Good day. Thank you for inviting me to appear.
I must apologize in advance, because as soon as I’ve finished my presentation and answered questions, I’ll have to leave you, as I’m currently attending a convention.
I would like to begin by thanking the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, Alexandre Boulerice, as we have him to thank for letting us know about this study by your Committee. That allowed us to submit our brief, which I hope you have read. Normally, the member for Hochelaga, Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada, is also present. I wanted to mention her, as the eastern part of the Rosemont neighbourhood is part of her riding. I’d also like to thank the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, Ms. Louise Chabot, who sent us an invitation to appear. In closing, I would also like to thank the clerk and the interpreters, whose services are essential.
Speaking of translation, I’d like to point out that there’s still a contradiction, in French and English, between the terms “logement social” and “logement abordable”. In French, “logement abordable” means anything and everything, unfortunately, whereas the term “logement social” is clearer. It refers to cooperatives, non-profit organizations or low-cost housing. However, in English, we say “affordable housing” to refer to both social housing and affordable housing. So, when discussing social housing, it would be better to say “social housing”, as this is more in line with the types of housing in question.
To discuss the financialization of housing, we still need to establish some clear guidelines, because housing isn’t just any old thing. I think we all agree that housing is a right. Canada is a signatory to the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As housing is a right, it must be financially accessible, healthy and safe. Being safe doesn’t just mean that it’s well located and there’s no danger of being mugged, it also means that you’re not at risk of being evicted by a developer because they want to make more money by raising rents or by some other means.
This whole definition of housing, as written in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, corresponds to the definition of social housing. It’s not expressly stated, but, if we look at the definition of social housing, we see that it’s accessible, healthy and safe housing.
If we say that housing is a right, then it’s not a commodity; and if it’s not a commodity, we must treat it as such. But by financializing housing, we do treat it like a commodity. So, if we say that housing is a right and not a commodity, then we must fight the financialization of housing in all its aspects, whether in terms of taxation, subsidies or construction assistance. All public money, the funds managed by the government, must be invested in social housing. This will put the brakes on speculators who cause housing crises and harm tenant households, mainly those on low or modest incomes.
The aim of the financialization of housing is to make investments to make money. This runs counter to the right to housing. The government has a duty to discourage such dubious practices and, above all, to put obstacles in the way of the people who engage in them. In this sense, Canada’s national housing strategy should focus on funding social housing, rather than spreading itself too thinly, as is currently the case, and stop funding developers whose sole objective is profit. Since the money available is not unlimited, we must prioritize government investment in social housing to help low and moderate income households.
Thank you.