HANSARD: Reply to the Throne Speech

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into debate on the throne speech. I was not anticipating that I would get to speak until tomorrow, but nonetheless, the opportunity arose, and I am at the ready.

Looking at the throne speech, the real question is, what is not in the throne speech. More to the point, when I was out campaigning, when I was talking to people in Vancouver East, there were many issues that people raised. Yes, of course, people were talking about their concern with respect to the United States and what was going on with the United States. With that being said, though, while people said we should absolutely take action together in dealing with the United States, they also said that there is another element of the threat that Canada faces, and that is foreign interference.

It is a mystery to me how it is that, since the election, we have not heard the Prime Minister raise the issue of foreign interference, the threat to our democratic institutions and our democracy. That is one thing that we must also stand together to protect as well, which we have not seen.

The foreign interference registry was something that all members of the previous Parliament, across party lines, worked together to expedite. To date, that act has not yet been enacted. We still do not have the registry up and running, so I do have a question for the government with respect to it: Why has it not been enacted, and where is it?

I want to turn to other areas absent in the throne speech, and concerns have already been raised. Seniors and their concerns were not mentioned in the throne speech. Women, for example, were not mentioned in the throne speech. Issues surrounding the impact of gender equality were not addressed in the throne speech. People with different abilities were not mentioned in the throne speech.

I was absolutely dismayed with respect to housing. There were two aspects that the government highlighted around housing, such as the GST tax break for first-time homebuyers. That was something that the NDP had pushed for and called for. It is good it is in there, but I should note that there is a major difference in the housing costs in the Lower Mainland. The cap put in place is not going to help a lot of people there.

The government also put in a piece about development cost levies and reducing them by half. Reducing development cost levies by half would mean that local governments that need the resources to build the infrastructure would not have that resource. That is still top of mind. In fact, the FCM was here last week and over the weekend. Today I ran into some of the councillors who were still in Ottawa, and they want answers. They want to know how the government is going to address the gap that will be created with the reduction of the development cost levies for the development of housing. That is a major concern for people in the community and local councillors. They do not know how they are going to make that up.

Of course, there are other infrastructure needs that are not being met as well, especially with the growing populations of communities. They were not mentioned in the throne speech.

I should note that, on housing, renters were not mentioned. It is such a bizarre thing to me. Renters are a large part of our communities and our population. Renters and their concerns were not mentioned in the throne speech. The issues that brought us to the housing crisis were the cancellation of the co-op housing program by the Progressive Conservatives in 1992 and the cancellation of the national affordable housing program by the federal Liberal government in 1993, yet a national affordable housing program and a national co-op housing program are not mentioned in the throne speech.

There is no mention of needing to invest in building social housing and co-op housing in Canada. There is no mention of the subsidies that are required to make sure that the non-profit sector has the resources it needs to manage these buildings and keep rents affordable. I do not get it.

We have a new Minister of Housing. In his first interview with the media, he said that affordability in the housing crisis is not an issue. How is affordability not an issue in the housing crisis we are faced with when affordability is the number one issue?

Last year, the FCM posted that, yes, we need to have more stock, but having more stock alone would not resolve the issue. What we need is affordability, and what that means is that we need the federal government at the table providing resources, both on the capital side in the development of social housing and on the management and operating side. Canada's affordable housing stock is sitting at below 4%, compared to at least 7% in other G7 countries. The countries that are doing well, where they do not have an affordability housing crisis, are at 20%.

I know Pierre Poilievre thinks that community housing is somehow Soviet-style housing. I hope the Liberals do not think that. I hope they will counter that narrative and say that Canada will invest in social and co-op housing and that Canada will bring back subsidies to reduce the cost of housing.

There is a whole spectrum of need with respect to housing. There are those who are unhoused, those who are low-income renters who need subsidized housing, those who need low-income market rental, those who need some support with a moderate income in the market and those who want to get into the market for the first time to own their own home.

For people who want to get into the market to own their own home for the first time, they need the government to address housing profiteering. Those are the actors who come in to evict people so they can jack up the rent because their number one goal is to maximize profit. They are not thinking about how to keep rent low or housing costs low. They are thinking about how to stuff their pockets and how to get the most return for their investment. Therefore, we need to address the financialization of housing, and there is nothing in the throne speech that speaks to that.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment because I think the other part that needs to be dealt with is the issue of indigenous rights. To that end, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “, as well as Indigenous peoples”.