Bill C-356

Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act

An Act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other Acts

This enactment enacts the Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act in order to
(a) establish a target for the completion of new homes in high-cost cities that increases 15% every year and ties federal infrastructure funding allocated to high-cost cities to that target;
(b) provide for the reallocation of $100 million from the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities that greatly exceed housing targets;
(c) require that federal transit funding provided to certain cities be held in trust until high-density residential housing is substantially occupied on available land around federally funded transit projects’ stations; and
(d) make it a condition for certain cities to receive federal infrastructure and transit funding that they not unduly restrict or delay the approval of building permits for housing.
It also amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act , the National Housing Act and the Excise Tax Act in order to
(a) eliminate executive bonuses unless housing targets are met and to reduce executive compensation if applications for funding for new housing construction are not treated within an average of 60 days; and
(b) provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate.
In addition, this enactment requires the Minister of Public Works to table a report on the inventory of federal buildings and land, to identify land suitable for housing construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings and all land that would be appropriate for housing construction, subject to certain exceptions. Finally, it requires the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report.

Public Accounts

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, the House has been seized with debate over another scandal in the NDP-Liberal government for a number of days now. It has been seized with a question of privilege because the government is refusing to hand over documents that the House has ordered it to hand over.

Tonight, we are proceeding with concurrence debate; this is debate on whether the House should agree with the 31st report of the public accounts committee. This is a very important report that deals with the issue of homelessness.

Before getting into the particulars of the report, I think it is important to reflect on where we are as a country. For a long time in Canada, we had a deal, we had an understanding that if we worked hard, played by the rules and worked to serve our community to advance the common good, we would be able to live a healthy, happy and comfortable life. Sadly, as a result of policies pursued by the NDP-Liberal government over the last nine years, that deal is now broken.

As we turn to the issue of homelessness tonight, and to the issues of poverty that surround homelessness, more and more Canadians are struggling who never would have expected to be in this position before. People who spent their lives giving to food banks are now receiving from food banks as a result of changes in their situation because of decisions, actions and policies by the NDP-Liberal government.

The public accounts committee has a mandate to study and review reports of the Auditor General. The Auditor General analyzes various programs and policies of the government to see if they are meeting their stated objectives. It is not the Auditor General's role to make a priori determinations of the good, of what a particular policy should be. Rather, the Auditor General's role is to determine whether particular programs are lining up with the stated objectives, doing the things they are supposed to do and measuring the things they are supposed to measure, as well as whether actions of government accord with policies and objectives that have been put in place.

I have had the opportunity to serve on the public accounts committee. I am not currently a regular member, but I am there often nonetheless, and I was a member of it previously. Reviewing reports of the Auditor General, we found her consistent disappointment with the government failing to measure up to its stated objectives in its actions. The members talk a good game about a lot of things, but they fail to follow through and to deliver results. We see this time and time again with reports that come before the public accounts committee, in the fact that the government is not meeting its stated objectives, and it is not measuring or following appropriate policies in the process.

If we take a macro look at what the government is all about, what the problem has been over the last nine years, it is that we have a government that fundamentally believes it is the thought that counts. They want to express that they care. They want to put in place policies and frameworks with names that sound good, that exude a sentiment of solidarity. However, they are uninterested in whether these programs actually deliver results. They believe that it is the thought that counts. We believe that it is the results that count. We can have a policy that sounds good, but if it does not actually deliver positive outcomes, then what is the point? It is not the thought that counts.

Moreover, we often hear from the government members that we can read whether they care about an issue from how much money they spent on an item. They will tell us they are spending more on this and more on that. I think that is supposed to be a demonstration of their concern for a particular issue. They are spending a bunch of money on something under a particular policy heading, and we are supposed to read into this that they care about those kinds of issues.

What Canadians are really interested in are the results. If the government is spending more on something but the results are worse, then quite obviously people are worse off than they were before. I think what Canadians care about, particularly now when so many people are struggling, are not the good thoughts or the good intentions, or even the amount of money that is spent. They care about the concrete results and how they impact their lives.

As Canadians are struggling, they are reflecting on the fact that one cannot eat a good thought and cannot live in an announcement. A good intention will not keep them warm at night. This is the problem with the situation presided over by the NDP-Liberal government. Despite its desire for Canadians to conclude that it is the thought that counts, Canadians are realizing that they cannot eat a good thought and cannot live in an announcement, and that good intentions will not keep them warm at night.

That brings me to the particulars of the 31st report of the public accounts committee, which is extremely damning in its assessment of the government's performance when it comes to the issue of homelessness. I will just read, from the beginning of the report, the key findings of the Auditor General. The first is that “Infrastructure Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada did not know whether their efforts to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness were leading to improved outcomes”. They did not know whether what they were trying to do was actually leading to better outcomes. That is incredible.

The next finding is, “Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not know who was benefiting from its initiatives.” The third key finding was “minimal federal accountability for reaching the National Housing Strategy target to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by the 2027–28 fiscal year”. That is incredible.

That is the government's much-vaunted housing strategy, and we find that the government literally does not know whether its efforts to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness are leading to results. It has no idea. It cannot claim that it is producing good results because, according to the Auditor General, it simply does not have that information. It is not tracking it. CMHC did not know who benefited from the initiatives, and there was minimal accountability for reaching the targets in the national housing strategy. That is extremely damning.

The government loves to talk about the fact that it has a national housing strategy. It says it has a great announcement, a great statement and a great framework, but it is not even assessing or measuring the results. It does not have basic information. It is not tracking whether its efforts actually produce good outcomes.

We can only conclude, from hearing the way the Liberals talk and then looking at the Auditor General's report, that they really believe that it is only the good thoughts that matter. They think it is the thought that counts instead of the results that count. It is time we have a government in this country that is authentically concerned about the well-being of Canadians; is concerned about the results of policies; is focused on virtue, not virtue signalling; and is focused on what happens to Canadians, not on wrapping itself in the aura of showing it cares through announcements and through expenditures, yet not tracking the results.

There is a damning report from the Auditor General after nine years of failure on housing. Of course, Canadians did not need to hear the report to know that the government is failing on housing. Canadians know that the deal that has defined our country, the deal that hard work leads to opportunity, has been broken under the government. Canadians know that the price of rent, the price of housing and the price of food are way up, and that life is becoming less affordable as a result of policies pursued by the government.

There is a failure to support the construction of new housing. The carbon tax has made food less affordable. Inflationary government spending far outstrips anything we have seen in this country before, more than doubling the national debt. These are concrete policies that are having concrete negative impacts on our national life.

It is time we have a government that is focused on virtue, not virtue signalling, and that cares about good results over good thoughts. In that spirit, Conservatives have not only begun to plan for an alternative government but have also concretely put before the House, in this Parliament, proposals to address the housing crisis right now. A more wise and more humble government would have adopted these proposals, but sadly the government has not.

Conservatives put forward Bill C-356, a comprehensive plan to address the housing challenges facing our country. It was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Bill C-356 is the proposed building homes, not bureaucracy act. People following at home can actually find the key recommendations in Bill C-356 and in the Conservative supplementary report at the back of the 31st report of the public accounts committee.

They are common-sense recommendations that I think any reasonable person would find worthy of support, yet all other parties in the House voted against the bill. It does not make any sense to me that members of the NDP-Liberal coalition would reject this common-sense plan. Of course, if there were particular details that they wanted to adjust slightly, they could have supported it at second reading and proposed those amendments at committee.

However, they did not just vote against particular provisions at a later stage; even if they thought the bill was imperfect, they were willing to throw it out wholesale. I do not think the bill is imperfect; I think it is an excellent bill that could have been adopted in its present form. NDP-Liberal members who are quibbling about details could have supported it to go to committee at least, but they did not; they rejected the principle of the bill.

What is in Bill C-356? First, it calls for the establishment of “a target for the completion of new homes in high-cost cities that increases 15% every year and ties federal infrastructure funding allocated to high-cost cities to that target”. Essentially, municipalities would have a target for new home construction, and if they exceed that target, they would get a bonus, but if they fail to meet that target, they would lose out on some federal funding. It would use federal funds to stimulate municipalities to take action to allow the construction of more homes in their community.

It would create an incentive for municipalities at the local level to remove red tape that prevents new home construction. It would not be prescriptive on how they do it. It would respect the principle of subsidiarity, allowing local decision-making around development, but it would set vitally necessary targets in order to move us forward in the direction we need, which is building more homes in this country.

The bill would “provide for the reallocation of $100 million from the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities that greatly exceed housing targets”. That is about rewarding municipalities that exceed their target.

Next is requiring “that federal transit funding provided to certain cities be held in trust until high-density residential housing is substantially occupied on available land around federally funded transit projects' stations”. In other words, if the federal government is putting money into a big transit project, it is common sense that we would expect that there be substantial new housing built around those transit stations.

That is a reasonable thing for the federal government to expect in the process of providing the funding. We would not want to see big new transit projects that were not associated with people's ability to actually live at and around where the transit stations are. The bill would also “make it a condition for certain cities to receive federal infrastructure transit funding that they not unduly restrict or delay the approval of building permits for housing”.

The bill would:

[amend] the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, the National Housing Act and the Excise Tax Act in order to

eliminate executive bonuses unless housing targets are met, and reduce executive compensation if applications for funding new housing construction are not treated within an average of 60 days....

Bonuses should be based on results, something that, again, the government does not seem to believe. It thinks that it is the thought that counts. Conservatives believe it is the results that count, which is why we would tie any bonuses to the achievement of real outcomes.

The bill would provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential property for which the average rent payable is below the market rate. This is a specific incentive around average rent being below the market rate. I think there was some confusion about that earlier in the debate, so it is important to clarify. Finally, there is the point that the NDP apparently took issue with, which is this:

Require the Minister of Public Works to table a report on the inventory of federal buildings and land, to identify land suitable for housing construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings and all land that would be appropriate for housing construction, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, require the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report.

This is what the NDP objected to. Conservatives are proposing that we sell public land and public buildings for housing; the NDP said we cannot do that because wealthy people and corporations would then buy these lands, and we cannot have that. The point is not that we would give these lands away but that we would sell them and, in the process, promote the construction of new homes people could live in.

As part of the plan, we have to make more space available. We have the problem in this country that we are not building nearly as many homes as we did back in the 1970s, when we had far fewer people. We are not building homes in general to keep up with demand. Obviously, if we have supply not growing to keep up with demand, that is going to lead to higher prices, so we need to increase the supply overall.

The bill, as I read, contains provisions specifically around below-market rent, but part of the solution has to be increasing the housing supply in general. That is just basic economics, but other parties do not appear to appreciate or understand it.

If we had passed the bill, we could have begun the work of substantially increasing the supply of housing in this country right away. This would have led to more housing affordability. We did not wait for an election; we put Bill C-356 before the House, yet the NDP and the Liberals voted against the building homes not bureaucracy act.

As such, it is not the thought that counts; it is the results that count. Let us look not at the announcements or the spending figures; let us look at the results. Canadians are struggling. Housing costs and rent are way up. The price of food is way up, and crime is up as well. These changes are the result of policy decisions made by these governments.

Fundamentally, the Liberals are not working. Their agenda is not working. They are not attentive to the impacts that their agenda has had on Canadians, and this is why we need a new government in this country that will rigorously hold itself and the entire apparatus of the federal government to the achievement of results. It will focus not on good thoughts and good intentions, but on good results and on the common good.

We will replace the NDP-Liberal government, which has failed to deliver in so many areas, with a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We will do this through such measures as Bill C-356, measures that make housing more affordable in reality; we can simply contrast the clarity of our common-sense legislation with the damning assessment by the independent Auditor General of the government's performance. They did not know whether their efforts prevented and reduced chronic homelessness; they did not know who benefited from their initiatives. There was minimal accountability for reaching the national housing strategy targets.

The government has failed. The Liberals have failed to even assess or measure the results. They have failed to show that they have any real concern about the outcomes for Canadians who are struggling. We need a new government that is concerned about outcomes. Since they insist on voting against the constructive proposals we put forward, the only choice now is to have a carbon tax election where we will bring about the change we need and give Canadians the homes they need. Let us bring it home.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, even in opposition, Conservatives have put solutions before the House to address the housing crisis. One of them is Bill C-356, the building homes, not bureaucracy act. I am perplexed by the fact that all other parties voted against this common-sense piece of legislation. I asked the New Democrats tonight why they had opposed this bill and they said they had certain objections to the section about selling off federal lands.

However, notably, the section on selling off federal lands in this report would not prescribe particulars around what kind of housing would be constructed there. It does not contain limitations on additional policies that might be put in place around that. It simply says that a report would need to be tabled on an inventory of public buildings and land, identifying land suitable for construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings; and that all land would be appropriate for housing construction subject to certain exceptions, and would require the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report. The report does not contain any of the sort of strictures or necessary implications that the NDP has applied. It simply talks about making buildings and land more available.

On that basis, I do not see any credible reason why the other parties would have rejected the common-sense proposal that Conservatives have already put forward to the House. Does the member have any insight into why the other parties would have voted against this common-sense piece of legislation?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-356.

My biggest problem with Bill C-356, which, as I mentioned in my speech, is an accelerator to the housing crisis that the bill codifies, is using public land that taxpayers have owned collectively for generations and that we have all benefited from given the public good it has provided. Those pieces of land should be used to build non-market homes that people can live in if they cannot afford a market home.

When it comes to housing, the free market has access to almost a majority of the land in municipalities across the country. We are saying that it is important to have a social safety net that provides housing for those who cannot afford it, whether it is because they have lost a job, are a single parent or have suffered tough economic times that have resulted in lower income. They should not have to be homeless just because they lost their job. They should not have to be homeless just because certain things outside of their control were made a reality.

That is why it is so important to have have social housing, co-op housing and non-market homes on that land. Then those who cannot afford it can get a roof over their head and have an opportunity to get back on their feet and continue to contribute to our society and economy.

I voted against this bill because it would have given access to that land to rich developers, real estate investment trusts and billionaires, and they would have turned it into mansions to sell for profit.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to homelessness, I want to ask the NDP member about Conservative Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act. I suspect that the NDP would propose other measures that are not in this bill, but it is odd to me that the NDP voted against it because it contains some very obvious common-sense measures, such as requiring municipalities to set targets for the construction of new homes. They would benefit from exceeding those targets and be penalized if they do not.

What exactly in Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act, from the Leader of the Opposition, led the member and his NDP colleagues to oppose it?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent comment. I apologize. I can be quite intense, and I get fired up with tough subjects like this. I am now seeing homelessness in Lévis, which was never the case. I had never seen it before, but it is there now. We see homeless people. There are young people sleeping in shelters, under bridges or in their cars. That is not normal. It is unacceptable. Our leader introduced Bill C-356, which was defeated. I do not understand how anyone could have possibly thought it was not a good idea. How could they think it was a bad idea? The bill died at second reading.

I only have 10 seconds left, so I will end on this note: When we are sitting on the other side of the House, we will get this done.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-356, An Act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Housing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when I was the minister responsible, the cost of housing was half of what it is today.

The Prime Minister has not only doubled the cost of housing, he is spending money on growing the very bureaucracy that is blocking construction. I have a common-sense plan in Bill C‑356, which we will be voting on this afternoon. We are going to cut construction taxes, sell federal land and buildings to build housing, and offer big bonuses to municipalities that allow more and faster housing construction.

Will he vote for more housing?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

This morning I was in the House, and there was a debate around Bill C-356. It's the Leader of the Opposition's bill, which would actually essentially put a tax, the GST, back on apartment building homes. Would that have a negative impact on the sector if it does pass?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government tabled a plan to free up 250,000 new housing units by 2031 on federal, provincial, territorial and municipal public lands.

The Conservative leader has debated his housing plan, Bill C‑356, which will sell federal buildings to the highest bidder with no guarantee of affordable housing.

Can the public works minister explain to Canadians how our federal land conservation plan will create affordable housing across the country?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today, the House is debating Bill C-356, the Conservative leader's housing proposal. In the Conservative leader's bill, there is no mention of students, seniors, workers or the most vulnerable in the country.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister please tell Canadians what our plan focuses on, how we are working to create more affordable homes faster across Canada and how the Conservative leader's plan would slow down builders?

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government presented Canadians with a housing plan that will increase the housing supply across the country. A core measure of the plan is the removal of GST from new apartments, student housing and co-operatives.

Earlier today, the House debated the Conservative leader's housing plan, Bill C-356. The bill would actually put the tax back on the construction of middle-class apartments.

Can the Minister of Housing tell Canadians where the government stands on the Conservative leader's plan to reimpose a rent tax on middle-class apartments?

Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-356 reiterates the Conservative leader's talking points about the housing crisis.

According to him, the municipalities are responsible for the housing crisis by tying up real estate development projects in supposedly needless red tape. One of the Conservatives' proposals is to set a target for increasing the number of housing starts. Beginning on April 1, 2024, the target would increase by 15% each year.

Bill C-356 places the entire blame for the housing shortage on the municipalities, even though the current crisis would not have been this severe had Ottawa not pulled out of funding for social housing under the Harper government.

Bill C-356 would in effect put municipalities under outside control by preventing them from taking measures to ensure a minimum of social housing or from protecting their built heritage, under penalty of having their funding reduced—including funding for the development of public transit.

In my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île, I have met met many times with seniors, families and community associations and that has helped me realize the enormity of this tragedy. Expensive condos are already largely available on the market. What is sorely lacking is affordable housing. The resulting mad scramble for rentals betrays people's growing sense of despair. They feel that the government is doing nothing to help them.

The pressing issue is not to continue encouraging big real estate developers to participate in this frantic race, but rather to address the housing shortage affecting most low-income people. The Bloc Québécois has already made a wide range of proposals and interventions. For example, it is proposing that the federal government reorganize its funding for the various programs under the national housing strategy to create an acquisition fund. This kind of fund would enable co-operatives and non-profit organizations to acquire apartment buildings currently available on the private market, keep them affordable and convert them into social, community or deeply affordable housing units. For example, in my riding of La Pointe-de-l'Île, Corporation Mainbourg, in association with the Quebec government and the City of Montreal, acquired Domaine La Rousselière. This is a 720-unit complex that will be protected from the speculative market to ensure its long-term affordability will be maintained.

The Bloc Québécois has long said that the provinces and municipalities are in the best position to know the housing needs on their territory. It is not the federal government's place to interfere. I would remind members that housing is exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Since 1973, Quebec law has prevented the federal government from negotiating directly with municipalities, and Bill C-356 would tear up that agreement. It would create a series of conflicts. It took two years to reach the agreement, and we cannot afford another two-year delay that will bring all projects to a halt. All of the interference brought in by Bill C-356 means that this irresponsible bill would create a breach that would foster sustained conflict and certainly paralyze every project, right in the middle of a housing crisis.

I would remind members that we welcomed the $3.7-billion Canada-Quebec housing agreement signed in 2020. Half of that money came from the federal government, but the negotiations took three years. The funding that was supposed to go to Quebec was blocked until the two levels of government came to an agreement. Had that happened in 2017, Quebec could have built and renovated many social and affordable housing projects since then, which would have helped mitigate the current housing crisis.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois deplores the federal government's constant need to spend its money, interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions and tell Quebec how to spend its money. We are asking that the federal government transfer its share with no strings attached. That is why we will be voting against Bill C-356.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a great deal of latitude in terms of how we address different speeches in this House. The issue at hand right now is housing, Bill C-356, a private member's bill brought forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

The member is currently talking about provincial politics. That does not seem to fit within the scope of this bill. Furthermore, she is talking about some far alt-right conspiracy theory. Again, I am not sure how that fits within the scope of this bill.

I would ask you to make a ruling, Mr. Speaker, that would be most appropriate for this.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair has been very tolerant of the beginning of the hon. member's speech, but the Chair would appreciate it if the member would draw all this together with the private member's bill before the House at this time, Bill C-356.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-356, an act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other acts, introduced by the leader of the official opposition.

On reading Bill C‑356, it is obvious that the bill blames the entire housing shortage on municipalities, but this crisis would not be nearly as serious as it is now if the federal government had not decided, under Harper, to withdraw funding for the construction of social housing.

The bill seeks to exercise control over the municipalities by preventing them from taking measures to protect their farmland, from setting a minimum percentage of social housing, or from protecting their built heritage, on pain of having their funding slashed, including funding for public transit development. This bill denies any federal responsibility in the matter and confirms that the Conservative Party will do nothing to address the crisis if it comes into power.

It is also a bill that offers no solutions. The market is not lacking in luxury condos. What is lacking is housing that people can afford. That is where the government should focus its efforts. This notion, however, is completely absent from the Conservative leader's vision. Bill C‑356 gives developers the keys to the city so they can build more condos that rent for $3,000 a month or more.

In short, the bill's solution to the housing crisis is to let the big real estate developers do anything, anywhere and anyhow. The populist solution offered by the bill ignores the fact that people do not only live in housing, but also in neighbourhoods and cities. That means they need infrastructure for water and sewers, for roads, and for public and private services, such as schools and grocery stores. Cities have a duty to ensure that their residents are well served and to lay down conditions.

This is also a bill that will cause bickering. As members know, since 1973, Quebec's Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif has prevented the federal government from dealing directly with Quebec municipalities. The Canada-Quebec infrastructure framework agreement reflects this reality, stipulating that the federal government has no right to intervene in the establishment of priorities. What Bill C‑356 would do is tear up this agreement. Although it took 27 months to negotiate the agreement, Bill C‑356 sets the stage for two years of bickering, during which all projects will be paralyzed. In the middle of a housing crisis, this would be downright disastrous.

If a municipality's housing starts do not increase as required by Ottawa, Bill C‑356 would cut its gas tax transfer and public transit transfer by 1% for every percentage point shortfall from the target the bill unilaterally sets. For example, in Quebec, housing starts are down 60% this year rather than up 15%, so transfers would have been reduced by about 75% if Bill C‑356 had been in effect. That is unacceptable.

Bill C‑356 goes even further by withholding funding for public transportation if cities do not achieve the 15% target it unilaterally sets. This policy would encourage car use, since transit would only be built after the fact, not in conjunction with new housing developments.

It is clear that Bill C‑356 is not a good solution to the housing crisis in Quebec and across Canada. As members know, the housing crisis currently plaguing Quebec, which was once known as one of the most affordable provinces, is not confined to large cities. It has been a problem in my region for more than 15 years. It has resulted in a shortage of housing units and restricted access to affordable housing.

In my riding, the housing crisis affects both availability and affordability. Prices are also limiting access to housing in the regions. Although the housing crisis initially affected mostly low-income households, it is now increasingly affecting companies' ability to recruit and retain employees.

I cannot help thinking of Nunavik, in my riding. Half of all Inuit in Nunavik live in overcrowded housing, and almost a third live in homes requiring major repairs. This overcrowding created serious issues during the pandemic. We even had to bar access to the communities to protect them from exposure to the virus.

The housing crisis in southern Quebec is nothing compared with the situation of Inuit communities in Nunavik, in the north. It is not unusual for five, six, seven or even eight people to live in a two-bedroom unit. If one of them has social issues, it impacts the entire family.

The housing problem in Nunavik is nothing new. There has been a housing shortage since 1990, when the federal government stopped funding construction for five years. Nunavik currently needs around 800 more social housing units.

The housing shortage in Nunavik has also been a long-standing obstacle for students. Its impact on students who live in cramped accommodations can be severe, since they have no place to study or do their homework in peace. In addition to affecting young people, the housing shortage and lack of infrastructure in Nunavik are having a significant impact on every aspect of education, notably the working conditions of local staff, the ability of school boards to hire and retain teachers, and the ability to offer specialized programs.

Students are not the only ones affected by the housing crisis. Entire families are impacted by toxic cohabitation. This is not something that is tracked in housing statistics, and it is often neglected in analyses of the crisis. It refers to couples who are separated but continue to live together because they cannot find another place to live. It also refers to households in which one member develops an alcohol or drug addiction, which can compromise the safety of the other members of the household.

Bill C-356 will certainly not remedy all these problems. However, the Bloc Québécois already has a vast array of potential solutions to suggest.

Let me name a few: that the federal government gradually reinvest in social, community and truly affordable housing until it reaches 1% of its total annual revenue to provide a consistent and predictable funding stream instead of ad hoc agreements; that all federal surplus priorities be repurposed for social, community and deeply affordable housing as a priority in an effort to address the housing crisis; that a tax be placed on real estate speculation to counter artificial overheating of the housing market; that the home buyers' plan be reformed to account for the increasingly different realities and family situations of Quebec households; that the federal government undertake a financial restructuring of programs under the national housing strategy to create an acquisition fund; that Quebec receive its fair share of funding, without conditions, from federal programs to combat homelessness, while also calling for the funding released in the last year of the pandemic to be made permanent.

The Leader of the Opposition should have based his bill and its wording on these sound proposals by the Bloc Québécois. A simple transfer to the Quebec government with no conditions attached would be ideal. Had this been done in 2017, Quebec could have built and renovated a number of social housing projects three years earlier. It certainly would have mitigated the housing crisis we are facing today. Unconditional transfers would make the funding process much simpler. In contrast, the various agreements add to the associated red tape and increase the wait time for actually collecting the sums in question. I would point out that the programs enacted by the Quebec government are often innovative and effective.

It must also be said that the Bloc Québécois has reiterated the need for federal funding to target first and foremost all the myriad needs for affordable social housing, as this is where the most pressing needs are.

Bill C-356 is not the way to go if we want to build housing and cut red tape. That is why we must vote against Bill C-356.