44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2024 10:00AM
- Sep/19/24 11:18:07 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would like to check that the member's comments are relevant to the matter at hand, which is homelessness and housing.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:18:56 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I also appreciate the brevity of her answer just now.
I do have a question for her, though, because the Liberals suddenly have a new-found passion for co-op housing. They displayed a glimmer of interest in more housing co-ops six months ago in April 2024, but, since 2017—
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:19:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope those remarks were not made by Conservative members. That would be extremely unfortunate. The point of order is a very good one.
The question I started to ask concerned housing co-ops—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:21:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see the Conservatives using the same old name-calling and personal attacks. It is reprehensible.
Let us come back to the issue of co-op housing. The national housing strategy that was launched in 2017 made no mention of co-op housing. The Liberal government woke up at the last minute last spring and mentioned co-op housing in the budget.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:21:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very important question. Co-op housing has never been a priority for the government. It has been a long time since a Liberal or Conservative government has invested in housing. Now the government suddenly wakes up, probably because stakeholders have spoken. Think of the recommendations that were made during my Bloc Québécois colleague's tour, the experts who testified or the federal housing advocate who had some strong words to say about this.
At the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, the Bloc Québécois is lobbying to bring the issue of co-op housing to the fore.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:22:43 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are taking up this report on the housing crisis by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We have not really talked about this yet. Yes, Parliament is only just back in session, but we have not yet talked about it, despite it being such a major issue. Everyone is affected by this situation and people everywhere are talking to us about it. They are talking to us about it a lot, in fact, in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, where the Bloc Québécois won the by-election not too long ago.
I would like to begin my remarks with an anecdote about my riding and local initiatives. There are often housing developers who say they would like to receive support from Ottawa, such as subsidies in connection with programs in place to promote housing construction, and even social housing.
There was a social housing project in the city of Contrecoeur. The idea was to build or buy back homes. I think it was about 30 homes. An administrative problem arose, however, with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. All the towns in the regional county municipality, or RCM, were deemed to belong to the Montreal metropolitan area, and were thus entitled to the same subsidy level as that of the other towns in the Montreal metropolitan area.
For those who do not know, Contrecoeur is not very far from Montreal. Contrecoeur was placed in a separate category. It was the exception that was not entitled to the same level of subsidies, which made the project totally unsustainable. Contrecoeur was considered a rural community like anywhere else in Quebec. People need to understand that the price of housing in Contrecoeur is not the same as in many other remote regions.
The city of Contrecoeur wrote to the CMHC and was essentially told that the criteria were the criteria, and that they should deal with it. Municipal officials reached out to me, and I went to see the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities to tell him it was ridiculous and that Contrecoeur had been wrongly categorized. I told him that Contrecoeur met all of the same criteria as the other towns in its RCM, and asked him to do something about it.
The Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, who is sitting on the other side of the House, is supposed to defend housing and support construction. His response was a carbon copy of the CMCH's letter. That says a lot about the government's real vision and real desire to solve housing problems. It would have many opportunities to take concrete action that would result in projects getting off the ground, but it lacks the will to do so.
I have another example that proves the same point. Not too long ago, the federal government announced funding for housing. We thought there would be money for housing across the country. We were thrilled. We wondered when Quebec would get its share. However, the federal government sent no money to Quebec. No, it fought for over a year with the Quebec government because it wanted to set its own conditions and procedures for our province. Finally, the federal government was more interested in encroaching on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction than in its priority, which should have been building housing units quickly. Why did the government hold back the money for more than a year in an emergency situation, during a housing crisis, when we needed it? Because the federal government's priority is to stick its nose where it does not belong.
Here is another example. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert toured every region of Quebec to learn about the housing problem on the ground. Two problems emerged, and he was told pretty much the same thing in every region.
The first problem that came to light was the federal criteria. The federal government believes that housing that costs $2,000 a month is inexpensive. However, in Quebec, housing that costs $2,000 a month is quite expensive. There is a disconnect between the federal vision of reality in Vancouver, for example, and its vision of reality elsewhere, like in Quebec. It seems as though the federal government cannot comprehend that it is not the same everywhere, that we cannot apply the same model from one coast to the other, and that there is something unique to Quebec that must be respected.
The second problem raised was that there has not been any money for housing for 30 years. There is not enough money for housing. It is chronically underfunded. In that context, it is clear that there is a housing crisis. Even if the government were to invest money today, there is so much catching up to do that it would take a lot more money than has been put on the table to be able to solve the problem.
Obviously, there is another problem underlying the housing crisis. When we talk about it, there are consequences to it. The National Bank has talked about it. I quote the National Bank because we are not allowed to say that. If the Bloc Québécois says that there are too many newcomers, we are automatically labelled as racists. English Canada, however, ended up saying the same thing, that the numbers were too high.
There is a record number of foreign students. There is record number of asylum seekers. There is a record number of temporary foreign workers because of the labour shortage. All of this puts more pressure on housing. These record numbers mean that all these people coming in from elsewhere need to be housed somewhere. When Quebec said that it was too much and that solutions were needed, it was automatically considered a racist province that did not care. When the other provinces made a point of saying that there was a problem, suddenly they were heard. Suddenly, there was a problem to address.
What I find odd is that the other provinces that are saying there is a problem do not want to help solve it. That is at least true of the Conservatives. It seems as though some Conservative premiers are willing to acknowledge there is a problem, for example, the fact that Quebec is receiving half the asylum seekers when it represents about 20% of the Canadian population. That is having a disproportionate effect on services in Quebec compared to the rest of Canada. Why are the other provinces refusing to co-operate? That is odd, because the Conservatives are the ones who moved the motion to adopt the report we are debating today. However, the Conservative premiers are refusing to help with asylum seekers. There is a bit of a disconnect there.
I will take this a step further. When we talk about housing, we talk about the construction of housing. That means that investments need to be made in the construction of housing. That requires infrastructure. I will give two or three fairly recent examples.
Let us talk about the Canada-Quebec infrastructure program agreement, a bilateral agreement. It is like a treaty, when two countries—or, in this case, a country and a future country—sit down together. Canada says that it will transfer money because Quebec is still paying taxes to Ottawa and that Quebec will be entitled to a funding envelope for infrastructure. The problem is that Ottawa unilaterally decided to hold back $350 million, just like that. Ottawa decided to use that money elsewhere. Unbelievable. Cities in Quebec protested. The Government of Quebec said it was ridiculous. Ottawa told them they could protest as much as they wanted, but Canada intended to keep the money for itself, even though the money it decided to hold back was Quebec's share.
We should also talk about the community assistance fund known as the TECQ program, or the gas tax and Quebec's contribution. The 2024‑28 version provides 30% less funding for cities than the 2019‑24 version. If cities have 30% less funding specifically for their infrastructure—because this program funds water infrastructure—adding new housing is complicated, since people need water. Unfortunately, cities have lost 30% of their budgets.
Cities have another problem too. Not long ago, I was talking to members of the Union des municipalités du Québec. They told me that the federal government had announced $6 billion in new funding for housing infrastructure. Everyone was happy. Members of the Union thought they would get a little more money for housing infrastructure. In Quebec, it is quite a bit less than that, between $1.4 billion and $2 billion. While it may not be a game changer, it will help.
However, when it comes to the conditions, Ottawa will now decide on the urban planning rules in exchange for this money. Ottawa will give money, but it will also come and manage the cities on their behalf. It boggles the mind. Cities have their own elected officials. The people of Quebec have elected their local representatives. Ottawa is saying that these people do not know how to manage things and that it will decide for them. What is even more peculiar is that this is exactly the same Conservative policy that the Liberals put in their last budget. How, then, do we deal with this?
First, we have to start by listening to the people on the ground who are talking about solutions, like the ones suggested by the City of Contrecœur, like the ones suggested by the people who spoke to Denis Trudel during his housing tour. It is important to listen to people and stop thinking that Ottawa always has all the solutions, when, in the end, it is often Ottawa that causes the problem in the first place.
1671 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:34:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is extremely interesting. It brings the Conservatives' hypocrisy to light. In fact, my colleague's question is not about the motion or the report on the housing crisis we are discussing today, despite the fact that the Conservatives are the ones who started the debate. If they really wanted to resolve the housing problem, I think they would ask questions about housing. That is not what they are doing. Instead, they are asking whether we will vote with them or against them in a non-confidence vote to bring down the government.
I find that interesting because it gives us a glimpse into their priorities. Do they really want to resolve the housing crisis, or do they want their leader to sit across the aisle in the Prime Minister's seat?
Let me explain something. We in the Bloc Québécois are not Conservatives, and we are not Liberals, so we are not obliged to vote for one or the other. What we decide, who we decide to vote for and why we decide to vote is based on what is good for Quebec and what will improve living conditions for Quebeckers.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:36:06 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is something that bothers me in the debate on housing and that I have heard too often; that is, for the Bloc Québécois, it is always the federal government's fault and, for the Liberals, it is always the Quebec government's fault. We lost three years in the federal-provincial agreement, and Canadians with inadequate housing or no housing at all are paying for it. I do not want to play the game, which the leader of the Conservative Party is also playing by attacking the mayors of Montreal and Quebec City.
Can we please stop pointing fingers and looking for someone to blame? Can we work together to build housing Canadians can afford?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:37:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the admirable and extraordinary member for New Westminster—Burnaby. I think he will have some very interesting things to share with us about the reality in his region and in his province.
I will start this intervention by thanking the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for this motion. I find it interesting that we are having this debate in the House today. In fact, it is as though the committee told the Liberal government that there was a problem, that something was happening and that it has to wake up because there are people living in the street. There are people sleeping outside, in their car, in their trailer, in their truck. There are people sleeping on their friend's sofa or living in a two-bedroom apartment with five people because they can no longer afford housing. People are getting sick staying in bacteria- and fungus-infested apartments where the owners refuse to make the necessary renovations.
This crisis has been growing worse for years. The situation has really become dire. Every July 1 in Montreal, more and more families are ending up on the streets because they do not have a place to live. The rate of homelessness is rising everywhere. People are being forced to live in parks, in tents. We are seeing it in Ottawa, Montreal and across Quebec and Canada. That makes no sense.
Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have allowed this situation to get worse. For years, the leader of the Conservative Party, who used to be the minister responsible for housing, did not build even a single housing unit. In actual fact, he lost 800,000. During their nine years in office, the Conservatives lost 800,000 affordable housing units. The Liberals are no better. They lost nearly 300,000 and they are proposing completely ridiculous definitions of affordable housing.
Three years ago in Montreal, a two-bedroom apartment that cost $2,235 a month was considered affordable housing. Who can afford that? It just does not make sense. This is all because market logic and profit have been allowed to take over the entire real estate sector for years. Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have stopped viewing housing as a fundamental human right. Instead, they see it as a source of profit and returns.
It is fine for real estate to be a source of investment for people, for their retirement, for example, or to bequeath something to their child. I have no problem with that. However, if there is no off-market, social, co-operative, community and student housing, this vicious circle will simply continue. It only serves the interests of big investment companies, the real estate giants that have taken up more and more space in the real estate landscape.
In the 1990s, almost no homes were owned by these real estate giants. Today, these large corporations own more than 20% of the housing stock. They have no human connection to the people on site, to the tenants. They think strictly in terms of profits and returns. That is the crux of the problem. That market logic has taken over the entire housing sector in the past 30 years while the Conservatives and Liberals were on watch.
We can do things differently. We must do things differently, through what we call social housing or non-market housing. It currently represents just 3% of our housing stock here in Canada and a little more in Quebec. That is nothing compared to Finland, where it amounts to 10%, or Denmark, 20%. For years now, every time a piece of land, a house or an apartment comes up for sale in Vienna, Austria, the municipality invests to control the price of the lot, house or apartment. Today, in Vienna, the municipality owns 60% of the housing stock, which is under government control.
There are different ways of doing things. We need to reserve federally-owned land for non-profit organizations that can develop truly affordable housing. Since that is their primary mission, they are in the best position to do it.
Now the federal Liberal government is starting to wake up. I mentioned this earlier. It did nothing about co-op housing for eight years. Now, in the latest budget, it hinted that housing co-ops might be a good solution. Co-ops were a good solution in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. All across Quebec, there are successful housing co-ops where people are happy. People have a new way of thinking about housing. They work together to take care of their housing co-ops. The government needs to build more housing co-ops and take care of existing housing co-ops. Some of them need major work, and the federal government is not stepping up to support them. I think that is an important thing to consider. We need more housing co-ops, but we also need more programs to take care of housing co-ops so they last a long time and so we can control rents and keep them truly affordable.
The Minister of Housing just announced 56 locations that have been selected for affordable housing to be built on federal public lands. This is a good thing. The NDP has been calling for this for quite some time. However, we hope that this will not once again be handed over to private developers who just want to make a profit. The project must be assigned to non-profit organizations, or NPOs, and to organizations that can build housing that people can afford.
Let us not forget one very simple rule. People must not spend more than 30% of their income on rent. Paying more than 30% puts people in a precarious situation, sometimes under the poverty line. We need to stop thinking about housing based on the median price in one's region and start thinking about how we can ensure that people do not spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
Housing is not a luxury. Housing is a fundamental right. I welcome the recent reports from the federal housing advocate. She is doing extraordinary work. I think the Liberal government should take a page out of her book.
Too many measures in the Liberal housing strategy focused on private developers. The NDP wants to put a stop to that. One way to do that is to have an acquisition fund. We can take existing federal land, use it for truly affordable or social housing, give those contracts to non-profits, allow them to acquire the land or have a truly affordable lease so that they can build housing that will really help people.
We could also follow the example of Montreal and have an acquisition fund to buy private land or buildings and convert them into social or truly affordable housing. There is a fine example in Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie: the Bellechasse site. It is public land with community groups, where the community has come together to create a new neighbourhood with a human face, where there will be mixed-income housing, but also social and truly affordable housing with public services, a school, and a park. It will be a nice place to call home. The federal government needs to work with the municipalities and the provinces to be able to complete such projects.
Too many people are just a hair's breadth away from losing their homes and ending up on the streets. We are seeing it more and more, in all our towns and municipalities. Vacancy rates are so low that people no longer have options. They are no longer able to find housing.
The Conservatives' approach of leaving everything to the market and the big corporations will just exacerbate the problem because that is exactly where the problem originated. We cannot move in that ultra-capitalist direction, where everything is seen only in terms of profit, while there are people suffering.
In my constituency, 15% of people spend more than 50% of their income on housing. That is obscene. More than half their income goes to housing. When you look at the cost of groceries on top of that, these people are obviously forced to make absolutely heartbreaking choices, and sometimes go and live in their van, truck or car. Alternatively, the might go and live with friends or relatives, where they will share a room, sleep on the sofa or on the floor, all of which is far from ideal. There is the visible homelessness, but there is plenty of invisible homelessness as well.
That is the result of 20 years of Conservative and Liberal inaction and bad policies.
1466 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:47:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on housing co-ops. I think the oldest co-op happens to be in Winnipeg North, the Willow Park Housing Co-op. Since I left the Canadian Forces back in 1985 or 1986, I have always been a big advocate for housing co-ops. In fact, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's administration that brought in the first federal housing co-op program. Interestingly enough, it is his son who is reinstating and building up that program once again.
I wonder if the member can highlight his understanding of the benefits of a housing co-op versus a rental unit. I have always said that people in a housing co-op are residents, not tenants, and that means a great deal. I wonder if he could add some thoughts on that.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:48:00 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that it was under a Liberal government in 1994 that the federal government withdrew, disengaged from social and affordable housing. Co-op housing and social housing help people so much.
Someone told me that having access to social housing gave them back their freedom. The Conservatives often say that government intervention undermines freedom. Not having to worry about being able to pay for housing, not being afraid of losing one's housing and ending up in the street — that gives people freedom. There is a sense of freedom that comes with having a calm spirit, reinvesting in life, taking charge, entering the workforce and helping the community without the constant fear of ending up in the street.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:50:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the member is concerned about what people in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie are going to do, but I look forward to hearing what the Conservative candidate in my riding has to say about that in the next election.
I would remind the House that, after the Liberals made cuts to the construction of social and affordable housing, Stephen Harper's Conservative government did not do any better. It continued to abandon that sector, leaving it all up to the market. It is not true that simply increasing supply will help people find a place to live. If the supply is unaffordable, these people will still not be able to afford an apartment or a house, so that is a false solution. This type of neo-liberal idea of the trickle effect, where the government helps the wealthy and hopes that it trickles down to the poorest members of society, does not work.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:51:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with most of what my colleague said.
There is one thing that he did not really talk about that I would like him to elaborate on. It is a suggestion that the Bloc Québécois has made many times. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has spoken about it at length. I am talking about the creation of an acquisition fund that would enable non-profit organizations, the community sector, to acquire affordable housing on the private market and then make it available.
What does the member think about that suggestion?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:51:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is another solution the NDP is proposing.
With regard to an acquisition fund, I mentioned Vienna, which has truly set an example internationally. Montreal increased its fund recently, too. I think we need to do our part and use public land for truly affordable public housing. However, we also need to work together to be able to buy private land in order to break free from this market logic.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 11:52:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after the disastrous years of the Harper government, it seems ridiculous to me that the Conservatives claim to be mildly concerned about housing. We remember the huge cuts made to social housing during the grim Harper years. It was appalling. Half of the problems we see today result from the unfortunate fact that the Liberals followed too closely in the Harper government's footsteps. Half of the problems we face today were caused by the Conservatives. Not a single Conservative is prepared to stand up and apologize for all the years when no housing measures were taken. The Conservatives slashed social housing budgets and upheld the Liberal practice of having no national housing program.
I find it a bit ridiculous now to hear the Conservatives talking as if they care about housing when half the problem results from their poor governance during the Harper years. This is evident across the country. As my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, it is unfortunate that neither governing Liberals or Conservatives showed concern for social housing or co-operative housing or took an interest in solutions already discussed many times in the House by the NDP.
An NDP government will address the housing crisis and will regard housing as a fundamental principle. All Canadians must have a roof over their heads and have access to affordable housing. We feel confident making that promise because in every province where the NDP has formed government, we have managed to get more social housing built than Conservative and Liberal governments. What is more, NDP governments have invested more to ensure that people are housed.
We have already been through a situation when we had problems with building enough affordable housing for Canadians, and it was during the Second World War. We put everything into the war effort to beat Nazism, that extreme right-wing ideology that devastated Europe. When the women and men who served overseas came back to Canada, we put in place, structurally, a budget in which corporations paid their fair share and we devoted money to housing.
Members will recall that the CCF, the NDP's predecessor party, was leading in the polls in the first postwar election, and the Liberals took the CCF's push for affordable housing and, with the agreement of all parties in the House of Commons at that time, embarked on a massive national affordable housing program.
We as a country succeeded in building three million affordable homes over the course of four years, including my home, where my wife and I live, in New Westminster. In fact, in New Westminster—Burnaby, almost every house from Sixth Avenue to Tenth Avenue was built under that program. They were comfortable, well-built, affordable bungalows that were built throughout the Glenbrooke North neighbourhood.
Right across the country, we see the housing stock that was built at that time. In Toronto and Montreal, in every city in the country and in many rural areas, we succeeded in ensuring that for every single person who served in the Canadian Forces overseas, there was affordable housing available to them when they came back.
We had at that time a fair tax structure. What has changed? What changed, of course, was the intent in the 1990s, which we saw with both Conservative and Liberal governments, to try to change the tax system so wealthy corporations and wealthy Canadians paid less, and this became most apparent during the disastrous Harper government years.
As the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us, we lose $30 billion each and every year to overseas tax savings, thanks in large part to the famous, or infamous, Harper tax-saving treaties, where the wealthy and privileged in this country, and very profitable corporations, can take their money offshore, pay no tax on it and then bring it back to Canada.
That $30-billion fiscal hole was created by Conservatives. No Canadians wanted to thank them for that. In fact, it is one of the principal reasons the Harper government was thrown out in 2015. That fiscal hole meant we have seen little or no investment in social housing and co-operative housing that could make a difference for so many Canadians.
Why? Co-operative housing, social housing, is based on 30% of income, which is affordable for all. When we have a co-operative housing sector with clean, well-built, affordable homes, people can live their lives there. At 30% of their income, they are no longer struggling to put food on the table, to make ends meet or to skimp on their medication to try to pay their rent.
It allows Canadians to live with the quality of life that is important, especially when it comes to people with disabilities. In this country, about 50% of those on our streets who are unable to find affordable housing are people with disabilities. This is catastrophic, yet the government has done very little to address it.
On the housing front, the NDP has forced investments, and we are going to see, I think, in the coming months, more of that affordable housing built. The government was not willing to do it on its own. It was the NDP forcing the government to make those investments that has started to make a difference.
What we really need is something on the size and scale of the undertaking after the Second World War, when we said we would make sure every Canadian was housed and we built millions of units of affordable housing. It stimulated the economy and created many jobs for tradespeople; it made a difference.
The disastrous previous Harper government was the worst government in Canadian history and the most corrupt government. We have never gotten to the bottom of the scandals that occurred during that time, because committees were completely shut down during the Harper majority. We could not get to the bottom of the ETS scandal, with its nearly half a billion dollars in misspending, because Conservatives shut down parliamentary institutions.
A cutback in the Auditor General's department ensured that independent officers of Parliament were starved of funds. The disastrous Harper government was the worst government in Canadian history in terms of fiscal management and, of course, in terms of oversight. Not a single Conservative has ever apologized for that disastrous period of time when the Auditor General and the PBO were starved of funds and we saw record deficits each and every year.
The Conservatives did take care of two groups. Billionaires and big corporations got their $30-billion-a-year tax break; they could take their money to overseas tax havens, thanks to Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. The other group was the banks; $116 billion in liquidity supports was given to them in a heartbeat.
Of the $116 billion in liquidity supports, tens of billions of dollars came from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There is a sad irony in both Liberal and Conservative housing policies. They are willing to use the CMHC to prop up the banks; both Liberals and Conservatives have done that. The NDP is willing to use the CMHC to build affordable housing and not willing to use the CMHC funding now given to corporate landlords to say they have to cap rents.
There is no doubt we could be doing so much more in housing. The member for Burnaby South and the entire NDP caucus have raised these issues repeatedly, and we are looking forward to a time when an NDP government could ensure that affordable housing is built across this country. Every Canadian deserves to have an affordable roof over their head at night and the NDP will continue to work to that end.
1289 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 12:05:04 p.m.
- Watch
It is very rich, Madam Speaker. The Conservatives say, “Oh yeah, we are really concerned about housing”, but they have not asked a single question about housing through this debate, which shows the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party. They say they want to have a debate on housing but they do not really want to have a debate on housing because their record was absolutely abysmal.
The member pointed out that the NDP has forced the Liberals to actually invest in affordable housing again and he is right on that point. Yes, the NDP has succeeded in the first investments in 20 years. However, my point back to the member is this: Why did the Conservatives do such an abysmal job on housing and why will they not take responsibility for the fact that many people who are homeless today are homeless because of the cuts in social housing that the Harper government forced on Canadians when it was in power?
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 12:06:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc Québécois completely agree with the expression used by my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby. In fact, it was my colleague, the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who talked about a sort of Marshall plan, a wartime-style effort to invest in housing.
My colleague spoke at length about investments in housing. I think it is important to recognize that, when it comes to housing, what the federal government can do is invest. It must not withhold funding based on any conditions. His party supported the federal government while it was withholding the $900 million owed to Quebec. Then again, it is no better if cities' jurisdictions are not respected and if Quebec's municipalities are punished, like the Conservatives want to do, despite the fact that many, like Granby, have great plans.
What we need to do now is support the cities that have plans, not punish them and withhold federal money. That money needs to flow to Quebec and the provinces. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 12:06:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. The federal government should support municipalities and cities like Granby, New Westminster, Montreal and every other city in Canada. That money should be flowing.
The NDP managed to get billions of dollars out the door to build new housing. I hope we can reach a consensus in the House to keep increasing funding for affordable housing so that everyone in this country can have a roof over their head.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 12:17:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing. The member even admitted that he was a part of the Harper government when the leader of the Conservative-Reform party today was then the minister of housing.
The minister of housing at that time, today's current leader of the Conservative Party, was an absolute and total disaster. He did absolutely nothing about housing. In fact, because of his incompetence back then, he has added to the problem we have today with respect to housing. To try to champion him as some sort of a leader on this file is absolutely ridiculous.
My question for the member, who was there supporting the minister of housing at the time, is this. Why does he believe his current leader has any credibility at all when it comes to housing?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/19/24 12:19:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but after hearing what he had to say, I have some questions.
I would like to know what the Conservatives plan to do about housing, other than the Conservative leader 's bill, which would basically impose conditions on cities and punish them. It completely ignores cities' existing development and environmental protection plans. That is not productive.
Cities already have their plans. They already have ideas for housing. We put forward a 12-point plan. What cities need now is cash transfers so they can put their plans into action. They do not need additional conditions that will just slow them down.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
