Lib. (BC)
Mr. Speaker, using cleaner fuels in our buildings, vehicles and industries is one of the biggest steps we can take to reduce emissions in this country. The clean fuel standard will cut pollution by up to 30 million tonnes in 2030, which is equivalent to taking seven million cars off the roads. It is going to create enormous opportunities for farmers and companies producing renewable fuels, hydrogen and biofuels. It will encourage investments in energy efficiency that will help Canadians save money. It will assist with the faster deployment of electric vehicles. It is something that will drive innovation in this country, business opportunity and environmental sustainability.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Madam Speaker, I would like to get a few comments from the parliamentary secretary on pricing. This government appears to be making affordable energy seem costly, and thereby give the illusion that its policy is somehow affordable.
Let us talk about the Atlantic loop. We all know the hydro coming online in Labrador is going to be very expensive compared with the alternatives. The government has proposed sharing that very expensive power with the rest of Atlantic Canada.
Could the member talk about her government's plan to ensure ratepayers throughout Atlantic Canada, and in my home province of New Brunswick in particular, do not get socked with high prices because of the government's policy and being forced to buy power through the Atlantic loop?
View Yvonne Jones Profile
Lib. (NL)
View Yvonne Jones Profile
2020-11-26 10:29 [p.2485]
Madam Speaker, substituting power under the Atlantic loop does not necessarily mean using power that is already available through Muskrat Falls, which he quotes as higher-priced power. It includes the opportunity to develop additional power sources, whether in Labrador, other parts of Atlantic Canada or central Canada. Those are the things that will be considered. The Atlantic loop is about replacing [Technical difficulty—Editor] affordability of that power to citizens.
View Salma Zahid Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Salma Zahid Profile
2020-03-11 15:08 [p.1937]
Mr. Speaker, now more than ever Canadians rely on cellphones for their work, school, finances and health care, making access to high-quality and affordable service absolutely essential. However, cellphone and wireless bills are still putting too much strain on too many Canadian households.
Could the Prime Minister please update Canadians on the latest steps this Liberal government has taken to reduce cellphone prices?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2020-03-11 15:08 [p.1937]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for her continued advocacy on affordability for the middle class and her incredibly hard work.
In the last election we made a clear commitment to Canadians that we would lower their cellphone bills. Last week, we announced a clear plan to ensure that the three national cellphone providers offer plans 25% cheaper. This is one of the many ways we are making life more affordable for Canada's middle class and those working hard to join it.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, something our Parliament should be addressing is the fact that an emerging catalyst for inequality is access to fast, affordable and reliable Internet. As we have seen 4G technology revolutionize our economy with things like streaming services and apps like Uber, we have seen the disruptive impact this has had on the economy in a positive way, but that is only going to accelerate as we see 5G technology roll out over the next five years. When we already have an issue in this country between urban and rural divide, rich and poor, and we have to deal with the issue of reconciliation, we should be looking for ways to unite us through technology and through fast, affordable access to the Internet.
The reality is there are over a million Canadians who do not have any type of access and there are many more people in Canada who pay a lot more. It becomes an affordability and equality issue. Right now, most people in Canada pay five times more than an American does for data. We pay 10 times more than a European does.
When the Liberals talk about reducing cellphone bills by a certain percentage that is not even close to that without any sort of plan outside of maybe asking the telcos nicely and hope that they do this, it is really not addressing the issue of a catalyst for inequality in any sort of meaningful way. I am hoping that in this Parliament, the government will be open to working with the opposition on concrete, innovative ways to get access for everyone.
If over 100 years ago, or whatever the time period was, we built a railway across the Rocky Mountains and across the Canadian Shield, then surely we can figure out how to do things like lay infrastructure so that first nations communities are not separated from Canada and rural Canadians have the same access as urban Canadians do. We want urban and rural Canadians, everybody, to have access to a vital service that is the underpinning of our economy and of the economy of the future.
What I mean by working collaboratively is there are things the government needs to be stating its intent on. I would first point out it needs to signal whether it is going to uphold the ruling on MVNOs that allows for more competition in this space. That is something many Canadians are advocating for in order to ensure there is competitiveness so there is a market pressure downward on this type of access.
It would be interesting if the government signalled some sort of intent to look at new ways to auction spectrum. If we look at this building as having a value to the government, I am not sure we would just sell it off as is without any sort of requirement on how it is being used given how important it is to the Canadian people. We have to start looking at spectrum from the same perspective, that this is an asset that will become an underpinning of the Canadian economy in a much more integrated way and ask whether there are ways we can use this to better incent competition and better incent that fast, reliable and affordable access in Canada.
I do not want to hear these prepared talking points that do one of two things, such as, the Liberals are going to reduce cellphone bills by 25%. How? How are they going to do that, just by asking nicely? The second thing I do not want to hear about is a digital charter that has no teeth and no plan to implement.
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
2020-02-06 18:43 [p.1070]
Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments from the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill regarding the affordability of telecommunication services for Canadians. I want her to know that we obviously agree with her assessment that there is an emerging catalyst for inequality and that we take affordability and standing up for consumers very seriously. We very much look forward to collaborating with her.
I can also say that I am not going to be responding by simply bringing up the digital charter. It is fair to say that we have done many things over the course of the past four years, and I would be very happy to recite those.
Our government has taken significant actions with both the regulator and industry to improve affordability, competition and consumer interests in telecommunications. Progress has been made.
Through these efforts, we have seen several developments. First, we have seen the introduction of lower-cost, data-only wireless plans. Second, we have experienced the creation of a new, discounted prepaid brand by a national carrier. Third, we have also seen $10-per-month Internet services for eligible low-income families.
We have applied competitive measures in spectrum auctions to ensure that regional and smaller wireless carriers have access to the spectrum they need to deploy high-quality networks. With this spectrum, regional carriers have been able to upgrade their networks and offer their customers the latest technologies and smart phones.
This has created a more competitive telecommunications market with increased options for Canadians. Regional wireless carriers can now offer compelling plans for consumers, often at lower prices than national carriers. National carriers have felt the pressure of regional competition, responding with new promotions. These are steps in the right direction.
Consumer interests have also been strengthened. This includes changes to the wireless code of conduct, pursuant to which carriers are now required to unlock mobile devices free of charge, and all mobile devices must now be sold unlocked. This change reduces barriers to switching providers when consumers find a better deal.
Another change is the right for the account holder, the person actually paying the bill, to be notified of data overcharges and approve of them, instead of the user. Other steps resulted in the creation of an Internet code of conduct to provide Internet consumers with the same protection they have for wireless and TV services. This measure came into effect last week.
Finally, as a commitment to Canadians, we have been clear that we are going to work to reduce cellphone costs by 25%.
In sum, much has been accomplished to date, but much more remains to be done.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any Canadian who would say that there has been any material change to make their access more affordable and more reliable. I am flanked by colleagues right now who represent that swath of rural Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and this is something that is worth fighting for.
I want to put the government on notice that in this Parliament, this issue is going to be a big priority for our caucus on this side of the aisle. It is unfair, to both individual Canadians and to businesses, to not be addressing this issue as a pressing, urgent matter. The 25% is a talking point that has no plan behind it. That is not going to cut it.
What I would like the parliamentary secretary to do right now is make a commitment that perhaps by the end of this Parliament, all Canadians, including the farthest-to-reach Canadians, will have fast, affordable Internet access.
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ali Ehsassi Profile
2020-02-06 18:48 [p.1071]
Madam Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that there is no need to put us on notice. We are very much focused on the issue that she is speaking to today.
I will reiterate that the government has acted to improve the affordability of wireless and Internet services for Canadians. Progress has been made, but there remains more to be done.
Because of the policy direction given in 2019, the CRTC must now take into consideration affordability, competition, consumer interests and innovation in all its decisions. This will apply to the current CRTC review of mobile wireless services, which is looking at competition in the retail market, the wholesale regulatory framework, as well as the future of mobile wireless services in Canada.
In short—
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming more expensive for average Canadians to pay their bills. Costs are going up across the country, and in Alberta in particular, families are struggling. Car insurance rates have gotten more expensive, electricity bills are higher and just this week parents are learning that they will have to pay out of their own pockets for their kids to ride the school bus.
On top of all this, Canadians are still paying some of the highest fees for cellphones and Internet bills in the world because the government refuses to do what is right and put the needs of people ahead of the demands of the telecom industry.
No matter where people live in Canada, they should be able to stay connected without breaking the bank. Wishing, hoping and claiming that industries regulate themselves just will not work. Canadians need a price cap on their cellphone and Internet bills.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, more MVNOs will have an impact in Canada. Recent rulings, which could allow for more MVNOs, are being heavily appealed. It is a heated issue, with extensive lobbying being placed on many members of the House.
Given the importance of this issue, can the Prime Minister tell the House his vision for MVNOs in Canada, if he thinks they are important or not, and his government's position on recent related rulings that he is being requested to intervene in?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2019-12-11 15:08 [p.274]
Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment in the last election to decrease cellphone bills by 25% for Canadians. That is something that we will do by working with the industry. If they do not bring down their prices, we will bring in significant measures around more competition in the industry to provide better options and opportunities for Canadians. This is a commitment we have made. It will save Canadian families thousands of dollars. We know that lowering cellphone prices is a priority for Canadians that we are going to take up.
View Michelle Rempel Garner Profile
CPC (AB)
Mr. Speaker, today Canadians pay the same amount for five gigabytes of data as an American pays for 12 gigabytes, and the difference is even more stark compared to what a European pays. It is not fair to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet and it makes us uncompetitive.
Over four years, the Liberals have always put Canada's big wireless companies first, as opposed to lowering costs for Canadians with innovative spectrum licence designs or other ways of getting low-cost wireless access for Canadians. Why?
View Navdeep Bains Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful question on an issue that we campaigned on. We were very clear that we are going to reduce cellphone bills by 25%, and this is above and beyond the actions we have taken to help consumers. We brought forward a policy directive that makes it very clear to CRTC to make affordability front and centre. We have also dealt with consumer-related issues when it comes to high-pressure sales tactics, which has led to a new wireless code of conduct, as well as an Internet code of conduct.
We are going to remain committed to making sure that we use spectrum in a strategic way to help consumers.
Results: 1 - 79 of 79

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data