SoVote

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Dec/9/21 11:08:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the reality is that Canada is actually losing more affordable housing and social housing than it is creating. During the campaign, the Liberal government only committed to 20,000 units of non-profit affordable housing to be built and created. My question to the parliamentary secretary is this. Would she call on her own government to do what the NDP has been advocating for? That is to build 500,000 units of affordable, cooperative housing so that we can, in fact, give people who need housing and who are unhoused the opportunity to have a home?

98 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/9/21 11:09:44 a.m.
Watch

I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to provide a brief response.

12 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Dec/9/21 11:09:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I do not have a lot of time, but I can say that during the last election campaign, I was surprised to see that the Liberal Party platform was 10 times more progressive and ambitious than the NDP's. I would be pleased to talk to her about all the measures we committed to. If there is one platform that made housing a priority, it is the Liberal Party's platform.

80 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Dec/9/21 11:10:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very happy not to be sharing my time for this speech. I am going to try to speak for 20 minutes on the issue of housing. I am very glad that we are talking about this issue today. I thank my Conservative friends for bringing forward a motion on this issue today. I have noticed, and I am sending them the signal, that this issue has been very much on the table since we resumed two weeks ago. I am pleased with that. The Conservatives have been asking a lot of questions, and the Liberals have even been planting questions on this issue to pretend that they are dealing with it. In fact, one of the things I hate most in the House is seeing a Liberal backbencher read out a question to a minister, who then thanks them for asking such a good question and doing such a wonderful job. I think it is bad acting and a huge waste of everyone's time. That is where we stand. Six months down the road, we are going to talk about housing. I remember doing a speech about housing in June. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed. It has gotten even worse. There is quite a contradiction that I need to point out, because it makes no sense. We just had a totally useless election. We wasted a lot of time, energy and, most of all, money. We just spent $600 million on an election that yielded the same results as the previous one. Do my colleagues know how many social housing units $600 million would build? We could have helped 3,000 people, like women fleeing domestic violence, people with mental health issues, and seniors made more vulnerable by the pandemic. We could have used that money to house these people. It is shocking how much time we wasted, all to end up with the same result. We have the same Parliament: the Conservatives are in the same place, the Liberals are in the same place, the NDP is in the same place, near the door. It is all the same in the same Parliament. It is outrageous. During the election campaign, one thing kept coming up. At least, the people in the Bloc Québécois heard it a lot, and I cannot help but mention it today because it is very important. We kept hearing that the Bloc Québécois will never be in power, which means that, on a number of issues, there is nothing it can do or decide, and that the Bloc will never be the one making the decisions. We heard that a lot during the election campaign. Consider Montreal, for example. Right now, 23,000 people in Montreal are on the waiting list for low-cost housing. Since 2015, when the Liberals came to power, the numbers have only grown. If we look at the electoral map, Montreal is almost entirely red. Some 25 Liberal MPs, including nine ministers, are supposed to be sitting down making decisions. There are nine federal government ministers on the Island of Montreal, including the Prime Minister. They were told that they should be sitting at the table where decisions are made. I imagine that the Prime Minister is also at that table and that he can make decisions. His own riding, Papineau, is one of the ridings struggling most with the housing crisis on the Island of Montreal. That is something worth mentioning. What is our Prime Minister working on? What does he do all day? Let us be honest. We are going through a difficult time. There is a housing crisis, but that is not the only crisis there is. In fact, right now, there are four major crises in Canada. There is, of course, the health crisis, which we hope to get out of as soon as possible. There is also the climate crisis, about which the Liberals are doing absolutely nothing. They have one of the worst records of the G7. Just because they have a former environmental activist in their ranks it does not mean that we think they will make quick progress. This is one of the worst crises of our time. In Quebec, there is also a language crisis looming, and we are still waiting. Six months ago, we were supposed to pass legislation to reform the Official Languages Act, but we are still waiting. We put everything on hold for five weeks. There was an election and, six months later, there is still nothing. French is in decline everywhere in Montreal and across Quebec, but no legislation was passed because of the election. Ultimately, the government is unable to do much to improve the situation, but it can do a lot to make it worse. We in the Bloc want to keep them from making things worse. There is the housing crisis. The Liberal record on housing is disastrous. Let us talk about the current situation in Quebec, where 450,000 households are in dire need of housing. That is a lot of people—those who pay 30% of their income for housing or who are in unsuitable or substandard housing. Someone might be able to find decently priced housing, but it is unsuitable if eight people have to share a one-bedroom apartment. Nearly 200,000 households see over 50% of their income go to housing; that is when things start to get deeply troubling. I am referring to pre-pandemic numbers here, but I will point out that all of these numbers have gone up during the pandemic. Around 82,000 households in Quebec spend 80% of their income on rent. That is right, I said 80%. If someone makes $20,000, $16,000 goes to rent and they have $4,000 left for 12 months, which means times will be tight, as my mother used to say. It is easy to imagine the anxiety and problems that come with that, which is terrible. The situation has not changed after six years of Liberal government. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Housing just buried us in statistics. I think her intentions are good, but she cannot really see what is going on out there. More people are homeless. It was one of the most important issues in the Quebec municipal campaign, if not the key issue in Longueuil, Montreal, Laval, Gatineau and Quebec City, and for the mayors of all of Quebec's big cities. In fact, I have a meeting tomorrow with the new mayor of Longueuil, who has made this one of her crusades and wants to set up a round table with Montreal and Laval to find solutions. The problem is that the municipality does not have the means to meet this challenge. It takes massive investments. Where is the money? It is in Ottawa. Obviously, housing is a provincial jurisdiction, but over time, the federal government clawed back spending power, which it is misusing. My colleague talked about that earlier. A national housing strategy was introduced. Let us go over a bit of its history, without going back to the beginning of time. Where did it come from? Why did we hear so much about it? It is because it was the first one. Before that, there was nothing going on in housing. In the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, the government decided that it had to get involved in housing the most vulnerable, people who could not afford it themselves. The federal government made investments in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and housing was built for the most vulnerable in Quebec and across the country. Then, in the early 1990s, the Conservative government of the day stopped those investments in the name of budget cuts. They axed that funding, and then nothing happened. In 1993, the Liberals returned to power under Jean Chrétien. During the election campaign, he promised that he would start building again, that everything would go well, that he would take care of the most vulnerable. What happened? He did not keep their word. He did not start investing again. According to a study by FRAPRU, if the government had resumed investing in 1993 at the same pace it had been in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, nearly 80,000 social housing units could have been built in Quebec. We could have housed a bunch of people, all sorts of people who have all sorts of problems, as we are seeing right now in the streets. For 30 years, nothing happened. Then, three or four years ago, the Liberal Party decided to launch a program. As my colleague said so well earlier, the national housing strategy comes with big numbers, namely $70 billion. However, those numbers are inflated with helium, because the investments will be made over 10 years and they include investments from the municipalities, organizations and the provinces. That is where things stand. The national strategy caused major problems in Quebec, because for three years, nothing happened. Since this is a provincial jurisdiction and the federal government was slow to come to an agreement with Quebec, for three years, no money was spent on housing the most vulnerable. Last May, a mother and victim of domestic violence from Longueuil made the front page of the Journal de Montréal because she could not find housing for herself and her three children. She was trapped in a difficult and toxic relationship, but could not find housing and she was very anxious. This woman lives in Longueuil. Had the agreement with Quebec been signed when the national strategy was launched in 2017, we could have found housing for her. This woman needs an apartment suitable for herself and her three children. A three-bedroom apartment in Longueuil costs $1,500 a month and that is considered affordable. That is the average rent for a three-bedroom in Longueuil. Who can afford that? It makes no sense. In short, had this agreement been signed, we could have provided these people with housing. Let us talk about the national housing strategy. Beyond the fact that it took three years for an agreement to be signed, which has caused all kinds of problems in Quebec, there is another problem. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the suite of programs intended to create affordability under the national housing strategy means that in Montreal, for example, a unit that costs $2,200 a month is considered affordable. That is just crazy. During the election campaign, the Bloc Québécois proposed to shuffle all the programs, take the money and put it where the needs are, by giving it to organizations on the ground or to technical resource groups. Since the groups know what the needs are, they could take the money and look after people's real needs. The groups working on the ground are the ones that have the required expertise. That was our proposal during the election campaign. Right now, a lot of money is being spent for nothing because it is missing the mark. That makes no sense. Let us now talk about the rapid housing initiative, RHI, which is interesting. Two years ago, the government sort of woke up. It realized that the situation made no sense, that it needed to invest in housing for the most vulnerable, not just those with money. That is why the government launched the RHI. It is not a bad program, but it is grossly underfunded. The government announced that it would invest $1 billion to build housing units. The plan was to quickly renovate low-income housing units that had fallen into disrepair and to turn small highway motels into bachelor units for people experiencing homelessness. That is a good program. However, there was a big problem with this $1‑billion program, which included $500 million for major cities. Out of that $500 million, $200 million went to Toronto and $57 million to Montreal. We did not understand that at all. In total, $63 million, or 13%, of that $500 million for major cities went to Quebec, yet Quebec accounts for 23% of the population of Canada. The decisions are made in Ottawa, and the minister responsible for this file is from Toronto. This may be a coincidence, but something is not right here. It makes no sense that Quebec contributes $50 billion a year in taxes and that some of that money gets spent on people in Toronto who are unhoused. It makes no sense. This $1‑billion initiative is not a bad one, but it was not enough money. Do my colleagues know how many requests the government received for projects to house the most vulnerable when this program was launched? It was actually a good program; people had three months to apply, and tenants had to be able to get into the unit a year later. That, in itself, was very good. In fact, it was almost too fast, because organizations that could not afford to submit projects had only three months to do so. There were even organizations that applied for grants from CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I spoke with a representative of an organization in the Montérégie who applied to CMHC for $40,000 in funding to help him submit the project. His application ended up being rejected. It is completely ridiculous. The government received $4 billion in project applications, when it had an envelope of only $1 billion. Everyone knows that people do not have any fun on Saturday night or Sunday morning. Not having anything to do, they concoct the idea of whipping up an application for housing meant for the homeless. That is not what happens. These people are involved in their community, and they are familiar with what the community needs. They know where the needs are. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities applied for $7 billion under the same program. They saw the big pot of money and said that it was a good program to apply for $7 billion. It is a fine program, but it is underfunded. The government launched it with $1.5 billion, but, again, that will not solve the problems. The national housing strategy is supposed to build 4,000 units in Quebec over 10 years, but Quebec has 40,000 people waiting for low-income housing. That 10-year plan will not meet those needs. We are talking numbers, and we are going to talk numbers all day. That is fine because this is an important issue. The housing issue is about people. One of the things I have enjoyed most over the past two years is meeting all the people at work on the ground in Longueuil. There are people everywhere working on homelessness, right in Montreal and all over. This is a good time to salute their incredible work. I was talking to the parliamentary secretary about homelessness earlier. An organization called La Halte du coin was founded in Longueuil during the pandemic. It is an incredible organization that offers resources 24/7. What is more, its threshold for entry is low, meaning it accepts anyone and everyone. At the beginning of the pandemic, we realized that many people experiencing homelessness were going to the Longueuil metro to get out of Montreal, and there was a significant risk of an outbreak. All the homelessness advocacy organizations immediately came together and quickly developed an amazing project, La Halte du coin. They are anxious to find out if they will get funding. Among the people who worked on this project was Danielle Leblanc, an extraordinary woman who works to tackle homelessness. My riding is home to a program called Repas du passant, a resource that offers meals for $4, five days a week, to people experiencing homelessness. Ms. Leblanc is an incredible woman. There is also Danielle Goulet, from Macadam Sud, who goes around on the bus to connect with young people in Longueuil; Lucie Latulippe, from Abri de la Rive-Sud; Marlène Harvey, from Casa Bernard-Hubert, a transitional resource for men; Nicholas Gildersleeve, the new director of La Halte du coin; Sonia Jurado, a pillar of housing advocacy in Longueuil who founded Les Habitations Paul-Pratt, a seniors' residence; Marie-Claire McLeod, who has been working to address homelessness for years and is calling for federal investments; and Chrismene Lesperance, who has a homelessness resource in my riding. These people are there and they are ready. It is now our turn to make decisions and send them cheques. They are going to be looking after people because they know how to do it and how to do their job. Now they want us to do our job, which is to send them a cheque in order to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. That is what they are asking for, and I am certain that they are watching us right now. Gilles Beauregard and Hélène Bordeleau of the Table Itinérance Rive‑Sud are fascinating people, just like Lazard Vertus and Sonia Langlois, who runs L'Antre‑Temps, a resource for homeless youth. Just imagine how terrible it must be for a 50- or 60-year-old to find themselves homeless on the streets of Montreal—

2922 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/9/21 11:30:30 a.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the hon. member, because his time has expired. He can add anything else during questions and comments. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

36 words

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC)

Dec/9/21 11:30:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we were treated to a fiery speech, to say the least. We are quite familiar with the issue. In fact, we are the ones who brought it forward for debate today. My colleague spoke about community organizations, which are indeed very important in Canada’s 338 ridings. In our election platform, we suggested taking 15% of federal buildings and making them available for co-operatives that could be offered to community organizations. Does my colleague think that this is a good idea?

85 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Dec/9/21 11:31:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent idea. The Bloc Québécois even suggested it in its election platform. That means we can conclude it is a very good idea. However, we must ensure that these lands will actually meet the needs of the most vulnerable. They should be used to build social housing, not office towers or condos. That is the challenge we face. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the idea of using surplus federal land. However, it really should go to the most vulnerable.

92 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Dec/9/21 11:32:14 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I truly enjoy listening to my Bloc colleague's speeches in the House. They are always very vibrant and full of passion, and I sincerely believe that he comes to this place with a deep sense of caring for the housing situation we see in Canada. The situation is quite dire. In my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, we regularly see properties being overbid by $100,000. It is a real crisis. I agree with the member's comments on the election. It was an unnecessary election that cost $600 million. However, the fact that all the major parties spoke so eloquently and passionately about housing gave me some hope and optimism that it would be addressed in this Parliament. The motion before us today is a missed opportunity because the Conservatives do not make any mention of an indigenous housing strategy. They do not make any mention of giving aid to municipalities to help them with their land-use decisions. There is also no mention of building affordable non-market housing, which is so desperately needed. I am wondering if my Bloc colleague could expand on the missed opportunities we see in the motion.

199 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Dec/9/21 11:33:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He is absolutely right. Getting housing out of the speculative market is the big challenge that we face when it comes to the housing crisis. There was actually a motion adopted here in 2017. It recognized that housing is a right, like health. As soon as we recognize it as a right, we must act accordingly. If we leave it up to the market to set prices, housing will end up costing $2,000 a month, putting it out of reach for the most vulnerable. We need to find a way to get housing out of the speculative market. That is the major challenge.

113 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Dec/9/21 11:34:12 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member had a throwaway line in his speech about housing being an area of provincial jurisdiction, and the rest of his speech was focused on federal intervention. I think we both agree that there should be federal intervention, but as an Ontario MP, I have noticed the absence of our provincial partner, the Ford government. It has not been there on housing the way previous governments have been. The hon. member really glossed over what the provincial government is doing in Quebec. If this is a provincial area of jurisdiction and things are getting worse, is it time for the Government of Quebec to stand up? I think the Province of Ontario, the Ford government, needs to step up as well.

124 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Dec/9/21 11:35:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we must avoid partisanship when dealing with such an important issue. We need to take care of people. I know this issue falls under provincial jurisdiction, but I will not start judging what the Government of Quebec is doing, and whether or not it is enough. There are problems with housing, and mistakes have been made on both sides. However, I think that I made it pretty clear that the way the money is being spent by Ottawa is not working at all.

85 words

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Dec/9/21 11:35:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for his great speech. I would like him to explain the national housing strategy. The government is promising significant amounts of funding, but, in the end, those promises end up broken.

41 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Dec/9/21 11:36:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2017, Quebec was supposed to receive $3.8 billion under this national strategy, shared equally between the federal and the provincial governments, but nothing much happened for three years. There was money for renovations and for building new housing units, but as members have mentioned and as we have talked about a lot today, a lot of funding was earmarked for making housing more affordable. However, one of the big problems is the definition of the word “affordable”. Often, federal programs are loans that are based on the fair market value in a particular community or region, when really, they should be based on the ability of households to pay. That is the problem right now. The strategy was announced, we did not get any funding for three years and now we are making do. The crisis is acute, and the funding needs to be distributed more quickly.

154 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Dec/9/21 11:37:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his passion for this issue. I would like to comment on the government's efforts, the action it has taken and the money it has spent. We have a plan for this, and I would like to know if the member will support this initiative.

58 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Dec/9/21 11:37:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, this motion is not perfect. I think that everyone in the House agrees with the first part of the motion, which states that “the government has failed to increase the housing supply in Canada”. However, the motion does not go far enough. I wonder what the Conservatives would do if they were in power. Would they invest money, and if so, how much? That is what we want to know today. Anything that allows the House to improve the situation or at least address the matter is truly important. We support this motion, but it is far from perfect.

107 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Dec/9/21 11:38:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is the member concerned at all about the fact that in the motion, it is not stipulated that when making federal lands available for residential development, they are to be for non-profit and social housing? Otherwise, that land could be made available for luxury condo developers, which I do not think is the purpose of what we are trying to do here.

65 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Dec/9/21 11:39:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right. That is not specified, which could be risky. The devil is always in the details. If we do not force the government's hand and tell it exactly what to do with that land, it will give the land to the highest bidder, and the most vulnerable will end up with nothing, as usual. That needs to be clearer for sure. This is a major concern. During the municipal election campaign we just had in Quebec, one of the issues that came up most often was the availability of land. Organizations have ideas for projects, but they do not know where to implement those projects or how to proceed. In contrast, the federal government has land, and it has to make that land available to house our most vulnerable people. That is what needs to happen.

142 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Dec/9/21 11:39:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am perplexed by the response from the Bloc. The member said a moment ago that they were supportive of this motion, but then agreed with the NDP that the motion is problematic because it suggests that these lands should be opened up to developers. Why would the Bloc support a motion that the member has identified has problems that lead to the concern raised by the NDP?

70 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Dec/9/21 11:40:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is trying to pit us against the farm team, but that will not work. We are not the farm team; the NDP is. They are the Liberals' midget AAA team. It is a huge problem and a huge concern. It is too important to fight over. We should spend a lot more time talking about the housing file before us today, and the government needs to do more now.

73 words

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

Dec/9/21 11:41:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague from Vancouver-East. I feel compelled to follow up on the comments of my colleague from Longueuil, who very proudly represents the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party, by voting for a motion that is full of holes. I will, however, correct something he said when he stated that the Liberals took up the entire Island of Montreal. All of it? No, there is a little orange dot still holding out against the invader. An hon. member: There is a little blue dot too. Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: There is a little blue dot too, Madam Speaker. We are debating a motion from the Conservative Party that identifies a real problem but offers a bad solution. I think it is important to have this discussion to actually see what the real solutions are for this housing crisis. The housing crisis has reached catastrophic levels in many Quebec and Canadian towns and cities, particularly in Montreal, where housing prices have skyrocketed in recent years. People are struggling to find housing and are having to change neighbourhoods because they cannot afford to pay $1,400, $1,500 or $1,750 a month in rent. The Liberals have been promising strategies ever since they came to power six years ago, but we have not seen any concrete changes or results on the ground. On the contrary, the situation has only gotten worse following years of Conservative and Liberal neglect. People who spend more than 30% of their income on rent tend to be poor and vulnerable. In Canada, that is the reality for 1.7 million households, which means the number of people is even higher. This means that 1.7 million families, couples or individuals spend more than 30% of their income on housing. That is serious. It is catastrophic. In Quebec, 38,000 people are waiting for social housing, for truly affordable housing. In Montreal, 23,000 people are waiting, and that number is growing. I recently had the chance to take part in an event organized by the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, which is well known in Quebec, as well as a coalition called the National Right to Housing Network. We spent a long while listening to testimony from people who live in unsafe housing, who were victims of renovictions, or who are living in housing that is too small, ill-suited to their needs or poorly lit. All of this was detrimental to their mental, and sometimes physical, health. It was heartbreaking to hear these stories in a country as rich as Canada, a G7 country that could be doing so much better. We heard stories about five people living in a one-bedroom apartment because it was all they could afford. Every night the parents would pull out the sofa bed to sleep, but it blocked the path the kids would take to go to the bathroom during the night. There were five of them in that one-bedroom apartment. We heard from people who have kids with disabilities but do not have the resources or the means to adapt the entryway for their child, who has to come in the back door. It is dangerous and not well lit. These people are living with mould, with fungi, and their health is affected. This, in turn, overwhelms our health care system, because people are living in unsafe conditions in inadequate housing. It is a big problem. We were talking about the 1.7 million households that spend more than 30% of their income on housing in Canada. In Rosemont—La Petite Patrie, some people spend more than 40% or 50% of their income on housing. Then, when the price of groceries goes up, they are stretched to the limit. It makes no sense. Three thousand households in Rosemont—La Petite Patrie have to spend more than half of their income on housing. It is completely unacceptable. This has been a failure of the Liberal strategy for years. The motion before us speaks to this real housing problem and to the issue facing young families and young couples who want to buy their first home. It is becoming increasingly difficult. Condos and houses often sell for more than they are listed on the market for. This creates a kind of bubble of speculation that is completely crazy. The Conservatives may be identifying a real problem, but they seem to be unable to say certain words. For example, they are unable to say the words “social housing”. It seems that social housing is on their lips. They just cannot say it. The proposed solutions in the motion before us are extremely ideological. That being said, some aspects of the motion make sense. The NDP is also against taxing capital gains on the sale of a primary residence, but the motion does not offer any real solution to this problem. Everything in the opposition motion is highly ideological and tied to market forces. If there is greater demand then we simply need to increase supply and, like magic, the prices will automatically drop. Anyone who knows this file and works on the ground, including groups and organizations, knows full well that although part of the problem can be solved by the lucrative market, in other words the supply of profit-driven products, the most effective solution is indisputably more non-market housing. Such housing does not generate profit. It is community housing, low-income housing, co-operative and social housing. This kind of social housing has to be incorporated in project plans. A developer proposing a project should be required to build social housing, and the federal and Quebec governments should have to provide money to get that social housing built. There is no solution that does not include not-for-profit housing. Social housing is crucial. That is why the Conservatives' solution is flawed and fails to address what really needs to be done. The Conservatives have their ideological blinders on. They are all about capitalism no matter the cost, and nothing else is even worth considering. Regarding non-market solutions, members touched on the fact that new co-ops are not being built. That is essential. I had a chance to be at the Montreal premiere of a documentary called Le coop de ma mère by filmmaker Rosemont Ève Lamont. The documentary made it clear just how well those solutions have worked. Co-operatives that were built in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s are still around today, and they are great places to live. Anything considered profit is reinvested in maintaining and upgrading the co-op spaces for the people who live there. This is also a lesson about working together, participatory democracy, and collective empowerment. The residents of co-operatives become collective owners of the co-operative, and that changes their lives. Without these co-operatives, these people would not be able to live in these neighbourhoods or in these communities. This is something that the NDP is calling for. I would like to tell my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who seem to want to vote for the Conservative motion, that the NDP is going to move an amendment that I think is in line with the speeches we have heard. We want to add the following to the motion: investments for non-market, non-profit affordable housing; investments to create co-operatives; and the construction of 500,000 new homes, affordable housing, and social housing over the next 10 years. The Liberals are promising 160,000 social housing units, but the NDP is proposing half a million. We are also proposing to create a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy, which is not in the Conservative motion or in the Liberal’s national housing strategy action plan, even though they have been promising it for years. These are concrete things that the NDP is putting forward in response to the flaws in the Conservative proposal. I really hope that there will be consistency between what is said and what is done, and that we can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois. These NDP amendments would make for a much more meaningful and logical motion, when it comes to practical solutions. In this regard, as I spoke earlier with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and member for Hochelaga, based on the rules in place, which were set by the Liberals, housing that is considered affordable is not affordable at all. We recently learned that, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, a Montreal home that costs $2,200 a month is considered affordable. People are being taken for fools. We need to put our heads together and we need to consider the right to housing as a fundamental right for which someone could go to court when housing is inadequate. It is a life-changing thing, and I think that as parliamentarians we need to make a significant effort to invest in social housing and truly affordable housing. That is a priority for the NDP.

1558 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 14