Jenny Kwan

In response to a question from Sima Acan

“The committee still needs to hear from the Privacy Commissioner to fix this bill, but the Liberals refused to bring them back. The Liberals also refused to split the bill in two. Opposition members only started delaying the committee because the government would not listen to their questions.”

“Madam Speaker, the Privacy Commissioner actually appeared as a witness at the committee and offered suggestions. I also contacted the Privacy Commissioner after Bill C‑22 was tabled and asked whether they had any comments about the bill. They provided comments on C‑2, which the government took into consideration. However, I think that there is much work to be done. I wonder why the government rejected the motion that was tabled by committee members to bring the Privacy Commissioner back to committee to ensure questions were answered by the Privacy Commissioner as the committee went through clause-by-clause. That was rejected by the Liberals. To the member’s point about the filibustering, I went to committee and watched what was going on. What happened was members were asking legitimate questions and then there was a motion to split the bill, by the Conservatives, into part one and part two. The Liberals rejected it. I then observed that the filibustering started to happen. It is a tool. When members get frustrated with the government’s approach, they use that as a tool to send a message to the government that it cannot run roughshod when trying to make laws. That was the message, I believe, the members were trying to send.”

In response to a question from Ellis Ross

“The NDP and other parties suggested changes to make this bill more balanced. The government should accept our changes instead of only passing its own.”

“Madam Speaker, the NDP submitted dozens of amendments. I believe that those amendments, along with some from other parties, would achieve that goal to develop proportionality and bring some balance to this legislation. The amendments would not fix everything, but they would be a good start for the government to adopt opposition member amendments, and not just go forward with government or Liberal member amendments. That is the track record so far with what has happened at committee, and I think it is the wrong track.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. It gives the government too much power to spy on Canadians, keeps private data for too long, and makes digital systems less secure.”

“Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this important moment regarding Bill C-22. Of course, the government has brought down the sledgehammer, the guillotine, to shut down debate. Bill C-22 is a version of its predecessor, Bill C-2, the so-called strong borders act, which was an offensive, omnibus bill that was dead on arrival. It immediately generated widespread opposition from the public, with tens of thousands of people advocating against it. More than 300 civil society organizations, communities and legal experts soundly rejected the bill, and the government was forced to shelve it. Now, the government has decided to recklessly ram Bill C-22 through. Rather than take the time to listen carefully and hear concerns thoughtfully, the government is plowing ahead because it thinks it knows best. Its reputation for centralization, frankly, is well deserved. Did the government take the time to listen to the Privacy Commissioner’s perspective, or those of legal experts, civil liberty advocates or privacy rights experts on this legislation? I should note that the government did not even consult the Privacy Commissioner prior to tabling this legislation, so the short answer is that no, it did not. This is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that is being rushed through in a haphazard and, frankly, unsettling fashion. Members of Parliament across all party lines have put forward amendments to Bill C-22, and there were a significant number of amendments tabled at committee. The NDP put forward a large volume of amendments at committee to address legitimate concerns raised by experts and businesses alike. I will provide some examples. The NDP amendments aimed to ensure that Bill C-22 could withstand scrutiny under section 8 of the charter; to strengthen and clearly define “systemic vulnerability” to explicitly rule out any requirement that would weaken or break encryption, mandate client-side scanning, or otherwise introduce any security weaknesses; to anchor the definition of “electronic service provider” to a primary function test, ensuring obligations would apply only to entities whose core business is the conveyance of communications between persons; to address the concerns of threshold from the legal experts who have pointed out that Bill C-22’s “reasonable grounds to suspect” threshold is unreasonably low, particularly given the Supreme Court of Canada’s findings regarding high potential sensitivity of subscriber information. They wanted to see that language amended to “reasonable grounds to believe”. The idea behind the amendment is to require a probability of crime rather than a mere suspicion before a citizen’s movement can be mapped out or identifying logs can be demanded. The NDP amendments also sought to replace ministerial secret orders with judicial warrants; to ensure warrants would remain targeted and would avoid broad or general searches to remote data, and mitigate charter and cross-border legal risks; to remove the requirement for broad long-term metadata retention mandates and to, instead, use targeted time-limited preservation orders for specific metadata when needed to reduce costs, security risks and section 8 charter violations. For context, the EU Court of Justice has repeatedly found general and indiscriminate retention of metadata to be incompatible with fundamental rights. I should note that the United States imposes no general mandatory data retention requirement. Sadly, today, the NDP amendment that was debated and moved before the committee failed. The sheer volume of the amendments tabled by all parties at committee, I think, tells us something about the bill and how flawed the bill is. Instead of giving us a chance to fully debate the amendments, the government rejected many that were put forward by opposition parties, and it is now choosing to use the closure guillotine with its new-found majority, from floor crossers, to ram the bill through without proper debate or scrutiny. Canadians will be appalled at the government’s approach to pushing through the legislation. If the government wants to have public policy that is durable, and that will meet the test of time, then it should take the time to do it properly in the first place. Instead, the government has moved full-throttle over its critics. This is a completely unsustainable way to run a government. Will the Liberal caucus just support this approach like a bunch of sheep, or will they call it out for what it is? Bill C-22 would add sweeping new powers that would allow for any digital service provider to retain data on every single person in Canada, without cost. It would compel the redesign of digital systems in ways that would make Canadians more exposed, not more secure. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association rightfully pointed out in an open letter to the government, Bill C-22: ...could force the creation and installation of privacy-compromising surveillance tools and backdoors in an enormous and ill-defined set of “electronic service providers”, including telecom providers, social media and cloud service providers, AI tools, and any “smart” device. The law could even be used to force Canadian companies to build backdoors into their products before they export them abroad. The result creates an untenable threat to privacy and cybersecurity.... According to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Bill C-22 represents one of the most significant expansion of state surveillance authority in Canada in years. In the words of Tim McSorley from the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group: This legislation presents one of the greatest threats to privacy in Canada of the past two decades. Its provisions will weaken the rules governing police access to personal information, all while facilitating a vast expansion of government surveillance. This is another clear case of the decades-long trend of governments using national security as an excuse to erode civil liberties and human rights.... We are encouraging all members of parliament to oppose these new powers.... Matt Hatfield from Open Media states, “Bill C-22 is even more dangerous than the bill it replaces.” The Centre for Free Expression says that it is “an unprecedented and extraordinarily dangerous surveillance architecture”. The Citizen Lab said that the legislation could “weaken the rules governing police access to personal information, all while facilitating a vast expansion of government surveillance”. It goes on to say that the legislation is “enormous and poorly defined”. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, representing nearly 200,000 businesses across the country, a network of over 400 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, said that it fundamentally opposes breaking encryption and other essential zero-knowledge security tools to provide the government and law enforcement with unfettered access to digital systems. At a time when trust in digital governance, data security and state surveillance is already fragile, the government is bringing in legislation that would significantly change the relationship between individuals, private companies and the state. Basic due diligence when considering such sweeping changes to the privacy rights of Canadians is required, yet the government is in such a hurry to violate the civil liberties of Canadians that it did not even take the time to consult with the Privacy Commissioner. Why? Is it because the government is afraid that the Privacy Commissioner’s analysis of the bill would have given the House the necessary non-partisan perspective on the implications on privacy? Bill C-22 would expand police and intelligence access to personal information, reduce judicial oversight and introduce mechanisms that could require private companies to retain and expose sensitive user data on a systematic basis. This is not speculation. It is built into the structure of the bill. The legislation contains two main components: timely access to data information and the supporting authorized access to information regime. Together, they would establish a framework that would allow government authorities to compel access to data from a wide range of electronic service providers far beyond traditional telecom companies. Under Bill C‑22, the Minister of Public Safety would be granted authority to issue secret orders requiring these providers to modify their systems to facilitate access to user information. These orders would not require judicial authorization. They would not be subject to public scrutiny and, in many cases, they might never be disclosed. Instead, they would be approved through an administrative process involving the intelligence commissioner. While that office plays an important role in oversight, it is not equivalent to independent judicial authorization in open court. It would not provide the same constitutional safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure. It would move us away from a warrant-based system rooted in charter protections and toward a model of executive-initiated access to private data. That is not all. Bill C‑22 would also introduce a second deeply concerning feature: compelled data retention. The bill would allow the government to require companies to retain metadata for up to one year on every single person in Canada or abroad. Metadata may not include the content of communications, but it reviews patterns of behaviour, who we talk to, when we talk to them, where we talk to them, how often we interact and for how long. Why is the government looking over the shoulders of Canadians? In this digital era, metadata is often more revealing than content. It is a skeleton of a person’s private life, damaging the privacy of millions, not because they are suspected of committing any crime or posing any security threat but because it might become useful in the future. This is a profound invasion of privacy. This is precisely what overreach is. The legislation would create democratic deficits by design and has features that are far more characteristic of a neo-authoritarian regime. This is not an exaggeration. The government is continuing a backward slide into centralization. A government run by a former central banker is moving toward centralization, and it is the wrong direction. We also need to address the risks created when governments require systemic access points or infrastructure modifications. When companies are forced to build mechanisms that enable easier state access to encrypted or private communications, those mechanisms do not remain confined to lawful use. They become vulnerabilities. We have seen this repeatedly. Systems designed for access become systems exploited by hackers, foreign intelligence services and malicious actors. As pointed out by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce: [Encrypted zero-knowledge digital systems] would require technical measures that alter the security architecture of these systems, including changes to how encryption is implemented and managed. As a result, any requirement to facilitate this form of access would introduce systemic vulnerabilities by design, exposing both private and public sector systems to unacceptable cybersecurity risks and potential liability in the event of a breach. We need look no further back than the FINTRAC breach of 2024 or the Salt Typhoon attacks that same year which led the Canadian government to join a dozen governments in advising greater adoption of encryption, to truly appreciate the risk that our secured systems face on a daily basis. Compounding these concerns is the increased potential for cross-border data exposure. Bill C‑22 would open pathways for information sharing with foreign governments, including jurisdictions where civil liberty protections are weakening and surveillance powers are expanding, some with a history of abusing cross-border police authorities to persecute diaspora communities. Concerns do not stop there. Canada may also be implicated in transnational repression. At a time when digital rights and due process protections are under strain internationally, expanding these channels raises serious concerns about accountability and misuse of Canadian-held data. We must also be honest about the historical context of surveillance in the country. It is not theoretical to say that expanded surveillance powers have, in the past, been used disproportionately against activists, organizers, journalists and communities advocating for social and political change. Oversight bodies have repeatedly documented concerns about intelligence gathering that extends beyond legitimate criminal investigation. We need to look no further than the RCMP surveilling and actively undermining indigenous activists and movements, as the recent news from a few months ago revealed with the release of documents. When surveillance powers expand, they rarely remain confined to their original intent. They expand in scope, in use and in impact. This brings us to an important point about precedent. What we are seeing is an expansion of surveillance powers that were previously rejected due to legitimate concerns about privacy, proportionality and charter compliance. At a time when global political conditions are unstable and civil liberty protections in some jurisdictions are eroding, Canada should be strengthening privacy protections, not weakening them. The government may argue that these powers are necessary for public safety and effective law enforcement, but necessity must be demonstrated, not assumed, and proportionality must be proven, not implied. We do not need to choose between security and privacy. This is a false choice. Effective policing and intelligence work can and should operate within robust legal frameworks that preserve judicial oversight and limit data collection to what is strictly necessary. Bill C-22 fails that task. It lowers thresholds for access to personal information. It expands executive authority over digital infrastructure. It mandates or enables large-scale data retention and increases systemic exposure of private communications to risk. Businesses are considering withdrawing services from Canada should Bill C-22 be implemented. For these reasons, this legislation should not proceed in its current form. If not withdrawn and sent back to the drawing board, at minimum, it requires substantial amendments, such as restoration of judicial authorization for access orders, strict limitation of data retention powers, removal of secret system modification orders and clear prohibition of infrastructure changes that compromise encryption or system integrity. A clear understanding of the implications of system vulnerabilities needs to be incorporated with amendments to the bill to ensure those vulnerabilities do not put Canadians at further risk. Absent those kinds of changes and more, Bill C-22 represents a significant step backward for privacy rights and constitutional protections in Canada. This is not what Canadians want, I do not believe, from a Liberal government. The question before us is whether we are willing to accept a shift towards generalized surveillance infrastructure as the default condition of digital life in Canada. I am not, nor are my constituents in Vancouver East, so I urge the House to reject this path. We still have a chance. I want to be surprised. I want to be shocked. I want to see the government members not just roll over and do what they are told. We heard from other members in the House earlier who say there were not even robust, meaningful and fulsome discussions at committee with witnesses. Witnesses were not able to attend committee. Briefs were not transcribed or provided. This cannot be a path forward, because the structural changes are so significant and impactful for Canadians that we cannot afford to get it wrong. Let us take the time to do it right. I urge all members of the House to do what is important and what is right for Canadians. I urge them to not just follow the orders of what the government whip tells them to do but to do what civil society organizations, advocates and experts tell them must be done. They must examine these issues with their own mind and make that determination. I urge members to do that.”

“Both the NDP and the Bloc tried to change the standard police need to collect information in this bill, but our changes were voted down. Can the member explain why the Liberals opposed those changes?”

“Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge and thank my colleague as well. I am not a regular attendee of the SECU committee. However, on Bill C-22 I listened to all the exchanges and debates. I have to say my colleague from the Bloc was superb in many of her interventions. With respect to the amendments that were made, the NDP also moved an amendment related to the issue of “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe”. However, the NDP amendment was defeated. The Bloc similarly moved an amendment in that regard, in accordance with the Quebec bar association. This was also an important issue that did not get support. Could the member elaborate on the rationale behind the Liberals’ objection to that important amendment?”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“When I was a provincial minister, we built thousands of homes by working with businesses and non-profits, even after the federal government stopped helping. The Liberals just gave money to private developers and hoped affordable homes would appear, but that did not work.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was once actually in government at the provincial level, at a time when the federal Liberal government cancelled the national affordable housing program. What did New Democrats do provincially? We continued to deliver housing in spite of that. When I was elected and became a cabinet minister, what did we do? We actually grew the money from the Province of British Columbia alone, with the private sector, with the non-profit sector, with municipalities and with everybody else who would partner with us, except for the federal government, which walked away. Guess what. We grew that money from 600 units to 1,200 units and then to 2,000 units, with the same amount of money. Yes, we believe in the market, but what we also believe in is making sure that we drive the market to deliver for the people, especially when it gets a benefit from taxpayers. That is unlike the current Liberal government. What did it do? It gave money hand over fist to the development sector, to the market, and thought that somehow, magically, affordable housing would appear on its own. Guess what. It did not.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“The government is trying to rush this bill through. We will not support it without rules that hold them accountable. The government should not just hand out cheques to provinces without making sure the money actually helps people who need homes.”

“Mr. Speaker, to the point where they are making disruptive noises that interfere with the debate in the House, that is inappropriate. Let me just conclude my comments here. The government wants to ram this through. The Liberals want unanimous consent from all the parties to somehow magically just support them in whatever they want to do, but we actually want accountability. We want the government to deliver results for the people, for Canada, for Canadians who are struggling with the housing crisis, not just to hand over cheques without accountability measures. That is the difference. The market will not fix the problem. What will fix the problem is a policy choice of investing in the people and for people ahead of profits.”

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“We are working late tonight, and the Liberals are having a party in the lobby.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that intervention. It is kind of outrageous, is it not? We are here at 10:50 p.m., and the Liberals are partying in the lobby area.”

“I oppose this bill. It spends $1.7 billion to help the private housing market instead of making homes affordable. It does not require anyone to build low-cost, co-op, or social housing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-26, at 10:33 p.m. This will be the last time members of Parliament will get to debate the bill because the government has brought down the guillotine to shut down debate. What is this bill? It is an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. That sounds good. At the outset, let me say this clearly. Canada is not just facing a housing crisis; it is facing a housing affordability crisis. It is not a future housing crisis but a housing affordability crisis right now, which has only gotten worse on the government’s watch. Across the country, people are working harder than ever and falling further behind. Young people who have done everything society has asked them to do, studied hard, gotten a job and saved money, are wondering if they will ever be able to afford a home. Families are spending larger and larger portions of their income on rent. Seniors are being priced out of the communities they helped build. Students are sleeping on couches and living in overcrowded housing. More Canadians are finding themselves on the brink of homelessness. In cities and towns across this country, homelessness continues to rise. This is the reality. This is the crisis. It demands serious action. New Democrats believe government has an obligation to act. We believe public investment has a role to play. We believe Canada must build more housing. We believe governments must be ambitious, but ambition alone is not enough. Public money must achieve public outcomes, including affordability. That is where this bill, Bill C-26, fails. This legislation would authorize the expenditure of $1.713 billion of public funds, yet despite spending more than $1.7 billion, the bill itself contains almost no meaningful safeguards, no measurable affordability requirements and no clear accountability mechanisms. There are no requirements for affordable housing. There are no requirements for non-market housing. There are no requirements for co-operative housing. There are no requirements for public housing. There are no requirements for indigenous housing. There are no requirements for accessible housing. There are no requirements for rental affordability. There are no requirements that any homes created as a result of this funding remain affordable for future generations. There are none whatsoever. Instead, Parliament would be asked to authorize $1.713 billion dollars and then hand enormous discretion to the Minister of Finance to determine where the money goes and under what conditions. This is not accountability. This is centralization. Parliament would be asked to write a cheque and hope for the best. New Democrats do not believe that is good enough. If Canadians are investing $1.7 billion, Canadians deserve to know what they are getting in return. Would rents become more affordable? Would homelessness decline? Would social housing waiting lists shrink? Would more co-op housing be built? Would more affordable homes be available to workers, seniors and young families? The bill does not answer any of these questions. This is because Bill C-26 reveals something important about how the Prime Minister understands the housing crisis. The government says this bill is about supply, but Canadians are not suffering from a shortage of supply. They are suffering from a shortage of affordable supply. These are not the same thing. A luxury condominium counts as supply. A speculative investment property counts as supply. An empty condominium tower counts as supply. None of those things necessarily creates affordability. The question is not whether units are being built. The question is who those units are being built for. The question is whether ordinary people can afford them. The question is whether housing is being treated as a home or as a financial asset. If members read the government’s own background documents, something very revealing emerges. The government is concerned about inventory. The government is concerned about sales. The government is concerned about construction activity. The government is concerned about market conditions. The government is concerned about what might happen if inventories increase and housing markets slow down. Those are all legitimate matters for economists to discuss, but where in the government’s framework do we see the issue of affordability or the issue of homelessness? Where do we see social housing wait-lists? Where do we see renter poverty? Where do we see overcrowding? Where do we see indigenous housing needs? Where do we see housing insecurity? Where do we see affordability outcomes? What we see instead is a framework built around market indicators. That tells us something important: that the government is measuring market distress. New Democrats are measuring human distress. Those are very different things. Canadians deserve honesty from this House. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is not simply that people cannot find housing. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that inventories are rising. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that sales are slowing. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that construction activity may decline. The concern reflected in Bill C-26 is that housing markets are cooling. Those are not the same thing. A family facing eviction is experiencing a housing crisis. A senior who cannot afford rent is experiencing a housing crisis. A young worker paying half their income to a landlord is experiencing a housing crisis. A worker sleeping in their car is experiencing a housing crisis. A student sleeping in their car is experiencing a housing crisis. A student couch surfing is experiencing a housing crisis. A developer sitting on unsold luxury condominiums is experiencing a market problem. Those are not the same thing, yet this legislation increasingly treats them as though they are. This is the central flaw of Bill C-26. The government has confused the health of the housing market with the well-being of the people who depend upon housing. Canadians have seen this movie before. For years, Canadians have been told that if we support the market, affordability will follow. When housing became increasingly financialized and profiteering became the name of the game, we were told affordability would follow. When corporate investors expanded their presence in housing, we were told affordability would follow. When housing prices skyrocketed, we were told affordability would follow. When rents exploded, we were told affordability would follow. When an entire generation found itself locked out of home ownership, we were told affordability would follow. Today, Canadians are hearing the same message once again: Trust the market, support the market, subsidize the market, and somehow affordability will follow. Canadians have waited long enough. The evidence is in: That experiment has failed. It has failed young people. It has failed renters. It has failed workers. It has failed seniors. It has failed communities across Canada. The private market builds housing where profits are highest. The private market does not automatically build housing where the need is the greatest. That is why we can have luxury towers sitting empty while homelessness rises. That is why we can have speculative investment properties while families struggle to find housing. That is why we can have thousands of vacant units and thousands of unhoused people in the same city at the same time. This is not a natural phenomenon. This is a policy choice. It is the predictable outcome of treating housing as an asset class instead of a human right. Let us consider what is happening in metro Vancouver. According to publicly reported figures, approximately 2,500 completed condominiums are currently sitting vacant and unsold. The number has doubled compared with the previous year. Analysts estimate that it could rise significantly further. Think about what that means. Thousands of homes already exist, thousands of homes have already been built, yet people cannot afford them. At the same time, homelessness remains a serious challenge, renters are struggling and working families are being priced out. The problem is not simply a lack of units; it is affordability. The problem is that housing is increasingly being built as an investment product rather than a social necessity, and that housing has become financialized. Unless we address the financialization, we will continue to produce housing outcomes that fail ordinary Canadians. There is another example that deserves attention. A major residential tower development in Vancouver recently entered receivership after significant financial difficulties and a loan default involving more than $100 million. An institutional lender stepped in, receivers were appointed and creditors moved to recover their investment. Now, I want to be clear, I am not criticizing construction workers, pension beneficiaries or workers whose retirement savings are invested through pension funds. However, this is an example that reveals something important. Parts of the housing development sector are experiencing financial distress. Sales are slowing, inventories are rising, financing is becoming more difficult, projects are becoming riskier, and Canadians have every right to ask a simple question: Is Bill C‑26 designed to solve the housing crisis Canadians face, or is it designed to stabilize a development model facing increasing financial pressure? When I read the government’s own rationale, I see repeated concerns about inventory, market conditions and construction activity. What I do not see is an equal concern for affordability, and that should concern every member of this House. There is another problem with this bill: the allocation formula itself. Ontario received $875 million, Quebec received $320 million, B.C. received $284 million, meanwhile, Manitoba received $10 million, Saskatchewan received $10 million, New Brunswick received $10 million, and Newfoundland and Labrador received $10 million. The government has chosen to distribute funding based largely on housing market indicators. Imagine if we allocated funding based on need, homelessness or renters’ needs. Imagine if we allocated funding based on social housing wait-lists, housing insecurity, indigenous housing needs or renter distress. The results would almost certainly look different. This formula is not built around human need; it is built around market conditions. This is an ideological choice, and New Democrats disagree with it. There is a larger issue at stake. For decades, governments of different political stripes have steadily reduced Canada’s commitment to non-market housing. When I say different political stripes, I mean Liberals and Conservatives. The result is that Canada has one of the smallest non-market housing sectors across many developed countries. We sold the idea that private markets would deliver affordability. Instead, we got speculation, financialization, corporate concentration, rising rents, rising home prices and a housing crisis. Surely the lesson is obvious. We cannot solve a housing crisis created by excessive reliance on the market by relying even more heavily on the market. We need a different approach. We need a major expansion of non-market housing and co-op housing. We need public housing construction, acquisition funds to preserve existing affordable housing, indigenous-led housing solutions and stronger tenant protections. We need affordability requirements attached to public funding, and we need to ensure that every public dollar creates a lasting public benefit. At the end of the day, this debate comes down to a simple question: Who is the government supposed to work for? When renters are struggling, government should stand with renters. When young people are locked out of home ownership, government should stand with young people. When seniors are worried about keeping a roof over their heads, government should stand with seniors. When families cannot afford housing, governments should stand with families. That should be the test; not whether inventories are optimized, not whether markets are stabilized and not whether investors are reassured. Whether people can afford a place to live is the key. Government programs should not be designed to bail out big developers. That is the test, and Bill C-26 fails it. This bill tells us how much money would be spent. This bill tells us where some of that money would go. However, it never tells Canadians what they would receive in return. There would be no affordability guarantees, no social housing targets, no public ownership requirements and no measurable affordability outcomes, nothing. It is just $1.7 billion and a promise that the market would somehow work things out. We have heard that promise before, and after decades of hearing it, Canada now faces the worst housing affordability crisis in generations. When a former central banker designs housing policy, it looks like Bill C-26 and it clearly misses the mark. It misses the human impact of housing affordability. New Democrats believe that there is a better path. We believe that housing is a basic human right. We believe that public money should serve public purposes. We believe that housing policy should be judged by outcomes for people, not outcomes for investors. We believe that if taxpayers assume the risk, they deserve affordability in return. We believe that if public money is invested, the public should own part of that outcome. We believe that if government is serious about housing affordability, then affordability cannot be optional. There are two ways to spend $1.7 billion. We can spend it protecting the housing market or we can spend it protecting Canadians from the housing market. Bill C-26 chooses the first path. New Democrats believe parliamentarians should choose the second, always putting people before profits. That is what we are here to talk about with respect to this bill. Somehow, the government misses the mark. Before this bill came to this critical stage where the government is bringing forward a guillotine motion to ram through the bill without proper debate in the House, I had a briefing with officials. I asked the officials, “What is the funding allocation? What is the formula? How did they determine who gets how much money?” At that briefing, they said that they could not provide that information to me. They were actually not going to share that information. What they really wanted was for me, for the New Democrats and for members of the House to agree on a unanimous consent motion to pass through all the stages—”

• Echo ×6

  A repeated line

  “We have seen this movie before.”

  Said 6 times by 6 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“We need to build supportive housing, not just regular homes. Some people need extra help with mental health and addiction so they can stay housed. The government is not spending enough money on these supports.”

“Madam Speaker, there is a great need for a full range of housing, and that includes supportive housing. The truth of the matter is that building housing in and of itself is insufficient. We have to have the supports in place as well for a certain segment of the community, for example, those who are faced with multiple health issues, including addictions issues, mental health issues and so on. Supportive housing is what helps ensure people are successful in that housing, and that is what we need as well. We do not have enough supports from the federal government in that regard. By the way, the spring economic update did not renew mental health support funding, and that is going to create greater problems for communities like Nanaimo and mine, and across the country.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“This housing bill has no accountability. It does not say who is in charge, how many homes will be built, or where they will be built. It also has no rules to make sure homes are affordable. Relying on private companies has failed to solve the housing crisis for 30 years.”

“Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. There is no accountability in the bill. It does not even name the minister responsible for ensuring the deliverability. It does not actually say what the government is trying to do. How many units will it build and in which provinces? What are the targets the government will set? The bill does not even ensure that the government delivers on letting Canadians know what the outcomes are, and there is no affordability measure. It is just like, “oh well, whatever”. If we have a plan like that, how is the housing crisis going to be solved? History has shown that what the government has done over the last 30 years is rely on just the private sector, and that has failed.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want the federal government to build social housing and co-op housing again. This bill fails because it has no clear plan to actually make homes affordable. The Liberals also voted against my changes to make the government report its real results to Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, the NDP has been a strong advocate of the federal government’s getting back to building social housing and co-op housing like it used to, before the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program prior to 1993. That is what I want to see in place. The build Canada homes act fails in its blueprint and the details on how it would actually deliver affordability, social housing and co-op housing for Canadians. By the way, my amendment called for accountability, to set baselines, to set targets and to set reported measures of what the government actually achieves. The Liberals voted against it, because they do not want Canadians to know the truth. They want to hide it from Canadians. There would be no accountability measures under the act.”

“This bill does not fix the housing crisis because it gives money to private developers instead of building public, co-op, and non-profit homes. It has no clear targets for what makes a home truly affordable or accessible. I want the government to build one million public homes and set strict rules to make sure homes are built for people, not profit.”

“Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I rise today on behalf of the people of Vancouver East, and on behalf of millions of Canadians, who are asking a very simple question. In one of the richest countries in the world, why is it becoming harder, not easier, to afford a place to live? What an opportunity this is to do the right thing and to build truly affordable housing, once and for all. The government has a chance to step up to the plate and finally deal with the crisis of runaway housing costs. Instead, it is just tinkering at the edges. Behind the hype and the Prime Minister’s rhetoric of re-establishing the federal government’s direct role in building homes at speed and scale to address the housing crisis is just another repackaged intervention that reserves most of its funding for the private sector. As shown in the spring economic update, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would build more housing faster to address the housing crisis, but instead of investing in the development of public community housing, over $93 billion, or two-thirds of the $140 billion in housing measures, would be gifted to real estate developers through special treatment and low-interest loans with minimal affordability requirements to help Canadians. Only one-third, less than $10 billion a year over five years, would be spent directly on building homes. The Liberals are continuing to bank on the private sector to solve the housing crisis. We have seen that show before. It did not work 30 years ago, and it will not work now or in the future. The legislation contains no affordability or supply targets, no performance benchmarks and no regular reporting requirements beyond infrequent statutory reviews. To date, the government has announced just six sites that would meet affordability criteria. Without binding requirements, there is no assurance that future projects would do the same. This lack of ambition is especially concerning given that total federal housing spending is projected to fall by 56% by 2028-29. Funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire, and CMHC is facing cuts of $860 million per year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In addition, there could be the loss of up to 300,000 units of already built social and co-op housing if the government does not renew housing charge subsidies that are set to expire. Miloon Kothari, the former UN special rapporteur on housing, visited Canada on a national fact-finding mission and wrote a report in 2007 with recommendations. The point is that every government, Conservative and Liberal, has ignored his advice since. The report called for a continuum of housing to be built, including non-market affordable housing on scale, so that it could push the market into more affordable terrain. What are we seeing today, more than 30 years later? Why are seniors being renovicted from communities that they helped build? Why are young people working full-time and still unable to afford rent? Why are families forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table? Why has this affordability crisis gone on for so long? This did not happen by accident. This is the result of decades of political choices that have allowed housing in Canada to be transformed from a human need into a vehicle for profit. During the election campaign, the Liberals said they were going to have a wartime intervention in building affordable housing. What we see in reality is a program focused primarily on market incentives. History has shown us that true affordable housing, social housing and co-op housing, can be built by government with non-profit partners, and they know how to do this well. The Liberals have a choice: stand with working people crushed by rent and unaffordable housing costs, or protect a system that keeps housing unaccountable and out of reach. Sadly, they choose the latter. Liberals are continuing to approach the affordability crisis through market incentives rather than building affordable housing directly with non-profit partners that guarantee affordability. That is the world view of the Conservatives as well. The NDP takes a very different approach, and that is why the NDP is calling for development of one million public homes over five years. That is the scale of ambition we need, to ensure that everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home. At committee, I proposed something incredibly basic: an amendment to Bill C-20 calling for transparency, measurable targets and a clear definition of affordability rooted in reality, which is that people should not spend more than 30% of their total income just to keep a roof over their head. The amendment demanded data and required outcomes on how many homes are built, where they are, who they serve and whether they are actually affordable. At a time when millions are one paycheque away from losing their homes, Canadians deserve more than announcements and market incentivization. They deserve accountability and clear affordability targets. The Liberals and Conservatives, by voting down the amendment, send a clear message that they are not interested in transparency and accountability. They do not really want Canadians to know the facts. Here is the truth. Building more housing, on its own, will not solve the crisis. If we do not address who the system is built for, we will simply produce more housing that people still cannot afford. When we do not set affordability targets, it is déjà vu all over again. There is a profound lack of urgency and priority by the Prime Minister to build a new supply of truly affordable housing for everyday Canadians. What is worse is that we will leave the most vulnerable even further behind. The Minister of Housing once had the ambition to end homelessness. Now that he is the minister, where has that ambition gone? The Right Fit program did something very simple and very powerful. It matched wheelchair users with accessible housing. Over the years, it helped hundreds of people find stable homes, and yet despite its success, and despite a growing wait-list of people in desperate need, it lost federal funding as of April 1. That means that in the middle of a housing crisis, we are not just failing to build enough homes but failing to ensure that the housing we have is accessible to those who need it most. It is not happening. This is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the government’s approach. The Build Canada Homes act focuses heavily on supply, but it is not asking a critical question: a supply of what, and for whom? Accessible housing is not interchangeable with market housing. This is a bureaucracy being built without adequate affordability targets. We cannot simply build more units and assume they will meet the needs of people with disabilities. This is not simply an outlier situation. It is a warning. It shows us exactly what happens when we rely on a market-driven approach without strong public leadership and targeted investment. We get gaps, we get inequities, and people are left behind. This happens because it leans on the same idea, which is that if we incentivize developers, reduce barriers and speed up approvals, affordability will follow. However, we have tried that for decades, and what has it delivered? It has delivered luxury developments instead of affordable homes, record profits for investors while renters struggle, and housing treated as a commodity, not a human right. The private market builds for profit, not for need. If luxury units generate higher returns, that is what will be built. If speculation drives higher prices, that is where capital flows. This is how the system is designed, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the system serves the people, not just the profits. Right now, it does not serve the people. Where in this bill is the bold commitment to non-market housing? Where is the large-scale investment in co-op housing? Where is the expansion of public housing that remains affordable for generations? Where are the protections for renters facing eviction and unaffordable rent increases? Where is the action to stop the financialization of housing? The housing crisis is not separate from inequity. It is a direct result of it. When wealth is concentrated, it flows into assets like housing and drives prices out of reach. If we are serious about solving the crisis, we must be serious about addressing inequality. This is not just about opposing development. We need to build, but we need to build the right kind of housing. We need to build housing that is affordable, accessible and secure. We need to build housing that is protected from speculation. Housing is not just about supply. It is about dignity. It is about stability. It is about a basic human right. That is why the government needs to take action in a serious way. That is why there need to be accountability measures in this bill and we need to address the housing crisis for all Canadians.”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “Canada should be one of the richest countries in the world.”

  Said 5 times by 5 members since May 25.

  Every time it was said →