44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2023 10:00AM
- May/2/23 11:22:09 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, who is here in the House.
Yesterday, I was totally amazed, dumbfounded and impressed. I was almost moved. I was almost overcome by emotion when I learned that the Conservatives would be moving a motion on the housing crisis. I had a strange feeling that I will not name in the House but that was very, very special.
I wondered what was happening for the Conservatives to take an interest in the most vulnerable, in single mothers, in the homeless and in women who are victims of domestic violence, and what made them want to talk about the housing crisis. I could not believe it. I thought that we were finally going to have an opportunity to really talk about it and to find solutions.
Since I have been in the House, people have heard me talk about the housing crisis hundreds, if not thousands, of times. This is one of my major concerns. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing mentioned, and as everyone will mention today, the right to housing in this country is a fundamental issue, a pressing need.
I have never heard the Conservatives propose even a hint of a solution and tell us what we should do to help the less fortunate in our society. I have never heard them say what sort of investment we should make or what sort of area we should target to achieve this goal.
Let us look at where we are. What is our starting point? What is the target? What is the challenge? Where do things stand, what is the bar? According to the CIBC and the CMHC, we need 3.5 million housing units in this country over the next decade. That is the challenge, that is what we need to do.
I expected that the Conservatives would come here today with solutions, that it would be an intense debate, that we could discuss the issues. However, the only thing they are doing with this motion, and we heard it from the leader of the Conservative Party earlier, is calling other levels of government incompetent.
All the Conservatives are doing is telling the provinces and municipalities to get out of the way. They are saying that, from their office towers in Ottawa with their ties and computers, they know how many social housing units need to be built in Victoriaville, and how many people experiencing homelessness there are in Victoriaville's different neighbourhoods, and if we give them the power to act, they will be so effective, good and wonderful.
I would like to remind my Conservative colleagues that, if we do not build more social housing in Canada, if we needed the national housing strategy rolled out by the Liberals in 2017, it is because of the Conservatives.
Let us not forget that, for years, the federal government built social housing for the poorest Canadians. After the Second World War, the federal government understood that it had to become involved in one way or another in building housing units. It understood that housing could not be left to market forces alone. For 50 or 60 years, the government built housing units. It did so by sending money to the provinces to be distributed to the municipalities to build housing units. It worked, as 60% of our low-income housing in Quebec right now was provided by the federal government. At the time, we understood that we had to invest to help the poorest Canadians, and that we could not allow market forces to control something as fundamental as housing.
In the 1993 election campaign, Mrs. Campbell, who was leader of the Conservative Party at the time, said that that was over. There would be no more investments in housing. Jean Chrétien, based solely on his courage and his ignorance of the issue, said that the Liberals would continue to invest in social housing, that it was too important and basic a need. That is one of the reasons he was elected, because people understood that there was still a housing problem. Unfortunately, it did not happen. He reneged on his promise.
Are my colleagues aware of how many social housing units would have been built in Quebec if we had continued to invest as we did between 1950 and 1993? There would be 60,000 more social housing units in Quebec. Right now, it is estimated that 45,000 people are on the waiting list for low-income housing. Let us imagine if we had continued to invest. In the meantime, the Conservatives were in power. They did not reinvest either, so we lost 60,000 social housing units, and there are 45,000 people waiting for low-income housing in Quebec.
In other words, housing is under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has money. I will not get into the details of the fiscal imbalance, but the money is in Ottawa, and the needs are in the provinces. It is not hard to understand.
A few days ago, I was in Quebec City to discuss housing with my hon. colleagues from Beauport—Limoilou and Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. I spoke with the people from Quebec City, those who my Conservative friends call incompetent, those they are telling to get out of the way so they can get the job done instead. They told me that, if the money were to arrive tomorrow morning, they could break ground immediately, right now, to build 700 units. I do not know who calls them incompetent, but the people I spoke to understood the situation on the ground; they knew what they were saying, knew what they were talking about. We had constructive discussions about what needed to be done. I thought to myself that, while the money may flow from Ottawa, no one understands the needs of the local population better than them. They are the ones who can meet those needs.
Unfortunately, that is all there is. In fact, I was disappointed. I would have hoped for progress, for there to be a motion. Not only that, the Conservatives are like my friends in the NDP. It is interesting. The Conservatives are adopting NDP techniques. They are using blackmail for funding. They say that, unless certain actions are taken, then funding will come with certain conditions. It is always the same thing with the federal government. It is the same thing in health. It is the same thing in all areas.
The New Democrats say they want to link social housing to immigration. We need to accept a certain number of immigrants or we will not get a single penny for housing. It is completely absurd reasoning. If we accept more immigrants, we will need housing, among other things, so they promise a certain amount if we meet a certain target. It is the same thing with the Conservatives. The cheque they are promising us comes with strings attached.
The problem, however, is the underfunding from the federal government. The problem is that the existing programs do not work. The programs are poorly put together; the co-investment program and the rental housing accelerator program make affordable housing at $2,000 in Montreal. Essentially, they provide loans to private entrepreneurs. They do not create affordable housing. They do not create social housing. They have nothing to do with it. They want to see a return.
Now, they want to impose conditions when what is needed is for funding to come primarily and massively from Ottawa.
I think it is fascinating that we cannot seem to find solutions. The money is here, but the needs are there. How many people are in core housing need in Quebec alone? There are 250,000 households in Quebec in core housing need.
There is a solution. We could spend the rest of the day trying to find solutions, but organizations in this field, such as the Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation and the Canada-wide network, already have a solution. What we need is a dedicated fund to buy privately owned housing and take it off the market to ensure accessibility and affordability. That is the solution everyone agrees on. British Columbia just did this. It invested $500 million. That is one of the things we have to do.
True, construction is tough. It is hard to get projects off the ground. Construction costs and labour shortages complicate things. That is why we have to take existing housing off the market and make it affordable for the lowest-income households for a long period of time. That is one of the solutions the Bloc put forward.
I hope my Conservative and Liberal friends will open their eyes to the severity of this crisis and bring real solutions to the table. This is a huge problem.
1514 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 11:37:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will begin my speech by talking briefly about Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As you may recall, Maslow's hierarchy involves which needs are most important. At its foundation, there are the basic needs like food, clothing and shelter. If one or another of these needs is not met, it is impossible for a person to fulfill oneself or even to create strong ties with other people. It is even impossible for this person to feel safe, feel valued, have self-esteem and to trust oneself.
The current housing crisis is much broader than simply “having a roof over one's head”. It directly affects our residents and their ability to be well and fulfill themselves as human beings personally, socially and economically. This is a crisis that, in the medium term, will harm all aspects of our society. We need to be aware of that.
Yesterday, when I saw that the Conservative Party would be dedicating its opposition day to the housing crisis, I had the same reaction as my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. I was amazed, surprised, happy, and then I read the motion. Oops. What a disappointment. The message I see there is that they do not trust those who know this issue well.
They want to reimpose conditions to ensure that the tax money collected from taxpayers living in the provinces and Quebec stays in Ottawa's coffers. That is what I understand from this opposition motion.
In short, it is as though the Conservative Party is suddenly siding with the Liberals and the NDP. I was a bit disappointed when I read the motion in its entirety, so much so, that I wondered whether we should not open up the Constitution, given that apparently no one wants to respect the Constitution and the rights and powers it sets out for each level of government. We could talk about it openly and renegotiate everything. Why not? If everyone wants to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces—and even those of the municipalities—what good is a Constitution that sets out these jurisdictions? It would be better to renegotiate it properly. Then again, that is a different topic altogether.
To continue and to come back to housing, I would like to make the distinction between affordable housing, according to the Liberals' definition, and social and community housing. Affordable housing is housing that costs 10% less than market value. If market value is $2,500, there is a $250 discount, meaning rent is $2,250 a month. That is far from affordable for the vast majority of Canadians and particularly Quebeckers. Social and community housing is housing that costs a maximum of 25% to 30% of a person's total income. There are also community support, counselling and integration services near these housing units, sometimes on the same block. That is what is meant by social and community housing.
In Quebec right now, 14,000 people have core housing needs. That means that these 14,000 people have practically no housing or are living in housing that is far too small. In some cases there are nine people living in a two-bedroom apartment. Sometimes there are 15 people sharing a three-bedroom, and they are lucky they managed to get a three‑bedroom because that type of housing is rare. I will leave it at that, but that type of housing is truly very rare.
Housing is far too expensive. Even with the new builds, there is a 7% vacancy rate in Quebec City. That does not seem so bad, but the reason for that rate is that the housing is unaffordable. Rent is $1,500 for a one-bedroom, not including heat, power and utilities. It is outrageous.
Looking at the social and community housing situation, the reality is that the vacancy rate is currently between 0.3% and 0.5%. This is very unhealthy. There is substandard housing in Quebec, like everywhere else in Canada, because funding to renovate those housing units was never delivered. Funding was allocated for new builds, but they were built quickly and sometimes shoddily. Absolutely no funding has been delivered to renovate them, so Quebec is left to fend for itself.
Not all housing is suited to people's needs. I am talking about individuals with reduced mobility and seniors who need adapted housing. There is none at this time. In Quebec City alone, 2,000 people are waiting for low-income housing. That is a huge number.
Renovictions are part of the problem. Private investors are buying buildings and then evicting people so they can rent out the units at staggering prices. There is also Airbnb. I am not talking about single mothers who keep one room for their child and rent it out when their child is not there. I am talking about people who use Airbnb as a business. Those people buy houses and rent them to travellers. That is problematic.
Newcomers need help to get settled. Our organizations are overwhelmed. Our community organizations themselves are looking for space. They are at that point. If they cannot find it, they are forced to close or to limit their services to those in need. That is unacceptable. The federal government in Ottawa may not be aware of this whole situation, but community organizations and municipalities certainly are.
It is therefore indecent for the government to impose all sorts of conditions on the funding so that taxpayers' money is not used to help taxpayers who really need it. It is shameful and nonsensical at best. Then members say that the Bloc Québécois is a centralizing party and that it is turning into something else. We are not a centralizing party, quite the contrary. We want the money to get to the right place, to those who know what the needs are. We are the exact opposite of a centralizing party. We are separatists. How much less centralizing can a party get?
Right now, in Quebec City, there is woman who is letting eight homeless people live in her shed. Yes, I said eight people. She would let them stay in her home, but it is barely big enough for her and her family. That is what things have come to. How did we get to this point?
We have 700 projects that are ready to go but are still awaiting funding. The funding is not there, or the project cannot be completed on budget because there is a labour shortage and the cost of labour has increased astronomically. That is not even to mention the skyrocketing costs of materials. It does not make any sense.
There are no start-up funding programs for social housing projects. There is no money for renovating existing social housing, as I mentioned before. There are no programs that would allow a private seniors' residence that is about to close down to be converted into a community seniors' residence, so residents do not have to be evicted. There is no predictable, recurrent funding for resources, for programs. These are just a few of the problems that are out there, and they all have a solution.
The reality in Quebec is not the reality in Vancouver, Fort McMurray, Iqaluit or Toronto. In fact, the realities are different within Quebec itself, which is why it is important that the municipalities do the work, not the paternalistic federal government.
In short, Quebeckers know what they need, and they do not need federal control in order to have their needs met. Independence is the only way to free ourselves completely from this control and to finally be masters in our own house and able to meet our own needs. Today's Conservative motion demonstrates exactly that.
1307 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 8:46:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, one of the issues the member raised was about indigenous children who have been brought into care, and far too many of them have. In fact, in my home community of Vancouver East, our community call this the modern-day residential school where indigenous children have been taken into care. What is worse is that when they come out of care, they have zero support whatsoever, and many of them do not have access to housing. In fact, in British Columbia, 15% of the homeless population are youth. This is not acceptable.
In the the “Calls for Justice” report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, there were 231 calls for justice, and housing was mentioned in that report numerous times.
My question to the member is this: Should we not now have a dedicated approach on a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy that targets indigenous youth, particularly those who are coming out of care and those who are from the LGBTQ2+ community as well?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
