Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, on September 27, I asked the Minister of Housing if he would ensure that there are meaningful investments in a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy in budget 2023. When the minister heard the story of a young indigenous woman in Ottawa who was murdered because she lacked access to safe and affordable housing, he said, “words fail me”. The missing murdered and indigenous women's inquiry’s final report cites housing 299 times, yet the empty words of the government continue to fail indigenous people. UNDRIP is clear that all indigenous people, including those living away from their home communities, have a right to safe and adequate housing. The government has a legal obligation to implement this basic human right, but in budget 2022, the Liberal government allocated just $300 million over five years to establish a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. This amount is woefully inadequate. The NDP has consistently called on the Liberals to invest sufficient funds to meet the need. To be clear, $300 million is not even enough to address the housing needs of indigenous people living in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, but the Liberals were content to spend this money over five years for research and administrative purposes. This is a cruel joke. As a result of the supply and confidence agreement, the NDP is forcing the Liberals to accelerate the timeline to roll out funding over two years and ensure that the money is used for an interim emergency fund for urgent unmet needs, which is work now being undertaken by Indigenous Services Canada. It is shocking, however, that the government continues to insist on the need for more data and research. If the dire housing crisis facing indigenous people was not bad enough, the government is placing further burden on them by forcing them to prove their level of need. The government has more than enough data to justify the needed investments. In May 2021, a report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities recommended sufficient and long-term funding to be allocated to support a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern housing strategy. Here are some of the numbers detailed in the report. Indigenous households are 1.2 times more likely to live in inadequate and/or unsuitable housing than non-indigenous households and are disproportionately unhoused. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 124,000 indigenous off-reserve households were in housing need in 2020, while 9,000 households in Winnipeg and 8,000 households in Vancouver alone were in housing need. About 50% of the 700 indigenous youth who will age out of foster care in Vancouver each year will end up on the streets. According to the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, 73,000 units are needed in urban, rural and northern indigenous communities to meet the housing shortfall. CHRA has called for an investment of $25 billion over 10 years, while $1.89 billion is needed to build 3,000 housing units in Nunavut alone. However, the government believes $300 million is a record investment. It is unbelievable. Indigenous, Métis and Inuit people living away from their home communities have the right to housing. It is clearly outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is time for real action.

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary should know that distinctions-based housing is not dedicated for a for indigenous, by indigenous urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy, nor is the funding from the RHI dedicated for indigenous people specifically. The parliamentary secretary should know that and the government should know that. That is why the NDP is forcing the government to take action with the interim funding and the $300 million, but that is not enough. What we want to see, and what we must see, is real investment to meet need in budget 2023. If the government is serious about reconciliation, honouring indigenous people and abiding by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, it must take real action and invest to meet need, not just talk.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by 2,054 people. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to recognize the genocide that was declared in the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry, and the lack of urgent action from the government. They note that the root cause of this is colonial violence against indigenous women, men, children and two-spirit people. The petitioners are calling specifically for the government to take immediate action on the calls for justice recommendations related to police services. They are calling on the government to develop a national action plan in partnership with news media to address the lack of coverage of missing persons cases of indigenous women, men, children and two-spirit people, including the vulnerable. They are also calling on the government to organize search parties for missing indigenous women, men, children and two-spirit people, and to work with all levels of government to fund the expansion of community-based security models that include indigenous perspectives and people such as local peacekeeper officers, or programs such as the Bear Clan Patrol and Butterflies in Spirit.

Madam Speaker, the member completely neglects the fact that it was the Liberals who failed to deliver on this bill in the last two elections. Both times, the bill died on the Order Paper and did not get through, and that is on the government. Notwithstanding that, I have a substantial question for the member. Systemic racism is acknowledged to exist in the government, and despite reports and recommendations to ensure indigenous oversight is provided, no such provision is proposed in this bill. Does the government not agree that, given its commitment to reconciliation, this is a major oversight by the Liberals and they must include amendments to ensure indigenous oversight in this bill?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise once again to enter this debate about bringing in independent oversight for the CBSA and more enhanced oversight for the RCMP. This is the third time I have risen in the House to speak to this bill. In fact, back in 2019, when the government tabled it, lo and behold it was tabled literally on the eve of an election. Without any doubt, the bill died on the Order Paper because the election was called a couple of days after that. Despite the Liberals promising that they would bring this in, once again, just before the 2021 election, the government tabled the same bill under a different number: Bill C-3. Then the Prime Minister saw fit to call an election that nobody wanted and the bill died yet again. Now here we are and it is the third time around. Maybe the third time is lucky and Bill C-20 will get through the system, and we will finally see independent oversight for the CBSA and enhanced measures for the RCMP. This is so important and so significant. Why? People's lives hinge upon it. We have just heard from my colleague, who spoke about the importance of this for indigenous people. The member for Winnipeg Centre highlighted the systemic racism that exists within the RCMP, the unbelievable measures and the extent to which they brought a heavy hand to addressing indigenous protests. It was shocking to see the images in British Columbia of what was being done at that time and how indigenous people were dealt with, all because they wanted to exercise their right to protect their land. In “Behind the Thin Blue Line”, an APTN investigation, APTN provided this: “You do one more thing and I’ll dose you, bitch,” a Mountie allegedly told independent media producer Kristy Grear, according to court files. “There was no name tag or badge number displayed on the officer’s uniform,” the documents claim. “However I did observe a so-called ‘thin-blue line’ patch on the officer’s uniform.” This is how the Mounties of the Community-Industry Response Group (C-IRG), a secretive industry defence arm of the B.C. RCMP arrive to dismantle blockades: armed with guns and mace, name tags ripped off, faces hidden, thin blue line patches emblazoned on their chests. Police arrive with howling dogs, helicopters, drones, chainsaws, axes, an excavator, jackhammers, angle grinders and fancier gadgets like thermal imaging cameras. This is what is happening and it is shocking. It should be shocking to every single member of the House and to Canadians. How could it be that such measures are taken unchecked? However, that is the reality and that is why we need this bill. More to the point, we need amendments to this bill to ensure there is indigenous representation. I do not know how that is possible, since the government had two bills before this one and had so much time to get it right. Despite the government's claim and the Prime Minister's claim that they are committed to reconciliation, it is the third time around with the bill, and the government still did not have the wherewithal to get it right to ensure that indigenous people have representation on this critical question of oversight. Why is that? Is it just incompetence, or is it willful blindness to the systemic racism that exists in the system? I want to take a moment to turn to the CBSA, as I am the NDP critic for immigration, refugees and citizenship. The CBSA has unchecked powers to deport people, detain people and arrest people. Refugees and people without status have zero power whatsoever. When refugees are subjected to abuse, what can they do? Can they file a complaint? I doubt they could file a complaint against the very people who are going after them. Even if they did, the process takes so long that they would be deported. They would be out of the country before they could even see the result of their complaint. It is a joke to say to the people, “Here is the process you could follow.” In reality, it does not materialize. To boot, successive Canadian governments have allowed this practice to continue, that is, putting refugees in detention and in jails. The government is actively engaging with the provincial government on contracts so they can throw refugees in detention and put them in jail. This is happening in Canada, and it is a gross violation of people's human rights. The report from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has exposed Canada's inhumane practice of jailing thousands of people fleeing persecution, and often in maximum security provincial jails. Let me be very clear: Refugees and migrants are not criminals. Canada is one of the few countries in the global north without a legal limit on detention. In other words, people could be put in there indefinitely. We know there are devastating long-term impacts on those who are incarcerated in immigration detention. Such gross violations of human rights must end now. The NDP fully supports this bill. We have wanted to see it since the Harper administration. It is the third time the bill has been introduced in the House, and maybe we will finally have independent oversight. Maybe we will finally see the federal government take action and, equally importantly, end the practice of detaining and jailing refugees and migrants. The government has promised this. It is enough talk. Let us see the action. The government has a responsibility to undertake this work because people's lives hinge on it. CBSA is so aggressive right now in trying to go after people that it even goes to people's schools to arrest them, or tries to get private information from the school system to make arrests. That is what is happening right now, and it has to be stopped. There has to be accountability. We have to address systemic racism. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent work with respect to this. He is absolutely correct to say that this measure should be extended to parliamentarians so that there is accountability. We often come across situations or instances that we learn of, and there should be a pathway for parliamentarians to raise these concerns, file a complaint and have the matter investigated. There has to be open, transparent accountability in this process.

Mr. Speaker, horrific situations have occurred where people have been subjected to violence and abuse. In fact, at least 16 deaths have occurred in CBSA custody since 2000. These are serious situations that have taken place. With the bill before us, at the very minimum at least there is independent oversight. With independent oversight, the organization is not investigating itself. We need to ensure transparency and accountability. To this point, we need to ensure that systemic racism is addressed. We also need to ensure that there is representation for the indigenous people, racialized people and Black people involved in this process as well.

Mr. Speaker, of course, indigenous oversight, which includes indigenous investigators and decision-makers, and the appointment of Black and racialized Canadians should be in this process. The bill, if passed through the House, will be referred to committee, where I think it will be very important to hear from witnesses with respect to that to see how that process should unfold. The government should have done this work, by the way, before now. It is so disappointing to me that once again it did not do its job and it neglected to ensure that this was properly addressed.

Mr. Speaker, today is National Housing Day, and one in five Canadians cannot afford a safe place to call home. The Liberals are completely out of touch. They are building homes that families cannot afford and have done little to end homelessness. The cost of rent has soared all over the country. The average one bedroom in Toronto is now over $2,500, and in Vancouver it is $2,600. The Liberals opened the door for housing profiteering, displacing seniors, people with disabilities and low-income renters. Why are the Liberals treating housing like a stock market instead of a necessity?

Madam Speaker, there are at least 500,000 non-status migrants doing essential work in Canada. They are caregivers. They work in health care and agriculture. They work for poverty wages for long hours and often in abusive conditions. Without status, they face the stress of deportation and lack access to basic health care and services. The government must provide them with permanent status so that they can live and work in Canada without exploitation and the risk of deportation. When will the Liberals act to grant undocumented migrants with permanent residency?

Madam Speaker, with record inflation fuelled by corporate greed, finding safe, affordable and adequate housing has become out of reach for many Canadians. New Democrats have been calling on the Liberals to invest in affordable housing and to stop the profiteering of corporate landlords, but unsurprisingly, the Liberals are tone deaf to the realities of everyday Canadians. Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, have made deep cuts to social and co-op housing and have allowed the cost of housing to increase. Under the Harper government, the cost of buying a home increased by 77%, and under the Liberal government, it has gone up another $300,000. The average rent in Canada now is over $2,000 a month. One in five Canadians puts more than 30% of their total income towards their housing cost. Families are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. When the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing strategy in 1993, Canada lost more than 500,000 units of social and co-op housing that would otherwise have been built. Now, nearly three decades later, both the Liberals and the Conservatives allow investors to treat housing like a stock market, driving up rents and home prices. The NDP knows that to address the housing crisis, we have to stop the financialization of housing and we need to meaningfully develop social housing and co-op housing units. Housing advocates are calling for the development of at least 300,000 units of core need housing. We need social housing; we need supportive housing, and co-op is a proven model that works. In fact, rents in co-op housing are $400 to $500 less per month compared to private market rental units. The Liberals like to talk about their so-called record investments in affordable housing, but the Auditor General's report released yesterday exposed that the government is failing to address the dire homelessness and housing crisis. The Liberals have spent billions to build homes that Canadians cannot afford. What is worse is they do not even know if chronic homelessness has increased or decreased since 2019. They have no idea who is benefiting from their housing initiatives. The National Housing Strategy Act, passed in 2019, enshrined a human rights based approach to housing under the law. It commits the government to reducing homelessness and to focusing on improving housing outcomes for vulnerable groups and those with the greatest need, yet three years later, Canada's housing crisis is getting worse. The Liberals have spent billions to develop housing that is not affordable for those in need. The national housing co-investment fund is a program meant to deliver rental housing units at below 30% of one's total income. It was a program meant for low-income households, many of whom are among the most vulnerable, but instead of delivering that, the Liberals changed the affordability criteria to 80% of median market rent. Consequently, low-income and vulnerable people cannot access this housing because it is not affordable. In fact, the housing developed under this program is failing low-income families in seven provinces and territories. At this rate, the Liberals are on track to miss their own target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2028. The Liberals' incompetence is shocking. The fallout is deadly. In B.C. alone, there were 247 deaths among individuals experiencing homelessness in 2021, a 75% increase since 2020. In Vancouver East, a large-scale homeless encampment is now a permanent fixture and individual homeless tents are proliferating on the streets—

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member to actually read the report that the Auditor General just released yesterday. It is entitled “Report 5—Chronic Homelessness”. The situation is that the government does not know what is going on, and it does not even know if it is meeting the needs of those who are homeless. This is from the Auditor General. The Auditor General also indicated that the government is not going to meet its own targets. This is not just me talking. This is the reality from the Auditor General, who is bringing this issue to the government's attention. We are approaching another cold, wet season. It just snowed outside in Ottawa. It snowed in Vancouver last week. There have been enough excuses and enough talking points. People are dying on the streets. Housing is a basic human right. Let us get on with it. The Liberal government needs to do its job and build the housing to house people so they can have a roof over their head and safe place to call home.

Mr. Speaker, that is not true. There are 112 projects that went unfunded. According to the Auditor General, the Liberals have spent billions to build homes that Canadians cannot afford. What is worse is that they do not even know if this money is reducing homelessness in our communities. The level of incompetence is breathtaking. We are in a dire housing crisis. The cold, wet weather is upon us. People are dying on the streets. They are desperate, and the Liberals have turned their backs on them. When will the government do its job so that everyone has a safe and affordable place to call home?

Mr. Speaker, according to the UN, to limit warming to 1.5°C, global emissions have to drop 7.6% every year. To save our planet, Canada must reduce its emissions by 60% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Addressing oil and gas emissions is critical if Canada is to reach its share of that target. Instead of subsidizing the oil and gas industry, which, by the way, made $147 billion in profits this year alone, Canada should be reinvesting in the green tech sector and supporting communities in building climate resilience. Canada also needs just transition legislation, a clean jobs secretariat and a training centre for workers. The adoption of a clean jobs industrial strategy that echos the calls from CAN-Rac, Ecojustice, CLC, Unifor and Blue Green Canada is a must. Interprovincial electricity grid connection, massive transit expansion and the acceleration of retrofits with a big focus on energy poverty and low and medium-income households must be prioritized. We have no time to waste.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has put thousands of refugee claimants and migrants in immigration detention in provincial jails even though they have not committed any crimes. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are calling on the Prime Minister to end this abusive practice. B.C., Nova Scotia, Alberta and Manitoba have proactively cancelled the immigration detention contracts with CBSA, but this should not just be on provinces. Refugees and migrants are not criminals. Will the Liberals put an end to this odious immigration detention practice and stop putting migrants and asylum seekers in provincial jails?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing to fix the urgent, unmet housing needs of urban, rural and northern indigenous communities. The money it allocated is not even enough to meet the needs of the Downtown Eastside, let alone for the rest of the country. It was a cruel joke when the Prime Minister said record investments are being made. Over 80% of indigenous people live away from their home communities. Indigenous peoples are dying on the street. Will the Minister of Finance make the necessary investments in the fall economic statement to address the urgent, unmet housing crisis of indigenous peoples?

Madam Speaker, the member raised the issue of housing. He is exactly right, in the sense that housing costs went up over 70% under the Harper government and by another $300,000 under the Liberals. With respect to urban indigenous housing in my own riding, we are the third-largest urban indigenous community in the country. The $300 million that has been committed will not even address the housing crisis in my own riding. The PBO actually said that we are short over $600 million to meet that gap. How could it possibly be that the Liberals refuse to see reality? Why are indigenous people's lives always put on the back burner?

Mr. Speaker, the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry declared that Canada carried out a genocide three years ago. The lack of progress in the 231 calls for justice is beyond shocking. At a recent coalition of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls meeting, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations acknowledged that the process needs to be indigenous-led, but he admitted that he does not know how to proceed. The coalition has been advocating for inclusion and a seat at the decision-making table from the outset. Not only have they been excluded, but they have also been forced to create their own action plan without any government support or resources. Frontline workers who work closely supporting vulnerable indigenous women have also been ignored. Communication with these stakeholders ranged from non-existent to sporadic. It is time that the minister listened to these women to ensure they are included in the development and execution of the federal pathway plan. The NDP is also calling for independent oversight of government bodies and repercussions for negligence in meeting timeline and targets. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, under the Harper government, the cost of buying a home increased by 77%. It doubled under the Liberals. The average rent in Canada is now over $2,000 a month. Families just cannot afford it. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals allowed for the financialization of housing to go unchecked, treating housing as a stock market instead of a necessity by allowing corporate landlords to evict people from their homes to turn a profit. Canadians deserve to find a home they can afford. Will the Liberals stand with Canadian families and put a stop to the profiteering of housing?

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate this morning on Bill C-31. As members know, Bill C-31 has two provisions to it. One is to ensure that children under 12 in families with limited incomes will be able to get support for their oral health. We have heard that the Conservative members are opposed to this. I have heard them say over and again that dental care is not a priority. I have heard them say, very specifically, that children who cannot access dental care do not need it. I can hardly believe it, yet I hear it over and again. In fact, the member for Cumberland—Colchester said at committee, “I think very clearly we've obviously established there's no dental crisis here.” I do not know which rock the Conservatives have been hiding under because the reality is this. Over 500,000 children cannot access dental care because their families do not have the financial means to do so and they do not have the coverage. Children miss school, they suffer and they are in pain because they do not have access to dental care. People end up in emergency rooms because they need dental care support. Just because the Conservatives, including their leader, have had dental care support covered by the taxpayers for decades does not mean that there are people who do not need it. I have met families in my community that need this service. They are very thankful. The dream of the NDP, the vision of Tommy Douglas, who brought all of us national universal health care to years ago, was always to see dental care included along with pharmacare. Now, 60 years later, in a minority government, the NDP has forced the Liberals to deliver exactly that, and I am very proud of this work. The other provision related to this bill is with respect to housing. It is not everything I want, but it is something. The NDP was able to force the government to provide a one-time payment to low-income families, a $500 housing benefit for approximately 1.8 million people across the country. I also moved four amendments at committee. Three of them passed, which is why we are back here debating the amendments today. I am glad the government supported these amendments and that the minister has, on the two that require royal recommendation, undertaken to do that. What are these amendments? One is with respect to the application process. Bill C-31 originally only provided a 90-day window for people to apply. I was very worried about that, because people have technology issues. They do not have access to technology or some may not even be technology literate. Many seniors in my riding also have a language barrier. Therefore, my fear was that 90 days would not be enough time for people to access this program, because they have to apply for it. It is not automatic. Therefore, I moved an amendment to change the 90-day requirement to 120 days to give that bit of extra time for people to make the application. I am glad it was supported and the motion passed, not because of the Conservatives but because of the Bloc and the Liberals. I am thankful for that. The other amendment I moved at committee was about the provisions related to eligible rent that a person could claim if they were in a room and board situation. The original bill said they could claim only 75% of that rent. I was able to move an amendment to change it to 90%, to increase it slightly. Why? If people are paying room and board with other services like utilities, the utilities may not be 25% of their total rent, yet 25% will be deducted from their claim. My view was that we needed to close that gap, so I moved an amendment to change it from 75% to 90%. I am very glad the government and the Bloc supported it, wanting to support people who need this one-time housing benefit to help them out. I am very thankful for the passage of that amendment. Lastly, the amendment that also passed with the support of the Bloc and the Liberals was to ensure that families who are in a cohabitation situation are able to claim the benefit according to the actual rent the respecting partners pay, not 50%. The original bill says they can claim only 50% of their total rent. To me it should be according to the amount they pay, not some arbitrary number like the 50% the government had put forward. I am glad that an amendment to say it should reflect the actual rent was adopted with the support of the Bloc and the Liberals. These are the enhancements we were able to bring forward as New Democrats to this bill. That is what we are debating today. There are people, the Conservatives, who say no, they do not support it. I keep hearing them say we cannot afford it. That is their underlying message. Despite the fact that the oil and gas sector made $147 billion last year, they will not have any discussion about imposing a profiteering tax and making sure those companies pay their fair share so that those who are most vulnerable and in the greatest need in our community will have a bit of support during this time. Who are the people who will benefit? We are talking about people whose income is less than $35,000 a couple or less than $20,000 for a single person, who are paying more than 30% of their total income toward rent. It is a pittance, if we think about it, $500 to support them, yet the Conservatives say no, we cannot afford it. My goodness, how could we? The roof is falling in. We cannot even fix our steps. What are these steps? These steps that we need to address are the very people who have the greatest need. To all the members of the House who oppose this, let me just put on the record how many people would benefit from this in their respective provinces: In Newfoundland, 16,800 people will benefit from this; in P.E.I., 4,000; in Nova Scotia, 45,400; New Brunswick, 28,500; Quebec, 568,800; Ontario, 718,400; Manitoba, 63,700; Saskatchewan, 49,500; Alberta, 130,900; British Columbia, 159,600; all together, 1.785 million people. That is the number of people who could receive this housing benefit. We are talking about a $500 housing benefit at a time when inflation, the cost of living and the cost of food are skyrocketing. That is what we are talking about. Can we really find it within ourselves to say we cannot afford it? Can we really say that those people do not deserve some help at this critical time? I know the Conservatives might be frustrated with my comments. They should be, because they are being called out. They are being called out on their approach to this. I get that being in government is about determining where the priorities are. New Democrats are here to help people. That is what this bill is all about.

Madam Speaker, the member rightfully points out that housing costs are very expensive now for Canadians and in fact have been for some time. Many Canadians find themselves in the situation where they cannot find secure, safe and affordable housing. The $500 one-time benefit is something that the NDP absolutely supports and has pushed the government to go forward with, and we are pleased about that. Regarding the ultimate goal of ensuring that housing is in fact a basic human right, which the government agrees with in the national housing strategy, would the member then support action in the upcoming fall economic statement and budget to reflect that, with resources and investments in affordable housing and co-op housing?

Madam Speaker, the Liberals finally saw the light about the importance of a dental care program. The truth of the matter is the Liberals and the Conservatives voted against this when the NDP introduced it just last year. Here we are. I am glad 24 New Democrats were able to force the government to act. This bill is the beginning of bringing dental services to Canadians. This year, it is for children under 12 in families with incomes of less than $90,000, then next year it will be available to seniors, people with disabilities and people under 18, and then the year after that for other adults. This is what we are talking about, and it is exactly what Tommy Douglas envisioned, which was to bring forward a national dental care program for all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, first off, the great researcher is the Library of Parliament. I thank it for that excellent information. That is an aside. Tommy Douglas would be absolutely astounded at the fact that the Conservatives, under the Harper administration, did not deliver the health care transfers they promised they would. In fact, they cut them. I think Tommy Douglas would be appalled at the idea of the Conservatives wanting to pit communities against communities and say that somehow, because there is a need for health care, for mental health, we do not need dental services. On this side, we New Democrats are saying that all those services need to be provided, and the government could afford it if we would just tax the rich.

Madam Speaker, let me be very clear. New Democrats have called for and will continue to fight for those other programs, like for changes to EI, and not only during this period of time. We have been doing it for years now. We will never give up on those provisions. This bill is what we have been able to force the government to take action on, and we will continue to drive for more action to support Canadians, including Quebeckers.

Madam Speaker, one critical issue the member has raised is affordability in housing, with which I wholeheartedly agree. Part of the problem is with respect to the financialization of housing, where housing is being treated as a commodity instead of what it is, which is a basic human right. Would the member agree that we need to take action to address the financialization of housing and begin putting a moratorium on it?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway. I am delighted to enter into this debate. I have been listening all day to members in the House speak to Bill C-31. What are we talking about with Bill C-31? We are talking about making sure that families with incomes of less than $90,000, and with children under 12 who do not have dental coverage or insurance elsewhere, get oral health support. That is what we are talking about in this bill. We are also talking about making sure that low-income individuals whose incomes are less than $20,000, and low-income couples and families whose incomes are less than $35,000, get a one-time housing benefit of $500. That is what we are talking about in Bill C-31. When I listened to members in the House today, I went through a range of emotions, from anger to dismay to sadness. I heard the Conservatives say over and over again that children who need dental care support and who do not have dental care support should not get it. The Conservatives are opposed to this bill, and they used all kinds of rationales, illogical and strange as they may be. They even came right out and said that dental health should not be a priority because there is no crisis. This comes from the people who actually have dental coverage for themselves and their families. Across the country, 500,000 children do not have access to dental care. Just so Conservative members know, here are the real facts of what is going on. Oral health is actually critical to our overall health. This goes beyond the risk of pain, infection and tooth decay. Particularly in young children, it could impact eating, sleep and growth. It could have long-lasting impacts into adulthood. In fact, oral health is linked to diabetes and respiratory illnesses. The most common surgery preformed on preschool children at most pediatric hospitals in Canada is treatment for dental decay. The Conservatives may not care about people and the pain they may have to suffer through because they do not have access to dental services, but let me say this: They care about money. They talk about money all the time, not that they would ever stop to talk about ultrarich CEOs, who benefit from excessive bonuses and pandemic profitability. The Conservatives are not worried about those companies. They are not worried about the oil and gas industry, which last year alone made $147 billion. We will never hear them say that those companies should pay their share so those 500,000 children and families can actually get dental care. We will never hear that. All they talk about is how we cannot afford it and about where the money will come from. The money to support people in Canada can come from the very people who have extra and excessive profits. That is what the New Democrats are here to fight for. Members can bet their bottom dollars that this is what I am here to fight for. Let us talk about money for a minute. I do not know if any Conservative members know this, but 1% of people end up in the hospital because they do not have dental services. They end up in emergency. Just in British Columbia alone, the cost of that 1% is $155 million. That is just for one province. If we multiply that across the entire country, all the provinces and territories, it makes up all the money required to do this work and then some. Imagine the pain and suffering that people have to go through. The Conservatives talk about dollars and cents, but they do not really think about them. When they speak, they say that dental care is not a crisis. My goodness. Really? Do we really want everybody to end up in the hospital, and then we can say let us do something about it? The worst thing is they try to pit communities against communities. I heard them saying all day today that somehow, because there are insufficient funds to address mental health, we should not address dental health. What sort of twisted, illogical thinking is that? The New Democrats on this side of the House absolutely believe that there should be investments in mental health. In fact, we believe that head-to-toe care should be in place. We want to fight for pharmacare as well. We will go to the wall to fight for these things. I cannot believe what I am hearing today from the Conservatives, including from their own leader, who has said in different places that dental care is not a priority. I have even heard Conservative members say that no constituents in their ridings need dental care. My goodness. I challenge them to validate that by way of proof that not one of their constituents needs dental care. I want to turn for a minute to the housing issue, as I am also hearing twisted logic on housing. Let us be clear. Earlier today I put on the record the distribution of how many people qualified for the housing benefit, province by province. It was to the tune of 1,785,600 people. They would qualify for this $500 one-time benefit. In Quebec, 568,800 would qualify for this benefit. It is the second-highest province by number of people who would qualify, so it is simply not true to say that Quebeckers would not get this benefit. They would. I have to say that I admire Quebec from this perspective. When the federal Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993, Quebec and British Columbia were the only two provinces that continued social housing and continued to build affordable housing and co-op housing, doing so by themselves. British Columbia did that. We also subsidize people who have that need. Now with an NDP government back in office there, it is investing significant amounts of money into housing. Just because some people have safe, secure, affordable housing and rent that is geared to income does not mean we should leave everyone else behind. It does not mean we do not need to fight for them to get supports as well. I will go to my grave fighting for people to get that. As my mother has taught me, we need to lift each other up. As indigenous elders have taught me, we need one heart, one mind. That is what we have to do. People have been left behind, and just because I have made it does not mean we have made it. It means we have to work harder to bring everybody forward. Once upon a time I lived in poverty. Once upon a time my parents made less than minimum wage to support us. Just because we are no longer living in poverty does not mean that I forget my history and background and all the people who were left behind. That is what this bill is all about. That is why the New Democrats are here, 24 of us, to force the government to take more action to support the people in this country. We all deserve it. We want to be proud of who we are as Canadians. I ran for office to do a job, and that job is to fight for everyone so they are not left behind. Until that is done, the New Democrats will never rest. No matter what the Conservatives want to call us, or anyone else, it does not matter. At the end of the day, it is not about me; it is about the people. That is why we are here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, absurd to say that supporting Canadians who need dental services and who cannot access them because they cannot afford them would cause dental services to increase in cost. It is absurd to even say that. I think the reason the Conservatives are opposed to the bill is that their wealthy friends in the oil and gas sector already have dental services. The Conservatives are loath to support people who do not have it and hate to contribute to them so they too can have the health care services we all deserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is not paraphrasing. The member for Cumberland—Colchester actually said on Monday at committee, “I think we've established very clearly that there's no dental crisis here”, as though the 500,000 children who do not have access to dental care are not faced with a crisis when they have dental pain and dental decay, miss school and end up in surgery, which costs more money that they cannot afford. On the question of dental care and of health care overall, I have to say that it is a shared jurisdictional issue. That is what it is. The federal government has a responsibility for it, as do the provinces. We do not get to walk away and say that it is not about us, although that is what the Conservatives want to do. They want to close their eyes as though somehow dental services have nothing to do with the federal government. It is simply not true. My constituents have said to me that they desperately need this service. They need it for their children, and seniors need it as well, as seniors have told me. I have met seniors who could not afford dental services and who have to blend their food into a drink because they do not have teeth to eat it. The member can tell my constituents that they do not need this plan.

Mr. Speaker, what I know is that under this program, about 100,000 children in Quebec would actually benefit. What I know on the housing benefit is that over 500,000 Quebeckers would actually benefit. From my perspective, it is not about me; it is about the people and their needs. This is what we are trying to address with the bill. We are trying to help as many people as possible across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition initiated by the Women Refugees Advocacy Project. They are calling on the Prime Minister and the minister to provide an expertly designed, culturally sensitive therapeutic program of recovery for trauma, as well as safe, stable housing for Yazidi refugees. I know that earlier this year, Project Abraham and other partners also called for measures to cut red tape and expedite family reunification for Yazidi families. The petitioners are saying that the government must keep its promises to resettle Yazidi survivors of Daesh and support survivors in their healing, especially women who need psychological support.

Mr. Speaker, the Pakistani government is cracking down on Afghans with threats of deportation and imprisonment by the end of the year. As they wait for the special immigration measure application to be processed, many Afghans' 60-day visas have already expired. For others, they will expire soon. Processing delays and the arbitrary cap that limits the number of Afghans who served Canada who can get to safety are going to cost lives. The situation is more urgent than ever. What action is the government taking to ensure Afghans who served Canada are not thrown into prison or sent back to the Taliban?

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments and for sponsoring this bill. It is an important bill to bring forward. However, to the point of lost Canadians, there are still many other categories of lost Canadians, and this bill would not help them regain their status. In fact, it was the Conservatives who took away second-generation born abroads' right to pass on their citizenship to their children. It was Jason Kenney who took away that right. If we are going to fix this, would the Conservatives support amendments to fix all the problems of lost Canadians, including the problems that the Conservatives brought about with second-generation born abroad?

Madam Speaker, for decades some Canadians have found themselves to be stateless due to a number of convoluted immigration laws. Some have found themselves all of a sudden losing their Canadian status and they do not know why. In 2007, the UN listed Canada as one of the top offending countries for making their own people stateless. In 2009, the Conservatives said they were going to address this issue with Bill C-37. In fact, Jason Kenney was the minister of immigration then. Sadly, Bill C-37 did not properly address the lost Canadians issue. At the time, even Conservative minister Diane Finley acknowledged that Bill C-37 would not fix all of the cases of lost Canadians. In fact, Jason Kenney created a brand new set of problems. For the purposes of this discussion, I will not get into the issues of how the Conservatives eliminated people's right to appeal when the government revoked their citizenship. I will simply focus on the issue of lost Canadians. How did Bill C-37 not effectively deal with the age 28 issue with lost Canadians? When the government of the day did away with the age 28 rule with Bill C-37, in its wisdom it only applied it going forward. As such, those who turned 28 before 2009 were left behind. That means they remained as lost Canadians. Affected Canadians caught up in this did not even know their citizenship was cancelled somewhere between 11 years and 15 years ago. For many it only came to light when they applied for something that required proof of citizenship, such as a Canadian passport. In some cases, because of Canada's archaic immigration laws, they discovered they were stateless. Others were faced with deportation, even though they were Canadians in every way prior to turning 28. It is just absurd. I have met many lost Canadians whose lives have been turned upside down because of these unjust laws. Imagine someone who has lived all their life as a Canadian, has voted in elections, and one day wakes up to be told they no longer are Canadian. I had the pleasure of meeting Byrdie Funk a number of years ago. She was caught up in this. She is a third-generation Canadian and had to fight this. It took her almost a decade to regain her citizenship, not because the law was changed; she had to shame the government to give her a special grant and to give her citizenship back. Bill S-245 would fix this age 28 rule, and that is a good thing. However, this bill does not address the other issues for lost Canadians. Through Bill C-37, the Conservatives ended the extension of citizenship to second-generation Canadians born abroad, effectively creating two classes of Canadian citizenship. Preventing Canadians born abroad from passing their citizenship to their children if they were outside of Canada means the breaking up of families. In the case of Patrick Chandler, when he was offered a job in British Columbia, he moved back to Canada, but he had to leave his wife and his children behind. That is the reality he was faced with as a second-generation Canadian who was born abroad. This is just plain wrong. In another situation, a woman named Victoria Maruyama received her Canadian citizenship through her father as an immigrant from Vietnam. At 22, she moved to Japan to teach English and met her husband, a Japanese national. Her children were born in Japan, and as a result, they do not have citizenship through her, even though she had moved back to Canada. This is their reality. In another situation, Gregory Burgess, a first-generation Canadian, and his wife, a Russian Canadian, were on a work visa in Hong Kong. Their child was born there and now their son is stateless. They tried to get their son Canadian citizenship, but the Government of Canada would not allow Mr. Burgess to pass on his Canadian citizenship to his baby. The government told them to apply to Russia, to get Russian citizenship through the mother. It is true. The government told them this right now, when there is a war that Putin is waging against Ukraine, an illegal war. It is unbelievable. The message here is clear. Somehow, second-generation born-abroad Canadians are less worthy. These Canadians lost their ability to pass on their citizenship to their children. That is no thanks to the Conservatives and to Jason Kenney through Bill C-37. Even though Bill C-37 was meant to fix the lost Canadian issues, many of the issues were not fixed, even though, in another situation, then ministers Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander had both asserted that Canadians were all British subjects prior to 1947. That means that war heroes who fought for Canada are deemed British subjects, even though in 1943, for example, the Department of National Defence gave them documents indicating that they would be fighting the war as Canadians, as citizens of Canada. That is what was in the documents handed to those soldiers. The Conservatives would not recognize that. Those war heroes have been left out as Canadians. They have been left behind. Some have passed on, but we should honour them and recognize them and their families. They were very much a part of Canada and should be recognized as Canadians. Others were being discriminated against because of their age, gender and family status. Another individual, a Surrey resident, Jackie Scott, who was born in 1945 to a Canadian veteran and a British woman, was repeatedly denied citizenship despite having lived for decades in Canada. She was raised in Canada, effectively, and voted as an adult, and yet when she applied for her citizenship certificate in 2005, to her shock, she was told that she was not a Canadian. She had to launch a lawsuit against the federal government before the government would even take action to address the situation. Even though she voted previously and pretty well lived all of her life in Canada, she found herself, all of a sudden, without citizenship. I could go on with a list of issues. I should note that when asked about lost Canadians in opposition, the now Prime Minister said that Minister Kenney needed to understand that the principles of Canadian citizenship need to be administered with compassion and openness, and that he simply was not addressing these Canadian issues. The Liberal government had a choice to fix this problem and it did not do it, not since the 2015 election. That is why there are so many people who have lost their citizenship and now are lost Canadians. This needs to be fixed once and for all. We need to address this issue. I have tabled a private members' bill to this effect. We can take that bill and work from there. We can make amendments to this bill, if they are not deemed to be out of scope or deemed to be out of order. We do need to fix the lost Canadian issue. We have seen the havoc that it has created in people's lives and it needs to stop. I want to thank all of the advocates, including Don Chapman, Randall Emery and so many others who have been fighting for Canada to right these laws and do away with these unjust discriminatory practices in our immigration laws. Let the lost Canadians be recognized now.

Madam Chair, the member mentioned the challenges in rural communities and the lack of access. In urban centres, and most definitely in rural communities as well, there are individuals who cannot access services because of language barriers. That is one of the most difficult things I have been hearing about from a lot of people, especially in the face of COVID. I have had seniors come up to me who are distressed. They have experienced trauma, yet they cannot get the mental health support they need because of language barriers. Would he support a call for the government to also fund interpretation and supports in language to access mental health support?

Madam Chair, tied to both our physical and mental health are the social determinants of health. The lack of housing and people's inability to survive because of food insecurity and so on is causing great distress. The government has promised that housing is a basic human right, yet we do not deliver the resources to ensure that it is. Would the member support the call for the government to act in accordance with its promise that housing is a basic human right with corresponding resources to match it?

Madam Chair, there is no question that our immigration system is actually in crisis. It is in complete chaos, and processing delays are keeping families apart. It is costing people both their physical and mental health. What the government has to do is cut the red tape. We could actually regularize people. We could streamline the processes. We could make sure that those who have long wait times in the processing delays are processed expeditiously. That means additional resources in the system and cutting the red tape to find efficiencies.

Madam Chair, I will build on what I heard from my colleague about the need for the social determinants of health to be addressed, because that is intrinsically linked to both our physical and mental health. The reality is that there are so many people in our communities who do not have access to basic supports that should be a basic human right, such as housing. When people cannot access housing, they are in turmoil. Pregnant mothers feel so hopeless because they cannot have access to housing that they take their lives. I have had situations in my own riding of Vancouver East where mothers and families who are trying to get away from domestic violence are not able to access housing. There is desperation when sending them back to the abuser because they have no other choice. I have met mothers who lost their children, and not because they are bad parents but because they do not have access to safe, secure and affordable housing. Let us imagine for one moment the trauma associated with that. What does that do to their hearts, to their minds and to their mental health? Those are the realities that people have to live with every day across Canada and most definitely in my riding of Vancouver East. I have met children who have gone through life into adulthood without access to early diagnosis. As a result, they suffer from mental health issues. Some of them have ended up homeless in the community. Some of them have ended up in a situation where addiction is tied in. In fact, in Vancouver, a homelessness count was done, and the latest statistics we have, from back in the 2020 study, show 44% of the participants self-reported a mental health condition or illness as part of the challenge they face and 60% reported addiction as an issue. In my riding of Vancouver East, the homelessness crisis has shot through the roof. I have never, in my 30 years in public life, seen it as bad as it is today. Those are the realities that people are faced with. Just this summer, my daughter got a distress call. It was almost by accident. A friend she had from high school sent her a call that she thought was weird and odd. Luckily, she picked up on it and called for an intervention and a life was saved. That was what happened, and it was so close to home in so many ways. That young woman was struggling to try to find housing. She was trying to escape an abusive situation in her home and trying to find safe housing. She felt so hopeless that she could not get it. Those are the realities that people are faced with. When I see and learn that the government made a promise to provide resources of $4.5 billion and then it did not go out into the system to help the people in greatest need, one cannot imagine the distress, the anger, the sadness and the frustration I am going through and that I know many members of this House are going through. More to the point, I think of the people who so desperately need the supports. I cannot imagine what they must be going through, and the loved ones who see their family members struggling. We have to tie the social determinants of health to this. When we say mental health is a health issue, we have to treat it as such. We have all said it in this House. Let us make sure that when people need the support, it is actually provided. Let us make sure that it is part of the overall universal health care system. Let us make sure that housing is a basic human right so that we do not hear any more about the tragic and devastating stories that my colleague has just shared with us. It is time to act and we need to save lives. Let us always remember that.

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his excellent work in advancing supports and awareness around the issue of mental health for all Canadians. The situation that took place in the Lower Mainland is devastating. Those are the realities of what people are faced with. In this instance, a young woman who was on the job, helping the community, lost her life. This cannot be acceptable. When we mourn her life, when we celebrate her life, when we honour her and her family, and those who are frontline workers in the community, we need to make sure the resources are there. That is what really matters for the federal government to take action on.

Madam Chair, support services are absolutely critical. We need early diagnosis for young children, to catch the illness and the challenges that they are faced with, and to support them and their families all the way through. In our communities we need to make sure we do not discriminate. The fact is that people cannot access mental health supports. The lucky ones who have extended health care can access it. However, a lot of people do not have extended health care. Access to mental health care is about the ability to pay in that regard, because it is so expensive. We need to make sure people can access services. I would be remiss if I did not raise this issue as well. I live in a community where there are a lot of people who speak different languages. Having access to support services in their language is absolutely critical. The language barrier is real as well, and we need to break down those barriers. Funding needs to be in place to enhance access to supports.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to enter into this debate today. As we know, the situation in Ukraine is something the House condemns. The war that has been waged is an illegal war by Russia. The targets of this war are as clear as day. We see it in the news and we hear it from Canadians who have loved ones in Ukraine. We hear it from people who have fled Ukraine and are in Canada. The news continuously reports the fact that Russia is targeting civilians and public spaces. Children are getting injured and killed. Just hours ago, a news report said that a woman, who was six months pregnant, was killed. That is the reality of what is going on in this illegal war. My colleague, the member for Edmonton Strathcona, spoke very clearly about the new Alberta premier. I also wonder what the Conservatives in the House think about the comments of the newly minted premier of Alberta as they related to Ukraine. How is it even possible that the Conservatives are completely silent about that? The Conservative members stood with all of us in The House to condemn this illegal war, to say that we stood on the side of Ukraine. We all gathered in the House repeatedly to send that message. We now have a Canadian premier, the newly minted premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, who has come out with those comments to not stand with Ukraine. That is more than shocking and disappointing. We are talking about the need to stand for democracy, because underneath everything, it is all about that, standing and fighting for democracy across the globe. When it is under attack, we need to be on the right side of history. Individuals have contacted my office about loved ones who are Russians and are conscientious objectors to this war. They are being targeted by Putin. They need to find a way to get to safety. Right now our immigration measures do not really have a specific measure to support people in Russia who are against this war. We just heard from my colleague of individuals who literally put their lives on the line. They have been imprisoned, tortured and brutalized because they are against this war, yet they have no ability to find safety. The question is, what can we do in Canada to support Russians who are against this war? Other colleagues have asked this question as well. I think all members in the House have had constituents contact them to ask what can be done. This motion speaks to that and it is important to look for and examine different ways that this can be done. For Canadians who are watching this unfold, Canada is doing some work, and absolutely we do need to step up on sanctions to be clear in our support for Ukraine. The question, of course, becomes, given the state of play and where things are, what more can we do to work with our allied countries to support Ukraine? How can we do this work in such a way that will bring an end to the war and ultimately aim to save lives? Therefore, I will say the comment from Danielle Smith is not at all helpful. On the contrary, it is so disturbing that for Conservative members in this House to be silent about it and for the leader of the Conservatives to be silent about it sends all the wrong messages to everyone who is watching what is going on, and not just here in Canada. This war is impacting the entire global community. Everyone's eyes are on this. Where is that leadership? Is there any ability for the Conservatives to set aside the partisan politics for one minute and be on the right side of the issue?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am being heckled by a Conservative member, saying that what I just said is partisan. It is not about partisanship. It is about standing on the right side of history, sending a unified, clear message from all Canadians that we are against this war, and that even the Premier of Alberta does not get away with the nonsense and the disgusting comments that have been made about Ukraine. It does not matter who they are. This war that Putin and Russia have inflicted on Ukraine is an illegal war. There is no justification; there is no excuse whatsoever. If members do not stand in this House to send that message, then they have to be responsible for the horrible news that is hitting our news waves every minute of the day about people dying, about pregnant women getting killed, about children in day cares getting bombed and about residential buildings being on fire and people jumping out of the buildings just to try to survive. That is what this is all about, and it is about democracy for all of us. If any member stands in this House, as the Conservatives often do, and says that they fight for democracy, well then they should fight for it and call people out, even if they are their friends, when they make comments that are so despicable as what Danielle Smith has said. We are here in this House. Of course we are discussing this. The Conservatives are asking and heckling me once again. They are asking, why are we in this House? We are in this House today and I am saying for the Conservative members to call on the premier in Alberta to stop and to desist and to apologize and take those comments back now. I am saying they should send a clear message from all Canadians with the leadership that is required, and send this message to Putin and to Russia: We will always be on the side of Ukraine and be on the right side of history; they should cease and desist with this illegal war.

Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine what Ukrainians here in Canada must think when they hear those comments. I cannot imagine what Ukrainians, who are faced with this war in Ukraine, where their loved ones, children, women and civilians are getting killed, must be thinking. I cannot imagine what the global community must be thinking of Canada, when we have a premier, in that kind of leadership role, making that kind of comment. It is shocking. I am not Ukrainian, and I am so angry about it. It is unjustified and unacceptable, and there must be an apology—

Madam Speaker, my colleague is dead on with his comments. It is despicable. It is wrong. It is funny that the Conservatives cannot find the courage to speak up, at least not so far. I would ask any one of them to say clearly that what the Premier of Alberta has said is wrong and to demand an apology. It is so important for Canadians to stand united and send a clear message. We cannot afford to have a premier in this country say that the war that Putin has waged on Ukraine is justified.

Madam Speaker, in yesterday's report from the Special Committee on Afghanistan, the government said it agreed that applications for Afghans who served Canada must be processed immediately, yet Afghans who applied almost two years ago are still waiting for a response. To make matters worse, the Liberals are sticking to an arbitrary cap and new applications are no longer being accepted. Meanwhile, I continue to receive urgent pleas from Afghans being hunted down by the Taliban. Some have disappeared. Will the government commit today to lift the arbitrary cap for Afghans and immediately expedite their processing?

Mr. Speaker, we are debating Bill C-31. What is Bill C-31? We are talking about providing families whose incomes are less than $90,000 the ability to access dental supports for children 12 and under as its first initiative. For those who do not have access to this, it is absolutely critical. We are also talking about providing low-income individuals and families a housing benefit of $500, although it is a one-time payment. The Conservatives are against these measures. They are against families who need dental support accessing this dental care plan. In the member's constituency, has she talked to any of the families who are in need of dental services? Has she told them that the Conservatives intend to say no to their access to dental care supports?

Mr. Speaker, it is a curious thing. The member actually says he wants to see families who need dental care have access to dental care. There is a simple solution to that. All he has to do is vote for the bill. It is not rocket science to figure it out, because this bill would ensure that families with incomes of less than $90,000, and that do not have access to a dental care plan, would get it, starting with children under 12 this year. Next year it would be for seniors, people with disabilities and people 18 and under, and full realization would follow the year after that. It is not that difficult to figure out how to realize what the member wants. Why does he not just vote for the bill? On the question of affordability, the NDP has been advancing to actually tax wealthy CEOs and big corporations, which have been getting a giant windfall in profitability. Why do we not do what the UN Secretary General suggested, and put in place a windfall tax, as the NDP is suggesting? If that happened, we could ensure those individuals, who are not able to put food on the table, would get the support they need.

Mr. Speaker, first, on the issue of helping municipalities move forward in getting zoning and rezoning dealt with, the NDP was able to force the government to bring forward the accelerator fund. Part of that funding is, in fact, going to be dedicated to municipalities and local governments to help with that. This work is actually going to be under way, although the program is not fully developed and more work will be done. That being said, the member talked a lot about housing and addressed the housing crisis. One of the issues impacting the housing affordability issue is the financialization of housing, yet real estate investment trusts are getting preferential tax treatment. In fact, they get government support by way of insurance coverage and mortgage coverage. Would the member agree that the government should stop preferential tax treatment for these corporate landlords?