SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 339 - Sep/19/24

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

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

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 11:19:59 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Terrebonne is rising again.

8 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Sep/19/24 11:20:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, other people in the room probably heard the remark. If I heard it, others would have, too. I would like the member to withdraw her remark.

28 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 11:20:09 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

12 words

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC)

Sep/19/24 11:20:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have known the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for a long time. I know she has ideas. I am extremely surprised that she did not answer, other than to say that it was an excellent question.

43 words

Blainville

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 11:20:25 a.m.
Watch

I did not ask for an apology. I will listen carefully to what was said in the House. The hon. member for Drummond.

23 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Sep/19/24 11:20:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point of order. First, the question from the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was completely off topic. Her question was not relevant at all. Second, I can confirm that we clearly heard the comments made following the member for Thérèse-De Blainville's response, or lack thereof. This is also a matter of honour in the House. If the member has any honour at all, she will apologize and withdraw the remarks she made about my colleague.

92 words

Mr. Todd Doherty

Sep/19/24 11:21:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as to this point of order, we are all honourable people in this House. How dare our colleague from the Bloc challenge the honour of our colleague here.

30 words

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 11:21:14 a.m.
Watch

I will look into this and come back to the House with an answer. For now, I would like the hon. member to ask his question. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

35 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

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

Ms. Louise Chabot

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

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

The Deputy Speaker

Sep/19/24 11:32:08 a.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member was referring to the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

20 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Sep/19/24 11:32:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a big part of it is attitude. I have had a couple of discussions about the transitional fund and the accelerator fund. I met with the mayor of Winnipeg, and I do not see it as a territorial issue. What I see is governments working together for the betterment of the communities, which is something we should be promoting. This way there is more success, and the biggest beneficiaries are the people we collectively represent. Would the member not agree that it is much more preferable to have governments working together? That does not mean the federal government just giving cash blindly; it means governments working together.

109 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Sep/19/24 11:33:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting about my colleague's question is that it has nothing to do with cities in Quebec. Cities in Quebec would totally disagree. In fact, representatives from Quebec cities told me that they are already working with the federal government. Money is already being directed into housing-related infrastructure through the TECQ program, and that money comes from the gas tax and Quebec's contribution. The money is actually being used for water infrastructure. Why not just take that $6 billion and send it to the TECQ program? The problem would be solved. However, that is not what is happening. Instead, Ottawa has to invent new programs and new criteria and stick its nose into other jurisdictions.

122 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Sep/19/24 11:33:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. There were a number of things that resonated with me, but a key one he mentioned was that we need to listen to the people on the ground. We need to listen to the people in our communities. I know that my community, my region of Cariboo—Prince George, has unprecedented levels of homelessness that it did not have nine years ago. I know that our colleague is probably experiencing the same in his neck of the woods. If we are to truly listen to the people who elected us to be here, will the member and his colleagues vote with our Conservative caucus next week in the confidence vote and let Canadians choose in a carbon tax election?

131 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

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

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

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

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Sep/19/24 11:36:43 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the statement made by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I totally agree with him. That is similar to the solution the Bloc Québécois is promoting. Oftentimes, there are already agreements and arrangements, whether we are talking about the TECQ, the gas tax and Quebec's contribution program, or infrastructure agreements. Why can they not just extend the existing agreements, send the money and avoid the endless red tape instead of fighting over jurisdictions, like the federal government always does, sticking its nose where it does not belong?

101 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

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