Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely correct in saying we have a housing crisis from coast to coast to coast, and that no matter what community one is part of, big or small, this crisis is significant. The federal Liberal government cancelled the national affordable housing program back in 1993. As a result, Quebec and British Columbia are the only two provinces continuing to try to address the housing crisis. With that being said, the Liberals and Conservatives did nothing to address the crisis in tackling the profiteering of housing. We are now seeing escalating costs in housing for renters and home owners. To the member's point about an acquisition fund, which is absolutely needed to support non-profits to get into the housing market, to buy up housing stock that comes onto the market, my question is this. Would he also support calling on the government to end the special tax treatment for corporate landlords so that they have to pay their fair share of taxes? We could take that money to invest it in housing.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to engage in this debate today about housing. In fact, I could talk about housing all day long. The motion before us today is indeed an interesting one. In the Conservatives' approach, per usual, they focus only on issues where they could actually put out buzzwords to rev up the community about a situation. The solutions they provide often have tremendous gaps and, interestingly, they always miss when it comes to targeting the corporate sector. I wonder why the Conservatives always think the corporate sector will take care of things, that somehow things will magically be okay, including the situation with housing. If the market were going to take care of the housing crisis, or, in fact, if the market were not going to escalate the crisis, then we would not be in this situation today. The reality is this: When we look at the housing crisis from coast to coast to coast, we do need government intervention. I am a strong proponent of that, saying that the federal government needs to show leadership. It does not matter who is in government. Whether it is the Liberals or the Conservatives, government needs to be there for people to ensure housing as a basic human right. The reality is that the government has not been there. That is why we have the housing crisis we face today. The Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program back in 1993. Our country lost more than half a million units of social and co-op housing that would otherwise have been built had the Liberals not cancelled the program. Now, I have to say that the Conservatives also did not do their part. They were in government as well. They did not invest in housing as they needed to do. More to the point, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives invested in housing to meet the needs on the basis of housing being a basic human right. Not only that, but they allowed the market to go rampant in taking advantage of Canadians who need housing. What happened after the federal Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program? We started to see real estate investment trusts come into the market. They started to buy up housing stock in the community. Not only did they start to buy up the housing stock, but the government of the day also allowed them to walk away with a free pass to boot. They did not have to pay the corporate tax rate, even though, for all intents and purposes, they operate like a corporation. As a result, the seven largest real estate investment trusts did not have to pay taxes at the corporate rate to the general revenues, to the tune of $1.2 billion. This tax should have been collected, and then the government could have reinvested that money into housing by creating an acquisition fund for non-profits, which the Liberals say they support. They should have funded it so that we could hold the housing stock. However, the Liberals did not do that. It was not just the Liberals; the Conservatives did not do that either. They allowed this to go on and on. Now, the Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer just issued a report indicating that Canada will lose another $300 million over the next four years if we do not change the tax policy. The NDP has said on the public record that we need to stop fuelling the housing crisis. Corporate landlords need to pay their fair share, and real estate investment trusts need to pay the corporate tax rate. The money that we collect should be reinvested back into housing. However, we do not see any of that language in this motion today. The Conservatives are saying that local governments should pre-emptively upzone a parcel of land for the development of housing. Now let us be clear: When they do that, what is happening is that the Conservatives are saying to the local government to just write developers a blank cheque. Every time a parcel of land is upzoned, that land value increases exponentially. I am not saying we should not upzone land for further housing development, but my question is this: Why did the Conservatives not put in language to say that there needs to be a return back to the community? When we give value in land to the developers, there has to be a return back to the community to ensure that the increased value in land that they receive from the upzoning is actually going to the community in the form of community contributions, more social housing, day care spaces and green spaces, as examples. The Conservatives consistently and persistently give a free pass to the private sector; according to the New Democrats, that is wrong. We also want to see “affordability” defined. What has happened over the years is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have eroded the term “affordability” to the point where it is meaningless. In fact, if we talk to people in the non-profit sector, they think that when the government says, “affordable housing”, it is a four-letter word. It does not actually amount to being affordable by any stretch of the imagination. Once upon a time, core-need housing was deemed to be affordable when rent was geared to income. That has now disappeared. It no longer exists. It exists only in theory, and that should stop. This motion should have incorporated language on affordability and defined it better. We want to tie federal infrastructure dollars for municipalities to the number of new homes built, impose clawbacks on municipalities that delay new home construction, and ensure that there is federal funding for major transit projects to cities that pre-emptively upzone lands around transit infrastructure for higher-density housing. The NDP is calling for amendments to this motion. We are calling for the Conservatives to accept three amendments. Specifically, we want to ensure that at least one-third of the new homes built meet core affordability needs and that at least one-third of the new homes are set, at a minimum, at 20% below market housing rent. We need to ensure that upzoning provides tangible benefits to local communities, including additional affordable housing, additional green spaces and child care spaces. We also need to ensure that the underutilized federal properties made available for housing to create new social co-ops and community housing guarantee the affordability of those units and that the value of the upzoning goes back to the community and not into the hands of the developers. That is what we need to do. I hope that the Conservatives will support these amendments and that the language of the amendments fits what is required in this House. I move that the motion be amended as follows: “(a) in paragraph (a) by adding after the words ‘new homes built’ the words ‘to ensure at least 1/3 of the new homes built meet core affordability needs of Canadians, that at least 1/3 is set at minimum 20% below market housing rent’; (b) by adding the following paragraph after paragraph (b): ‘ensuring that this “up-zoning” provides tangible benefits to local communities, including in the form of additional affordable housing, additional green spaces, and child care spaces, so that “up-zoning” does not just benefit developers’; and (c) in paragraph (c) by replacing the words ‘housing while guaranteeing’ with the words ‘social, co-operative, or community housing to guarantee.’” That is the motion that I would like to move in order to amend the Conservative motion; it can ensure that we are clear in what we are talking about, that “affordability” is clearly defined and that there is a return back to the community when we upzone land so that the benefit is not just a blank cheque for the developer; rather, it is a community benefit going back to the people.

Mr. Speaker, the motion talks about housing and not industrial land. There is another whole debate I would love to get into about industrial land, but for the purpose of this discussion, what we need to focus on is the housing crisis. I call on the Liberal government to do the right thing and show leadership by investing in social housing back to the level when the government was doing it in the seventies and the eighties. The other thing I say to the government is to stop the corporate sector from fuelling the housing crisis, stop the special treatment that real estate investment trusts get and make them pay their fair share. The government should make them pay the corporate tax rate and reinvest that money to non-profits into an acquisition fund.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying, and the member knows this, is that real estate investment trusts should pay their fair share of taxes. They should not be given special tax treatment and not pay the corporate tax rate. They should be paying the corporate tax rate. Canadians are losing close to $2 billion in taxes that should have been collected and could have been invested into housing. No wonder the Conservatives would oppose my amendment, because they always want to benefit the corporate sector and not make them pay their fair share. When I say to make them pay their fair share, in what terms? It is for that investment to go back into the community. By saying no to my amendment, the Conservatives are saying that they do not want to ensure, by giving land value with the upzoning, the return is returned to the community in the form of more social housing, green space, child care and other community benefits. That is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member that we need the federal government's leadership in investing in housing. That is why the NDP calls for the government to build at least 500,000 units of social housing, co-op housing or community housing, because the community deserves housing and housing is a basic human right. As long as the approach by the Liberal government or the Conservatives is being taken, we will always have a housing crisis. Real investment needs to be made and it needs to be done now.

Madam Speaker, part of the immigration problem is that the government has decided to continue to use temporary foreign workers to address our skilled labour shortage, including in the construction sector. What the government should do is regularize people so they have the status to come to Canada, and ensure that those who are already in Canada have full status. Would the member support the regularization of those without status or those with temporary status who are already in Canada so they can fully contribute to every aspect of Canada's development?

Madam Speaker, I have to say what we need is for the federal government to show the kind of leadership that is necessary. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been calling for a national acquisition fund for a couple of years. The government has been talking about this and consulting about this. NGOs in the community have been calling for this. The NDP has been calling for this. However, it was not in budget 2023. Will he support the NDP's call for the government to charge landlords for the financialization of homes, such as real estate investment trusts, for them to pay their fair share of corporate taxes, and take those resources and invest them in an acquisition fund for non-profits?

Mr. Chair, I believe that in her heart, the member really wants to move the issues forward. Most recently, with the Coalition on Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in B.C., in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, our community has been talking about this issue. In fact, it was in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside where the first memorial march was led back in the day, so many years ago, when I was a community legal advocate. Fewer than 20 people showed up for that march, and now we see it across the country. That being said, here are some of the issues people raised at that meeting. They are calling for the red dress alert to be implemented, of course, but beyond that they also want to see a national summit led and organized by indigenous women, and they want to see the continued conversation about a missing persons database. These are some of the things that need to be done, and they need to be done now. In addition, the coalition has been calling for government support to fund community people who are out there looking for missing loved ones. So often, they are just doing that work all on their own without any support anywhere. My question for the member is this: Will the government undertake to ensure that the ideas and strategies coming from indigenous organizations, like the Coalition on Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in B.C., and family members are supported? Will it actually fund those initiatives and implement them?

Mr. Chair, one of the issues the member raised was about indigenous children who have been brought into care, and far too many of them have. In fact, in my home community of Vancouver East, our community call this the modern-day residential school where indigenous children have been taken into care. What is worse is that when they come out of care, they have zero support whatsoever, and many of them do not have access to housing. In fact, in British Columbia, 15% of the homeless population are youth. This is not acceptable. In the “Calls for Justice” report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, there were 231 calls for justice, and housing was mentioned in that report numerous times. My question to the member is this: Should we not now have a dedicated approach on a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy that targets indigenous youth, particularly those who are coming out of care and those who are from the LGBTQ2+ community as well?

Madam Chair, one issue is of particular concern for indigenous peoples. The minister talked about education as a key component in supporting opportunities. In British Columbia, one of the first acts of the former minister of advanced education, Melanie Mark, was to ensure that children in care and coming out of care would have access to free education in British Columbia. If the minister really believes in supporting indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples to thrive, would she call publicly for the government to fund an educational program for all indigenous peoples across the country who are coming out of care?

Madam Speaker, the issue around how money laundering is impacting real estate is very significant. In fact, a special panel did a review on this in British Columbia, and one of its top recommendations was to have a beneficial ownership of land registries across the country. B.C. did that, and I believe we need to do that, given the housing crisis we are faced with. The conservative estimate on the impacts of money laundering on real estate in British Columbia is at least a 5% hit with respect to the cost to housing. I have previously asked this question. It appears the government members do not think this is incorporated into the bill. My question for the member is this: Does he feel this should be incorporated into the bill to ensure that we also tackle money laundering through real estate?

Madam Speaker, in terms of eye care, the member is absolutely correct to say that it is critical. However, the cost of eye care is increasing and, oftentimes, what we are seeing is that it is getting delisted in terms of coverage under the health care plan. That certainly is the case here in Ontario. From that perspective, what does the member have to offer in ensuring that coverage is provided so that people can in fact access the necessary health care and eye care that they need?

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech on the bill today, I want to take a moment to recognize today as the National Day of Mourning, to honour every worker who goes to work, and to say very clearly that they deserve to return home safely at the end of their workday. I would also like to take a moment to remember those who have been injured or lost their lives, and to recommit ourselves to fighting for a safe work environment for all workers. I am very pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-284, an act to establish a national strategy for eye care. I would like to thank the member for Humber River—Black Creek for introducing this important bill with respect to eye health for all Canadians. New Democrats support this bill and the important steps it would take to improve access to eye care for all Canadians. This legislation would set out a national strategy to support the prevention and treatment of eye disease to ensure better health outcomes for Canadians. It states the following: (2) The national strategy must describe the various forms of eye disease and include measures to (a) identify the training, education and guidance needs of health care practitioners and other professionals related to the prevention and treatment of eye disease, including clinical practice guidelines; (b) promote research and improve data collection on eye disease prevention and treatment; (c) promote information and knowledge sharing between the federal and provincial governments in relation to eye disease prevention and treatment; and (d) ensure that Health Canada is able to rapidly consider new applications for treatments and devices used for macular degeneration, cataracts, glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy. This legislation also designates the month of February as age-related macular degeneration month. Organizations including Fighting Blindness Canada, the Canadian Council of the Blind, the CNIB, Diabetes Canada, the Canadian Association of Optometrists, the Canadian Ophthalmological Society, and the Canadian Association of Retired Persons have advocated for a national eye care strategy for many years, and it is long past time for action on this issue. Sadly, eye health has been underfunded and deprioritized in Canada for far too long. As a result, millions of Canadians are being put at unnecessary risk of vision loss because they lack access to eye care. Currently, access to eye care varies widely from province to province, resulting in variable health outcomes and exacerbating inequalities in our health care system. As well, 39% of Canadians do not have access to vision health benefits. This is wrong. Over eight million Canadians are living with an eye condition that puts them at significant risk of blindness. An estimated 1.2 million Canadians are currently living with vision loss, with many facing a lack of investment in services and supports that impacts their ability to live life to its fullest. This number is expected to grow to two million by 2050. That is staggering. Routine eye exams play a crucial role in the prevention of vision loss. If certain eye diseases are diagnosed early enough, they can be effectively managed before expensive and sometimes invasive measures are required. If diagnosed early, and if people have access to treatment, vision loss can be prevented in 75% of cases. Further, 70% of existing vision impairment in Canada is estimated to be correctable with prescription glasses. A sizable proportion of correctable vision impairment is related to the barriers to accessing vision care in Canada. Most guidelines recommend having an eye exam once a year for people aged six to 18, or 65 years and older, as well as for those with diabetes or an eye disease. For healthy people aged 19 to 64, one visit every two years is considered sufficient. For many Canadians, this is out of reach due to out-of-pocket expenses, and 39% of Canadians do not have access to vision health benefits. Vision care is not a luxury; it is health care provision and must be treated as such. However, some provinces are moving in the wrong direction and reducing access to eye care for those who need it the most. For instance, the Conservative government in Ontario announced that, starting September 1, free annual eye exams paid for through the Ontario health insurance plan will no longer be available to all seniors. A study commissioned by the Canadian Council of the Blind and Fighting Blindness Canada has raised alarms on the state of vision care in Canada and the impact of the COVID pandemic on eye care services. In 2020, 1,437 Canadians experienced vision loss as a direct result of treatment disruptions, and the percentage of Canadians reporting that they had an eye exam within the last two years declined between 2019 and 2021. The federal government must lead the way in saying that eye care is health care and improving access to services and treatment. New Democrats have always stood for publicly funded health care, from head to toe, including eye care. Our founding leader, Tommy Douglas, fought tirelessly and relentlessly for the universal public health care system that has become a fundamental Canadian value. In fact, the notion that every person deserves access to health care as a basic human right, regardless of their ability to pay, was one of the founding principles of the New Democratic Party in 1961. It was always the NDP’s intention that the public health care system would include eye care. At the founding convention, the NDP stated, “Believing that a country's most precious possession is the health of its citizens, the New Party will introduce a National Health Plan, providing benefits to those who need them without regard to their ability to pay. The plan will cover a full range of services: medical, surgical, dental and optical treatment, as well as prescribed drugs and appliances.” This belief remains an unfinished project, as many services, such as eye care, continue to be left out of Canada’s national health system. However, the NDP’s position and advocacy have not wavered. The NDP’s 2019 platform committed to achieving head-to-toe public health care, including eye care, for all Canadians. The NDP’s 2021 platform also committed to a long-term path to providing public coverage for eye care, along with other health services. In May 2021, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing introduced Motion No. 86. I want to thank the member for her leadership and vision, no pun intended, in bringing it forward. This motion called on the federal government to work towards the creation of a national strategy for action on eye health and vision care, and that has brought us to where we are today with the bill before us, so I thank the member for that. I am pleased that my colleague from the Liberal Party agrees that we need a national strategy for eye care, and I hope that members from other parties will also support the bill. In 2003, the Government of Canada made a commitment at the World Health Organization to develop a vision health plan for Canada by 2007 and implement this plan by 2009. Well, it has been 20 years since the Liberal government of the day made this commitment, but to date, no plan has been developed. As recently as July 2021, the Government of Canada voted in the UN General Assembly to enshrine eye health as part of the United Nations' sustainable development goals. In this resolution, the establishment of a national vision health plan was endorsed again by Canada. It is time for action and leadership on this issue at the federal level. I hope that all members of the House will listen to the experts and support a national strategy for eye care by voting in favour of Bill C-284. Eye care is health care. It needs our support. It needs all levels of government coming together, and we need to recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, in committee, we found out that the former chief of staff to the past minister of defence provided a senator an altered official government document to bring Afghans to safety. We found out that the minister was copied on all communications. Shockingly, the minister said he was too busy at the time to check his personal government email account. Almost two years later, he says he still has not checked. How is this even possible? Does the Prime Minister really think this is acceptable?

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise and enter into debate about budget 2023. There are many issues I want to touch on with the budget, but first and foremost, I must speak about the situation with the housing crisis that Canadians are facing from coast to coast to coast. It does not matter if one is in a large or a small community; there is a housing crisis all across the country. There are encampments in communities big and small, and unhoused people are in fact dying on the streets, unable to access safe, secure and affordable housing. Long-term renters are getting pushed out of their apartments just so that corporate landlords can turn a bigger profit. Tenants cannot find an affordable home, and prospective homeowners are priced right out of the market. Housing costs went up 77% under the Harper government and by another $300,000 under the Liberals. Therefore, successive Conservative and Liberal federal governments have abandoned their responsibility to invest in social and co-op housing. They are letting housing profiteering go unchecked right under their noses. Real estate investment trusts enjoy preferential tax treatment, and the seven largest real estate investment trusts alone have saved a combined $1.5 billion through federal tax loopholes. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just released a report estimating that the federal government will lose another $300 million in taxes over the next four years. Yes, the Liberals are letting corporate landlords profit off Canada's urgent housing crisis by purchasing affordable housing stock and renovicting long-term tenants to jack up rents. This is what the financialization of housing means, and it has to stop. Housing is a basic human right and not a commodity. Budget 2023 was an opportunity for the Liberal government to tackle the housing crisis and stop wealthy corporate landlords from treating housing like a stock market. Sadly, it fails to take the necessary action to ensure that Canadians' basic right to housing is met. The Federal Housing Advocate calls the budget a “sorry disappointment.” Previously, the Auditor General issued a damning report stating that the government will not reach its own targets to reduce chronic homelessness. The 25 largest financialized landlords held more than 330,000 units last year, which is nearly 20% of the country's private purpose-built stock of rental apartments. It is time to put people before profits, and the NDP has real solutions to address housing profiteering. I am calling on the Liberals to take a human rights-based approach to housing, as enshrined in the national housing strategy. The federal government must stop rewarding real estate investment trusts for pushing out long-term tenants and jacking up housing prices. We must end special tax treatment and make them pay their fair share. It is time for a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable homes by real estate investment trusts and other corporate landlords, which are making big profits while driving up the cost of housing, as well as renovicting and demovicting Canadians. It is time to put housing back into the hands of the people. The federal government needs to use the taxes from real estate investment trusts and create a non-profit acquisition fund to allow not-for-profits, co-ops and land trust organizations to purchase at-risk rental buildings when they come on the market. There should be no more profiteering, no more renovictions and no more special tax treatment for corporate landlords. Aside from addressing the issue of the financialization of housing, or profiteering, we need to take other actions as well. The coinvestment fund is a program within the national housing strategy. In the budget, this fund is almost depleted. I had been looking for the government to actually make new investments into the coinvestment fund to support non-profits in the development of social and co-op housing. However, that did not happen. What the government did was rob Peter to pay Paul; it took repair dollars within that fund to put into the construction arm of the fund. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is actually not going to get projects done. If the government does not replenish the coinvestment fund, we are not going to see those projects become viable; thus, we will not see the much-needed housing develop in the community. Strangely, the Minister of Housing, with the ministry, decided to put a cap of $25,000 per unit on the dollars that non-profits can access out of the coinvestment fund. In the face of the rising cost of housing, inflationary costs and so on, that cap will only kill projects. It will just mean that the projects cannot be developed. That makes no sense whatsoever. The federal government needs to lift the cap on this requirement. The NDP also wanted the government to invest in the rapid housing initiative. This is one program that is working relatively well, but we need to make sure that the community knows there is sustainable funding in that stream. Therefore, the NDP called for the government to invest $1.5 billion annually into the rapid housing initiative. Sadly, we did not see that investment either. One investment in housing that we did see, which the NDP fought tooth and nail for, was this: the “for indigenous, by indigenous” urban, rural and northern housing strategy. For too long, indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples who have lived away from their home communities have not gotten the housing supports they need. Somehow, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not recognized when they are away from their home community. This is wrong. Therefore, we have been pushing the government and demanding that action be taken. I am glad to see that, in this budget, there is an investment of $4 billion over seven years to be made in a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. That is a start, I will say, and more needs to be done. This amount of money may sound like a lot, but it is still absolutely deficient when it comes to addressing the housing crisis for urban, rural and northern indigenous, Métis and Inuit peoples in our communities. We also need to make sure that the government rolls these dollars out quickly. It should not slow-walk or back-end load the program, as it has done with other programs in the national housing strategy. I would also say that it has to be true that the programs are delivered as a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy. The government has to hold true on this. We need sustainable funding for this into the long term. I would also say that, in the budget, I was glad to see what the NDP had pushed for and forced the government to take action on, which is the dental program. I cannot tell members how much seniors in my riding need this program. I have met seniors who have lost their teeth and are unable to afford to get dental services, where they are blending up their food to drink it in order to get the sustenance that they need to stay alive. This is just wrong. Our seniors are desperate for this program, and I am so glad to see that the NDP prioritized this and demanded that the government put forward this dental program. Therefore, at the end of this year, seniors, people with disabilities and people aged 19 and under would be able to access this program, and it is high time that we actually look at health care from head to toe and ensure that people's oral health is taken care of. I have much more to say about this budget. There are some good parts, and there are some parts that are missing. No matter what, the NDP will continue to use our power to force the government to take action. I will continue to speak up on the things where the government fell short and to fight for the community so that every member has access to fair and equal treatment and can live with dignity in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

Madam Speaker, in my riding of Vancouver East, we are actually struggling with a series of crises. We have a homelessness crisis, and we have a drug poisoning crisis; we have a mental health crisis where people need mental health support and are not able to access it. I wonder whether the Conservatives would support an approach whereby all levels of government are brought together, including federal, provincial and municipal governments, along with the community and indigenous leadership to find a way to address the crisis that we face. This would be similar to what is in place in Winnipeg, in what is called the Winnipeg accord, and formerly in Vancouver, in the Vancouver agreement. Then, in a non-partisan way, we could take a concerted approach to addressing the situation that we are all facing, and particularly, in my situation, in the Downtown Eastside.

Madam Speaker, it is important for the federal government to show leadership with a national affordable housing initiative. To that end, we need to cut the red tape. The member knows very well that the federal government's CMHC is not ensuring that programs are delivered. As it is said, projects go to CMHC to die, and that is not good enough. We have to cut the red tape. Investment needs to be commensurate with the needs in our communities. The federal Liberal government cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993. As a result of that, we lost more than half a million units of social housing and co-op housing that would otherwise have been built. We need to at least make up for that and then some as part of the solution to addressing the housing crisis.

Madam Speaker, there is no question that we have a housing crisis in Canada from coast to coast to coast. It does not matter if it is a small community or a large community, there is a housing crisis. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives have failed to tackle the issues sufficiently. The reality is that corporate landlords are making a killing. Real estate investment trusts are not paying their fair share of taxes. Why did the Conservatives allow this to happen? Why are the Liberals continuing to allow this to happen? That is why the NDP is saying no more free rides. Real estate investment trusts need to pay their fair share. If that had happened, we would have close to $2 billion that could be invested back into housing to support people in the community.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent work in advocating for the community, not just on housing but also on disability issues. I will say this, just so that everybody understands. For every one unit of social housing or co-op housing built by the government, 15 units are lost. That is a significant number. We can never build enough to make up for that loss. That is why we have to stop corporate landlords from taking the affordable housing stock. That is why we have to support non-profits in holding that stock in perpetuity for the community. If we do not do that, housing prices will continue to rise and more and more people will die because they are unhoused and unable to access safe, secure, affordable housing.

With regard to the processing of immigration applications at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, for all streams, broken down by stream and by country of origin: (a) what are the current application processing service standards; (b) what are the actual current application processing times; (c) what percentage of applications are meeting the processing service standards; (d) where standards are not being met, what efforts are being undertaken by the department to improve processing times; (e) what are the acceptance and refusal rates; (f) what accounts for discrepancies in acceptance rates and processing times across geographic regions; and (g) how many applications are currently in the backlog and how long have these applications been in the system?

Mr. Speaker, immigration backlog and processing delays continue to have a detrimental impact for people who want to reunite with loved ones and for those who need to get to safety. As the crisis in Sudan worsens, Canadians with loved ones in Sudan are worried sick about their safety. The Liberals must get a fair deal for the PSAC workers to restore all immigration services. The longer the government drags its feet, the longer loved ones trapped in Sudan will have to wait. Will the Prime Minister step in to prevent the processing backlog from getting even worse at IRCC?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her comments and some of the updates that I think many Canadians want to hear. On the issue around immigration, there are many Canadians who have loved ones who are Sudanese. Some of them may have an application in to sponsor them to come to Canada for permanent resident status, and others may have an application for a temporary resident visa. However, there are many others who have not had an application initiated. The announcement from the Minister of Immigration has been completely silent about supporting Canadians who have loved ones in Sudan who have not had any process initiated to try to bring them to safety. Would the minister support an immigration measure that would allow for Canadians with loved ones in Sudan to sponsor them to come to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are all here tonight talking about the emergency situation in Sudan and the horrific violence that is taking place on the cusp of, as my colleague and many other members have already indicated in the House, a civil war. The violence and harm that is taking place right now is devastating. As indicated, it is women, civilians, who are getting caught in the crossfire and are suffering beyond all measure, getting injured and losing their lives. As I was listening to the debate, I thought to myself, “What is the Canadian government doing?” We heard from the Minister of Foreign Affairs who indicated the efforts of the government in addressing the crisis and helping to bring Canadians and others to safety. In reality, what we are seeing is something very different on the ground. The government says one thing, but in practice it does something very different. I just heard on the news before this emergency debate that Canadians who are connected to people in Sudan on the ground are saying that on the process of bringing Canadians to safety, they are mostly left to their own devices. They have to find commercial flights to get out, and there is no assistance really from the Canadian government in that regard. However, when we look at other countries, they are doing much better with their evacuation efforts. This is reminiscent of other situations. I will use Afghanistan as an example. Just now we talked about the duty of care and the responsibility to locals who helped Canadians do their jobs while they are abroad, but every time there is a crisis like this, what happens? They get left behind. That is what happened in Afghanistan. In fact, in my office I have a growing spreadsheet of Afghans who put their lives at risk in support of the Canadian military to complete their mission, and their loved ones have been left behind. The government brought in an immigration measure and then patted itself on the back and said what a great job it was doing, yet it brought in an arbitrary number for those who helped Canada and who are in a humanitarian crisis come to safety. In fact, there are files that have been lost. Somehow GAC does not know where these people are, and their applications have gone missing. That is what is happening to the point where people have to take the government to court to see if it can bring them to safety. It is the same thing with Sudan. Locals have been left behind. I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs if the Canadian government will undertake special immigration measures to bring them to safety, including those who are not Canadians, including Canadians who have family and loved ones who are Sudanese who will need a special immigration measure to bring them to safety. Will the government commit to that? I did not hear an answer from the minister. She sidetracked. She talked about something else. Then she deflected and said that the Minister of Immigration is doing a great job. Well, not so much, I am sorry to say, because the government abandons people time and again. When we say that we have a duty to care, it is, in my view, a responsibility of government as well as a moral duty to bring them to safety. They served Canada in their capacity in helping Canadians to do their job. We cannot just turn our backs on them, but we are doing exactly that. This is why I am here tonight engaging in this debate. I appreciate some of the immigration measures the Canadian government brought in. For example, the Sudanese who are here in Canada on a temporary visit, whether it be a work permit, a study permit or whatever the case may be, will be able to extend their visit. I absolutely appreciate that, but I will say that the government needs to do more. The Liberals say they will expedite the processing of those who already have a temporary resident visa or permanent resident application that has been completed. That is great; they should have been doing that already anyway. For those who do not have an application in, like Canadians who have family members in Sudan, the Canadian government needs to extend a special immigration measure to them, so they can sponsor their extended family members to come to Canada. We also have the duty to care for those who worked and served Canada as local staff. They need to be brought to safety. We cannot do this over and over again, because when we do, the message the Canadian government is telling the world is that if someone steps up to help Canadians to do a job while we are abroad, when a crisis hits, we will abandon them. That is the message we should not reinforce. We must take a course correction, and we must do everything we can to live up to that duty of care. We talked about the humanitarian crisis. People in Sudan are in a situation where they are running out of food, supplies and water. I just saw the WHO in the news again with the latest update saying there is a warning of a biological risk, as one of the Sudanese labs has been seized. The UN officials are calling the development extremely dangerous, and that is the reality they are faced with right now. I question the government on what we are doing to work in collaboration with allies to address this crisis. We are just coming out of a pandemic, although there are still remnants of the pandemic going on, as countries face these kinds of crises. Inevitably I think they would spread across the globe, and not just in those regions, but it would have greater consequences as well. What is the plan the government is going to embark on to work with the international community to address this crisis? Equally important, and not just at this moment in time in Sudan, what is the Canadian government planning going forward, as we know these kinds of situations keep repeating themselves? At the special Afghan committee, we talked about this. We talked about lessons learned and what we need to do to get ahead of them, anticipating that crises will continue to emerge in the global community. As such, my questions to the government are these: What are we doing? What planning has been in place? What assurances can it give to Canadians and to the international community that Canada is on top of its game, that we will be there, that we will show up and that we will actually have plans in place in the face of these crises? Right now, I do not see any evidence of that. Time and again, situations emerge and then it feels like the Canadian government is caught flat-footed. It is not good enough. We have to do better. My colleague talked about Canada's role historically, about us being a middle power and about our ability to broker peace and have the trust and confidence of the international community to do that work. We have lost so much of that credibility, and we continue to slip deeper into a hole. We have to find the light, and we have to step up. We have to do better, because humanity depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely we should list the Wagner Group as a terrorist entity, which is something that my colleague moved a motion on in the House. It is something we should all be moving forward on, but listing a group as a terrorist group and sanctioning against it is only as good as the actions taken to enforce the sanctions. Again, I will say that we have seen this over and over again. In the situation in Ukraine, we saw sanctions being put in place against the perpetrators in Russia. However, they are not being enforced. The government is not taking the full actions necessary to wield the power of those sanctions. While we talk about this, and motions are being passed, what we need is for the government to step up and follow through with actions on the sanctions to yield the kinds of results we want to see.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen that the federal Liberal government has not stepped up to do what is necessary. We just saw it in budget 2023, where the government has cut humanitarian aid at a time when crises are erupting across the globe, and at a time when we need Canada to do more to support these kinds of measures. We are not there. We are not showing up. I make this plea to the government in the name of humanity, for the sake of connecting with each other and lifting each other up. Canada has to do its part. We can do better. Let us show up when the international community needs us.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we need to help people to get to safety. Yes, we need to get Canadians to safety. Equally important, we also need to build up the region where they are having those struggles We need to do what we can to broker a ceasefire. I think that at this time Canada can do better. The United States is doing that work. Allied countries are doing that work. We need to get in there as well. In terms of humanitarian aid, which has already been spoken about, we need to make every effort to support that. More than that, we need to work toward building support of the Sudanese—

moved that the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration presented on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, be concurred in. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this important motion before the House, the concurrence motion. What we are dealing with is essentially seeking authority from the House to expand the scope of Bill S-245. Bill S-245 is a Senate bill that is before the House to address the situation of those who are commonly known as “lost Canadians”. Bill S-245 would amend the Citizenship Act to allow Canadians who previously lost their citizenship due to the age 28 rule to regain their citizenship. The age 28 rule means that second-generation Canadians born abroad were subject to the laws of citizenship under the former section 8 of the Citizenship Act, which required them to apply to certify their citizenship before they turned 28 years old. In 2009 the Conservatives repealed this section through Bill C-37. However, the legislation did not restore citizenship to those who lost their citizenship prior to 2009. This oversight created major problems for many Canadians, as they somehow could lose their citizenship status as they turned 28. Many of them actually did not even know that was the situation they were faced with. It was only when applying for their passport, for example, that they realized they had lost their citizenship. Bill S-245 seeks to fix the age 28 rule. However, the rule does not address other situations where Canadians have lost their citizenship. The archaic provisions of the Citizenship Act have resulted in many other lost Canadians, and New Democrats seek to actually fix this problem. Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, Bill C-37 passed in this House and came into force, and as a result of that, many people lost their citizenship rights. In fact, it created a scenario where Canada's Citizenship Act, for this group of lost Canadians, in many ways was not charter-compliant. For decades some Canadians have found themselves even to be stateless due to a number of these archaic immigration laws. In 2007, the UN's Refugees magazine listed Canada as one of the top offending countries for making its own people stateless. In 2009, as I mentioned, the Conservatives said that they were going to fix the lost Canadian issue with Bill C-37. Sadly, this did not happen. Worse still, the Conservatives created a brand new group of lost Canadians, and today we have an opportunity before us to fix that. Bill S-245, the bill that was introduced by Senator Martin, is now before the committee for citizenship and immigration, and the bill aims to address this group of lost Canadians, lost due to the age 28 rule. I want to be very clear that the NDP wholeheartedly supports ensuring those who one day woke up and found themselves without Canadian status are made whole. This absolutely needs to be done. However, it is the NDP's strongest view that the scope of Bill S-245 is too narrow. The NDP wants to seize this opportunity to fix the lost Canadian issue once and for all. Currently, there is a large group of Canadians who are deemed to be second-class citizens, due to the Conservatives' first-generation cut-off rule brought on by the Harper administration in 2009. Bill C-37 ended the extension of citizenship to second-generations born abroad. By stripping their right to pass on citizenship to their children if they were born outside of Canada, the Canadian government has caused undue hardship to many families. For some, it means separating children from parents. Some even find themselves stateless. I spoke with Patrick Chandler. He is a Canadian who, while born abroad, spent most of his life in Canada. As an adult, he worked abroad, married someone from another country and had children. He was later offered a job in British Columbia. When he moved back to Canada, he had to leave his wife and children behind because he could not pass on his citizenship to his children. He had to go through an arduous process to finally reunite with them a year later. There are many families being impacted in this way, and it is wrong. We should not put Canadians in those kinds of situations, yet here we are and that is what they have to suffer through. There are many families being impacted. Another family faced with this situation is the family of Emma Kenyon. In fact, Emma lived here in Canada, as did her husband. However, they worked abroad and they met abroad. They had a child abroad. That child is stateless because neither Emma nor her husband has status in that country. They are now in a situation where they have a stateless child born to a Canadian. This is so wrong, and we need to fix this problem. Immigration officials said to them at the time that, before their child was born, they had a choice. They could actually travel back to Canada and have their child be born in Canada. This, of course, did not make any sense. It was during the COVID period, when, basically, it was unsafe for her to travel. If Emma did travel back to Canada, she would be without a family doctor or a gynecologist to care for her pregnancy. None of that made any sense, but that is what she was told to do. Of course, she did not risk the birth of her child in that situation. She did not risk her own health either. As a result, her child was born abroad and is now in a stateless situation. It should never have been this way. Families are so frustrated with these archaic immigration laws, especially with the stripping of the rights of immigrants having children born abroad. Those rights were stripped because of the Conservatives’ Bill C-37. Families are now taking the government to court to address this inequity. The Conservatives deemed first-generation Canadians born abroad to be less worthy and less Canadian, even though many had grown up in Canada. The implications are so serious that people are taking the government to court. At the citizenship and immigration committee, when the opportunity arises, I will be moving amendments to ensure that this does not happen to anyone else. The NDP amendments would ensure that first-generation, born-abroad Canadians would have the right to pass on their citizenship rights to their children based on a connections test. They would also retroactively restore citizenship to persons who have not been recognized as citizens since the second-generation cut-off rule was enacted in 2009. The same principles would apply to adoptees as well. We need to make sure that individuals and families that adopt children are not going to be caught in this bad situation. For those who do not wish to have citizenship conferred upon them, upon notification to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, these changes would not apply to them. This will mean that people like Patrick, whom I mentioned, and people like Emma and her family would not have to suffer the challenges they face as a result of Bill C-37’s stripping of their rights. In addition to the amendments related to the first-generation cut-off rule, I will also be moving amendments to symbolically recognize those who died before citizenship was conferred upon them. For example, many of Canada's war heroes fought and died for Canada. However, they were never recognized as Canadians. The NDP amendments would also honour them and recognize them as citizens, retroactive to birth. The situation with what I call “war heroes” is this. The first Governor General of Canada, in 1867, right after Confederation, said that Canadians were a new “nationality”. However, according to Canada's immigration laws, Canadian citizenship did not exist prior to January 1, 1947. That means that no soldiers who fought and died for Canada in battles like Vimy Ridge or D-Day are deemed to be Canadians. Bill C-37 was supposed to fix this, but it did not happen. Don Chapman, who has fought for so long on the issue of lost Canadians and trying to rectify those concerns, indicated that “the government has confirmed they're leaving out all the war dead [pre-1947]. So, the war dead in Canada were really just British. We might as well just scratch the Maple Leaf off their headstones.” Symbolically recognizing those who fought for Canada and ensuring that they are recognized as citizens would have zero implications, no legal consequence whatsoever or liability for the government. It is really a strictly symbolic gesture, and it is an important one, especially for family members of loved ones who fought and died for Canada. I see some of these family members on Remembrance Day every year. Many veterans went to war and fought for Canada, and never came back. We should remember them as Canadians. Beyond this, there are a couple of other categories of lost Canadians, who, due to one of the discriminatory rules, such as the gender discrimination rule that existed in Canada, were not recognized as citizens. The NDP's amendments would aim to fix that as well. Suffice it to say, there are long lists of people who have been hurt by this set of rules, and successive governments have said they would fix it. However, it never came to be. Now we have a chance to actually do that work. It is important we do that work now. I fear that the Conservatives would not support this effort. At committee, when the senator and the sponsor of the bill were before us at committee to talk about this bill, the Conservatives indicated they wanted to just ensure the bill would be left as is and address only the 28-year rule, not deal with the other categories of lost Canadians. To me, that is wrong. Their argument is that it is too complicated, that we do not have time and that if the matter goes back before the Senate, then an election might be called and the bill might just die. That is, of course, if the Conservatives want that to happen. We could actually work together, collaboratively, to say that we are going to fix this problem once and for all, for lost Canadians. We want to make sure that people like Emma Kenyon, whose child was born stateless, would never be in that situation. We could actually make that happen by amending the bill. I know that Conservative members, even their leader, would say that they support the immigrant community and that they are there for them. If they are there for them, first, I would say that Bill C-37 should never have stripped of their rights the immigrants who became Canadians, such as myself. If I had a child born abroad, my child should have citizenship conferred upon them. The Conservatives took that away. We have a chance today to fix that, to say that immigrants, such as myself, would be able to have the same rights as those who were born in Canada, and be able to pass on their citizenship rights to their children born abroad. To be sure that there is a connection between individuals like that, we could put forward a connections test, such as, for example, having been in Canada for 1,095 days. This happens to be the same number of days required, through the Citizenship Act, for people getting their citizenship. We could put in provisions like that to ensure there is a clear connection between them and Canada. There is no reason to say that we are not going to do any of this and that we are just going to strip them of their rights and not recognize them. Let us fix this once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Bloc members for their kindness and understanding on the issue, because they are exactly right. Stripping immigrants of their right to pass on citizenship to their children born abroad is wrong. It creates a second class of citizens, and it is wrong. By doing that, we are breaking up families; families are being separated. Can members imagine a Canadian's child born abroad being stateless? That is the reality people are faced with, and it should not be that way.

Mr. Speaker, it is because committee members had the time to do exactly that. That is exactly what I did. I tabled a bunch of amendments that I wanted to see adjusted and amended in this bill, worked with legislative counsel and tabled them with the committee's clerk in time for the deadline established for all committee members. The Conservatives, of course, could have done that, but they did not; they chose not to. However, that was their choice, not my choice. I did the work and met the deadline. All committee members could have done the same.

Mr. Speaker, when Senator Yonah Martin intended to table this bill on addressing the age rule, the “28-year rule”, I did actually have conversations with the senator and indicated that it would be really important to address other lost Canadians as well. I know that Conservative members, including this member, have had conversations with people like Don Chapman and others to talk about the implication of leaving out the lost Canadians, Canadians such as Emma and others like her whose families have been broken apart because of this situation. Families need to leave their children behind because they do not have Canadian status. This is wrong and we need to fix this. Certainly, I raised this issue with the senator. I raised it with the Conservative members too, by the way. They seemed to be okay with it, and all of a sudden they are not okay with it. I am of course reminded of the fact that it was the Conservatives who took away those rights to begin with, and maybe they are sensitive to that. We should actually fix this problem and put the people's issues before us to make sure families that have been broken up and separated no longer need to face that situation. We should not do that. That is why I am moving these amendments, which would be out of scope. That is why I am seeking the House's authority so the committee can move forward in addressing amendments out of scope.

Mr. Speaker, of course I have been working in collaboration with government members on this, including the minister's office, because the situation is such that the lost Canadians who are impacted by these rules are suffering. They are suffering to the point where people are in such distress. Can one imagine having a newborn baby to two Canadian parents who is stateless? That is the reality they are faced with. There were witnesses who came before committee, and the witnesses all said that we need to fix this. We need to make sure these lost Canadians are made whole. At committee, I was very open and forthcoming in indicating that this is what we need to do and that amendments need to be brought forward to address this. We then talked about some scenarios, about how these amendments could address some of these issues and what that could look like.

Mr. Speaker, if a person is stateless, that means they do not have status in the country they were born in because their parents do not have status there. Therefore, their child does not have status in that country. Back here in Canada, they also do not have status, so the child is in the middle of nowhere. Meanwhile, if the parents were to move to Canada, which is what they want to do, they cannot bring their child with them. Can colleagues imagine what that situation is like? Even if they were able to bring their child to Canada, without status the child would not be able to get education or get medical care like any other Canadian would be able to. This is why these laws need to be changed. They were wrong to strip immigrants of those rights. We need to make them whole, and we need to do it now.

Mr. Speaker, a situation with the cut-off rule for first-generation born Canadians has been in place for 14 years now, and many families have suffered during this period. It is true that the government could have brought in legislation to make that change, but that has not happened. With that being said, we now have an opportunity before us through a Senate bill, Bill S-245, to fix the lost Canadian rules once and for all. If we all care about this issue as we say we do, should we not then seize this opportunity to expand the scope of the bill, fix the lost Canadian community that has not been addressed in this bill and fix those issues once and for all?

Mr. Speaker, I am just going to build on that last question. Here we have the Conservatives, who say that they want to fix this problem once and for all. We know that the Bloc is very sympathetic and wants to ensure that people's dignity is recognized. The NDP wants to address this issue, and I have been wanting to do so ever since I was elected as a member of Parliament. The government side wants to do this as well. We have a unique opportunity, at least in words, where all parties are saying they want to address this issue. Should we not actually be seizing the opportunity, supporting the expansion of the scope and addressing the lost Canadians issue once and for all?

Madam Speaker, on the substance of the issue that is in question, the Conservative members keep saying that we cannot do this because it is going to take too long. Of course, it has been 14 years since the Conservatives passed the legislation to strip the rights of second-generation-born Canadians to pass on their citizenship to their children. By doing this, we now have an opportunity to fix that, 14 years later, to make those families whole, so that they do not have to be separated from their loved ones. If the Conservatives say they support fixing this problem, why would they not seize this opportunity instead of actually just putting it further down the road?

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the comment about Don Chapman. Don Chapman came to committee and said very clearly that he wanted to see the scope of Bill S-245 be expanded to incorporate amendments for lost Canadians and the first-generation cut-off rule the Conservatives brought in be rectified so that the families of lost Canadians would not be lost anymore and be supported through this process. The Conservatives say they support what Don Chapman would like to see done. Would they then pass this expansion of scope request in this House and not filibuster the work that needs to be done at committee?

Madam Speaker, I just heard the member say again that he is in support of ensuring the lost Canadians issue is addressed. The Conservatives say that, and I hope it is actually true. If it is true, we have an opportunity to do it. It is a rare moment when all the parties in this House say they want to do this, and we can seize this opportunity to make those necessary amendments, through Bill S-245, and also indicate to the Senate that this is the direction we want to go. I believe Senator Yonah Martin, who has done this work and put this bill before us, would support it if the Conservative members would join the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals to say that we need to go out of scope to address the lost Canadians issue once and for all, particularly because of the first-generation rule cut-off the Conservatives brought in, which hurt so many families and which we need to get rid of.

Madam Speaker, this has come up numerous times. I was not actually going to get into conversations that I have had with the senator and conversations that I have even had with Conservative members. The truth of the matter is this. When this bill came before us, the scope was narrow. I had already mentioned it to the senator that the scope is very narrow and that we need to actually look at broadening it to ensure that other lost Canadians are captured. Since that time I have been working at it, thinking about how we can do this, to make sure that families who have been impacted would not continue to be lost Canadians. We have been working diligently on this. I was just reviewing evidence from the committee and the senator was saying that she could be supportive of expanding its scope although it is not before this committee right now because it is not part of that bill, so conceptually she is in support of supporting expansion of the bill in terms of its scope. However it is the Conservatives who continually want to say we cannot do this. If they really wanted to actually get on with it they could. Why do they not do what they say they want to do and support the expansion of the scope—

With regard to the processing of permanent residence applications of overseas dependents of protected persons in Canada and DR2s: (a) are processing resources within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada allocated in accordance with the immigration levels set by cabinet; (b) if the number of applications for overseas dependents in a year exceeds the high range of the level, what happens to the additional applications, i.e. those beyond the level; (c) what are officers instructed to do with applications after the high end range of applications is reached; (d) how is the number of permanent residence applications processed in any year distributed among the various overseas offices, and on what basis; (e) what is the size of the inventory for permanent residence applications for protected persons in Canada and DR2s; (f) are there two separate levels for DR2s and protected persons in Canada; and (g) what are the written policies, guidance, and instructions that govern the processing of overseas dependents of in-Canada protected persons and DR2s?

Mr. Speaker, I just got back from a two-week cross-country tour, hearing from Canadians who are struggling to find a home that they can afford in the city where they can work and raise a family. From Victoria to Toronto to Hamilton to Halifax, renters and people who want to own their own home are having to compete with corporate landlords, who buy up affordable housing stock and drive up the cost of housing. Successive Liberals and Conservatives have failed to crack down on these corporate landlords, who are fuelling the housing crisis; families are paying the price. When are the Liberals going to stop the profiteering off housing so that families can find a home they can afford?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition calling on the Government of Canada to urgently end the legislative poverty that 1.5 million disabled Canadians live with every day and to establish a Canada disability benefit that upholds human rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Two Vancouver East constituents, Harris Taylor and Jan Nathanson spoke with their neighbours to gather signatures and show the deep support in our community for lifting all disabled people out of poverty immediately. I hope the government will heed their call and that all parties will work collaboratively together to swiftly establish an adequate benefit.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals secretly negotiated a deal to shut down the entire Canada-U.S. border with an invisible wall. This will only drive persecuted asylum seekers on a more dangerous pathway. Seidu Mohammed, an LGBTQ man, nearly died crossing irregularly to Canada in the dead of winter. His asylum claim was found to be valid, and he got his Canadian citizenship just this year. If this policy applied then, he would have been sent back to Ghana to face discrimination and violence for being who he is. Why are the Liberals taking a page from Trump and denying—

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association is calling for an additional $4 billion per year over two years in the national housing co-investment fund. The funds must be used to build truly affordable housing, targeting core need, with rents no more than 30% of total income. The government must inject additional dollars into the program and lift the arbitrary $25,000-per-unit cap on grants. We cannot afford to keep letting projects die at CMHC. The government needs to fix the co-investment fund and finally get to work on tackling this crisis. The parliamentary secretary mentioned projects in my riding. Yes, a few projects did get through and I am glad for that, but I invite the parliamentary secretary to visit my riding to see the homeless encampments in the community and the number of people who are homeless and unhoused in the community. Those units are good but deficient, and more needs to be done; there is no question. The government needs to fix the co-investment fund and get the funding in place for people who need a place to call home.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 59 regarding a federal framework on housing for individuals with non-visible disabilities. I would like to thank the member for London West for putting forward this motion, which speaks to a very important issue. The motion states that the government should work with stakeholders in upholding a federal framework to improve access to adaptable, affordable housing for individuals with non-visible disabilities. In doing so, it calls for consideration of the presence of an expert on persons with visible and non-visible disabilities on the National Housing Council, recognizing in the National Housing Strategy Act the barriers to housing faced by people with disabilities, prioritizing the creation of accessible units, and ensuring that the right to adequate housing is applied equitably. New Democrats fully support a human rights-based approach to housing. This means that every single person in Canada must have access to safe, affordable and adequate housing as a fundamental and basic human right, yet far too many Canadians, especially those with a disability, are being left behind. An estimated 235,000 Canadians will experience homelessness this year, of whom 45% are living with a physical or mental disability. There is no doubt that the housing crisis disproportionately impacts Canadians living with a disability, many of whom are low-income and living in poverty on fixed incomes. This is not a new issue, but inflationary pressures and the financialization of housing are only making matters worse. A 2017 submission from disability rights organizations to the UN special rapporteur on the right to housing outlined the many challenges and additional systemic barriers facing persons with disabilities in realizing their right to housing in Canada. The submission states that people with disabilities “are disproportionately homeless, living in poverty, subject to drastically restricted housing choices, subject to housing discrimination and likely to live in substandard housing. This is especially the case for Indigenous persons with disabilities.” The submission also outlines that people experiencing serious mental illness and substance use disorder, or those with psychosocial disabilities, in addition to those with physical disabilities, face serious housing disparities. There is simply a lack of suitable supportive housing: “Only 19% of people with disabilities living in low-income households report receiving all of the support they need with everyday activities.” People with disabilities also experience discriminatory practices by landlords, including evictions and “failure to accommodate disability-related needs.” This is unacceptable. Nobody in Canada should be denied the right to housing. However, successive governments have allowed corporate landlords to treat housing like a stock market instead of a basic human right. According to the National Housing Strategy Act, which was passed in 2019, “the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law”. Under article 19 of the international Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Canada has an obligation to adopt a human rights-based approach to housing. Despite these legal obligations, Canada is failing to ensure that people living with disabilities have adequate, accessible and affordable housing. Five years have passed since the creation of the national housing strategy, and the results, so far, are deeply concerning. The recent Auditor General report revealed that the government does not even know whether housing units developed for people with disabilities under the national housing strategy were actually occupied by this population. The government is spending billions of dollars, yet it cannot even tell us if the units it is building are helping people and providing housing for persons with disabilities. To make matters worse, the government is now excluding many people with disabilities from receiving the one-time $500 top-up to the Canada housing benefit, something the NDP fought for for people. At the last minute, the government added criteria to say that individuals on programs like disability assistance, where their rent is paid directly to the landlord by the assistance program, are not eligible. This is wrong. Instead of helping people with disabilities to afford rent, the government is punishing them. To return to the topic of this specific motion, I will be putting forth some amendments to address what I see as some gaps. I am glad to see that the motion calls on the government to prioritize the creation and repair of accessible units through the national housing strategy programs. This is long overdue. New Democrats fully support the creation of accessible units. In fact, the National Right to Housing Network is calling on the government to ensure all government-funded housing units are fully accessible and universally designed for persons with disabilities. Right now, in B.C. alone, thousands are on wait-lists with BC Housing to find accessible homes. While it is essential that the national housing strategy recognizes the barriers to housing faced by persons with disabilities, as this motion calls for, it is not enough to just recognize barriers. The government must go beyond symbolic recognition and take real action to address systemic poverty and to adequately address the housing needs of people with disabilities. These barriers have long been recognized by people living with disabilities and community advocates, those who understand and live this reality. In undertaking the work of ensuring people with disabilities have access to the housing, the government must engage with communities with lived experience. They are the true experts. They have the answers and understand what is needed to finally address this crisis. To that end, I hope, with the support of the government, that the motion be amended as follows: in paragraph (a), by replacing the words “consider the presence of” with “include”, adding the words “with lived experience” after the words “an expert”, deleting the words “and that the expert”, inserting the word “to” after the words “National Housing Council” and replacing the word “provides” with “provide”; in paragraph (b), by replacing the words “consider amending” with “amend”; and adding paragraph (e), “ensure that the Government of Canada live up to its obligation under Article 19 of the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to ensure equal rights and inclusion for persons with disabilities by adopting a human rights-based approach to housing in light of the fact that 45% of homeless Canadians have a disability”. I hope that the government members would in fact support this amendment. I do not think the approach should be to say that we are asking the government to consider this, rather to say that action needs to be taken—

Madam Speaker, on November 22, 2022, I asked the Liberal government if it would finally stop treating housing like a stock market and ensure every Canadian has access to safe, affordable and adequate housing as a basic human right. The Liberals talk a good game when it comes to solving the housing crisis, but they have failed to act. Costs remain out of control and the homelessness crisis continues to worsen as wealthy financial landlords line their pockets. In Vancouver, the average one-bedroom apartment now costs $2,640 per month. The CBC recently reported that one needs to earn $109,000 a year in Vancouver to afford a one-bedroom rental unit. This is simply outrageous. However, it is not just people in big cities feeling the squeeze. Vacancy rates are dropping to all-time lows across the country. For example, in Prince Edward Island, the vacancy rate for bachelor apartments has fallen to zero. As more Canadians are struggling to find a place they can call home, the Liberal government is expecting Canadians to accept less when it must be doing more to tackle the crisis. We desperately need more affordable housing, but the national housing strategy is missing the mark. The Auditor General's report released in November revealed that programs such as the national co-investment fund are failing to deliver affordable housing. I have heard from housing providers, community non-profit organizations and advocates that this flawed program desperately needs to be fixed. The Auditor General's report revealed that the government spent billions developing unaffordable housing. The co-investment used an affordability measure tied to 80% of average market rent, resulting in housing that is unaffordable for many Canadians. Meanwhile, 115,000 units have received funding commitments through the fund, yet no money has flowed to the non-profits for this program. CMHC says the funding cannot be given to the non-profits until construction begins. This is yet another bureaucratic barrier for the non-profits trying to deliver affordable housing. As projects sit on the shelf collecting dust, recent changes to the co-investment fund implemented by the government are jeopardizing affordable housing projects. Rising construction costs due to inflation and higher interest rates are adding to the financial burden of the non-profits. Rather than helping the non-profits in these challenging times, the government has reduced the funding available through the co-investment fund by implementing a $25,000–per–unit cap on nonrepayable grant dollars. Prior to this change, organizations were eligible for up to 40% of total project costs. This is a huge cut for the non-profits, which will now need to find money elsewhere or, worse, abandon projects. People say that projects go to CMHC to die. Sadly, the government is only proving this point. Community organizations are being told the fund has been depleted and will now have nowhere to turn for money. Non-profits intending to rely on the program were informed of the changes at the last minute, leaving them with gaps in funding and putting their projects at risk. It is unacceptable. The upcoming federal budget next week is an opportunity for the government to provide real investments into affordable housing and finally tackle the housing crisis. The government should do away with the $25,000 limitation. It should not let these projects die that are desperately needed in our community. It should not let the efforts of the non-profits, which have been working so hard to provide housing, fail. The ball is in the government's court.