SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 339

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 19, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 339 - Sep/19/24
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)
  • Sep/19/24 10:34:07 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Conservatives for starting this debate, because I think it is timely. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, so I think it only makes sense to talk about housing. That said, my question has to do with the Conservatives' strategy for solving the housing crisis. Not too long ago, I had a conversation with people from the UMQ, the Union des municipalités du Québec. They told me they were concerned because the Liberals' strategy was to say they would invest a bit of money in municipal infrastructure but that they themselves would set the municipal regulations and decide how the cities should manage urban planning rules. The Conservatives' strategy seems almost like a carbon copy of the Liberals'. They say they will dole out money to the cities based on what they build, but the cities will not get any money in the meantime. Cities need money to build infrastructure, however. At the end of the day, it seems like both parties have the same strategy. The Liberals and Conservatives—we might call them a coalition—are both saying that, ultimately, Ottawa will tell municipal elected officials how they should run their cities. What does the member have to say about that? There are people who were elected in Quebec's cities to manage things. There are people who were elected in Quebec City to manage things. Why must it always be Ottawa that decides for the cities?
251 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 339 - Sep/19/24
Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)
  • 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!
  • star_border