House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was affordable.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Liberal

Chris Bittle LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives talk about almost 41 million hectares of land that the federal government owns and should be redeveloped. However, of that nearly 41 million hectares, almost 36 million hectares is managed by Parks Canada, 2.3 million is managed by Environment and Climate Change Canada and 2.2 million is managed by National Defence, so that is about 99% of the land owned by the federal government.

What bases does the member propose closing, or what parks does the member propose closing, to build houses on those sites?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, land is one way to look at this, but the way we are looking at it is actually through buildings. Buildings are what our concern is. There are ways to take underused buildings and convert them to residential areas. They are often in places where we can use them in the city and that are close to transit. We know that the government has underutilized resources, underutilized buildings, and those are what we hope to convert and use for residential property.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, we know that Canada has the lowest housing unit per capita rate in the G7. That rate has even gone down in the past five years, in other words, since the Liberals came to power.

Does my colleague think that the government might want to invest more in housing?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, I think that we need to look at all options for investing into housing. Of course, the government can invest in housing, but we also need to look at having the private sector and other organizations invest in housing. There are many charitable organizations that want to do this work. There are a lot of options.

This is a case where, as the member pointed out, we need 1.8 million new homes in Canada, and we need to look at all the options. All options need to be on the table. We cannot restrict any particular thing, and we need to encourage organizations, governments, and those in the private sector, everybody, to work together to solve the housing crisis in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, we have heard the hon. member and, in fact, all Conservatives flaunt the private sector and flout government investments of around $400 billion. However, they never seem to talk about the $750 billion that went into Bay Street and the big banks, which was absolutely the gasoline on the dumpster fire of this housing crisis.

Given all they have created in the Conservative plan for housing, the Conservatives have never once talked about rentals, and they have never once talked about the financialization of housing. Would the hon. member agree that there need to be steps to eliminate the preferential tax treatment enjoyed by financial firms and big companies such as REITs, particularly through CMHC, which are gobbling up all of our rental stock?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK

Madam Speaker, we have talked a lot about increasing the rental supply. As I said before, we need to look at all the different ways of increasing that supply, whether it is through the private sector, the public sector or the not-for-profit sector. All of these areas can contribute to the solution.

The sad part is that 50% of young people today have completely given up on the hope of even owning a single-family home, and those are the people we need to target. We need to increase the supply, so those young people can actually have hope again, and so we can solve the housing crisis in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Hochelaga Québec

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)

Madam Speaker, today I am very pleased to rise in the House as the parliamentary secretary to the very first Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion of Canada.

This new portfolio recognizes that these three issues are closely linked. Affordable housing is essential to supporting diversity and creating inclusive communities that will allow everyone to flourish.

The hon. member for Durham and other colleagues across the way like to talk about capital gains tax on Canadians' primary residences. I just want to note that they are the only ones talking about that. They have been talking about that for months, even after we clearly and repeatedly said that our government will not impose such a tax. It simply will not happen.

Canadians can clearly see through an unfounded partisan political narrative. Our approach to housing is visionary and seeks to address a flagrant lack of investment by the Conservative Party, which left a legacy of inaction.

In the throne speech, we confirmed that the government wants to continue investing in more affordable housing. The new housing accelerator fund and the other commitments announced in the throne speech are only the latest in a series of measures our government has taken to support affordable housing since 2015.

In fact, investment in affordable housing is at the heart of our government’s efforts to build diverse and inclusive communities that strengthen our economy and support our prosperity.

Earlier this year, the Minister of Finance tabled the fifth consecutive budget in which our government recognized the importance of housing for Canadians. We are proposing concrete investments to improve housing for Canadians. We are making these investments because we believe that everyone deserves to have a home.

When I was very young, I remember that my mother looked for an apartment for a very long time. We ended up on the third floor in a small two-bedroom apartment with no special adaptations for my brother, who was in a wheelchair. I am thinking about Mohammed, about Johanne, and about all of the people, even in my riding, who are looking for somewhere to live. We need stable and affordable units that offer refuge in times of uncertainty, like the one we have been going through for the past two years, and that give every Canadian the chance to succeed, every child a good start in life and every family the opportunity to prosper.

Housing is a key driver of economic activity and helps create well-paid jobs for the middle class. Home construction and repair provide more jobs for more skilled workers across the country. Investments in housing also increase the demand for products and services offered in Canada, generating significant economic benefits in our communities.

In the past six years, our government has invested almost $30 billion in housing. In collaboration with the provinces and territories, municipalities, non-profit organizations, developers, financial institutions and many other partners, we contributed to the construction of more than 110,000 housing units across the country. Federal investments also contributed to the renovation and repair of approximately 370,000 existing affordable housing units, making them compliant with modern standards and available for future generations.

More than one million people benefited from these investments. More than 35,000 people who were either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless now live in safer housing because of federal investments and our commitment to eliminating chronic homelessness in Canada.

As my colleagues are aware, most of this federal funding was paid out as part of the very first national housing strategy in Canada. Introduced by our government in 2017, this plan, and the more than $72 billion over 10 years, continues to grow and produce results each year. Our government also took the major step of passing legislation obliging future governments to maintain a national housing strategy and to report regularly on its results.

With respect to the national housing strategy itself, one of its most recent and most successful programs is the rapid housing initiative, or RHI.

Phase 1 of the RHI was introduced by the government almost exactly a year ago with a view to rapidly creating housing units for Canadians in housing need due to COVID-19.

After investing $2.5 billion, we are now seeing construction of more than 9,200 units to support the most vulnerable Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Once the funding is released, these indispensable units are designed to welcome new residents in under 12 months. I am pleased to note that at least 25% of the remaining funding under the RHI will go to housing projects for women.

Another cornerstone of the national housing strategy is the national housing co-investment fund, which directly addresses the main problem at the root of the housing crisis in Canada: short supply. The aim of the co-investment fund is to solve this problem by creating up to 60,000 new housing units and refurbishing up to 240,000 existing affordable units. Of course, we will do this in partnership with other governments, non-profit organizations, the private sector and other stakeholders in order to maximize investments.

This program is well on its way to achieving its objectives. At the end of September, almost 300 applications had been approved, accounting for a commitment of more than $4.6 billion in federal funds for the construction and repair of more than 118,000 housing units in Canada.

Recognizing the value and benefits of the co-investment fund, the government allocated $750 million of existing funding in this program in the 2021 budget to accelerate the creation of 3,400 new units and the repair of 13,700 units over the next two years.

Another $250 million will be reallocated to support construction, repair and operating costs for more than 500 transitional housing units and shelters for women and children fleeing violence. The increase in the fund will help our government fight gender-based violence, which I know is a goal shared by all parties in the House.

The rental construction financing initiative offers low-cost loans to municipalities, non-profit organizations and private developers to encourage the construction of rental properties in communities across Canada, where the need is greatest.

To date, more than $12 billion has been allocated to support the creation of more than 34,600 units, most of which will be affordable, and $300 million in funding for the construction of rental properties was reallocated to help convert vacant commercial properties into market-based rental housing units, which will free up affordable units for other households.

We also took measures to renew and extend the affordable housing innovation fund, which encourages new financing models and innovative construction techniques in the affordable housing sector. More than 19,000 units have already been approved for financing under this initiative, 85% of them designated as affordable housing.

We also improved the Canada housing benefit, which provides direct financial support to help eligible households pay the rent. More specifically, we will invest more than $315 million over the next seven years to increase direct financial assistance for low-income women and children fleeing violence.

The federal community housing initiative also received a boost in its funding. This initiative supports community housing providers offering long-term housing to many of the most vulnerable Canadians.

Our government also recognizes the unique challenges associated with the construction and maintenance of sustainable housing in the North. As a result, we are providing $25 million in new funds to the Government of the Northwest Territories to support the construction of 30 new social housing units across the territory.

An additional $25 million will be given to the Nunavut government to meet short-term housing and infrastructure needs in the territory, including priority projects involving the remediation and redevelopment of approximately 100 housing units.

Earlier this year, we took measures to extend the first-time home buyer incentive in order to enhance eligibility in high-cost markets, namely the census metropolitan areas of Toronto, Vancouver and Victoria.

For people purchasing a first home in these regions, the income eligibility threshold is now $150,000, up from $120,000. Moreover, the maximum insured mortgage and incentive will rise from four times to four and a half times annual eligible income.

In short, with a small down payment, this targeted extension will increase the maximum price of housing by more than $200,000 for people purchasing eligible properties in these cities, from a little over $500,000 according to current parameters to approximately $722,000.

We took measures to ensure that non-resident foreign buyers who invest passively in housing in Canada, thereby causing increases in the purchase price of properties for Canadians, pay their fair share. Starting on January 1, a new 1% tax will be levied on the value of residential real estate belonging to non-residents or non-Canadians that is considered vacant or underused. This new tax should increase federal revenues by $700 million over four years starting in 2022-23. These revenues will help support the major investments we are making in housing.

All these investments that I have mentioned today are helping to make housing more affordable for Canadians, especially for those who are vulnerable, thereby ensuring that our economic recovery is inclusive and resilient and that no one falls through the cracks.

Our government is determined to continue this important work by making new commitments and by putting forward innovative approaches to get the pandemic under control. It is determined to grow an economy that works for everyone and to make progress in terms of reconciliation with indigenous peoples, racism and discrimination, climate change, and child care.

I know that my hon. colleagues on both sides of the House, as well as the Canadian people, support these goals, and that they will move us forward as a diverse, equitable and inclusive society. I look forward to working with my colleagues in our efforts to accomplish the difficult work ahead.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her appointment. The government is sending a fine message by appointing the member for Hochelaga, a Quebec riding next to mine, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing. My compliments to the government.

I have a very specific question for my colleague, but I do not know if she has the answer. Funds were disbursed during the pandemic, including special funds through the Reaching Home homelessness strategy, to support organizations working with the homeless. These investments have been extended until March 2022.

These organizations are wondering what will happen after March 2022. There is considerable uncertainty, because they can no longer make do without the special resources made available during the pandemic, which did not exist before. Does my colleague know if these programs will be extended after March 2022?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert and I are neighbours, as we are separated only by a river. We see one another from our respective side of the river, and I want to congratulate him for the work he is doing in his riding.

I would like to reassure my colleague. I know that there is a major project under way in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert to organize a summit on housing. We would be very pleased to participate and to respond to the concerns of my colleague and stakeholders about supports for projects under Canada's homelessness strategy. I would be pleased to work with him as we go forward.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are also riding neighbours, although we are not separated by a river.

I thank her for her speech, but it was just a long litany of projects, programs and figures, along with a whole lot of lip service. That is unfortunate, since there appears to be a disconnect between what she said and the realities of the housing crisis.

I would remind her that the Liberals' definition of “affordable housing” considers $2,225 a month to be affordable rent in Montreal. Would the people of Hochelaga consider $2,225 a month affordable? If not, what will the parliamentary secretary do to change the definition?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my next‑door neighbour for his question. Indeed, there is no river separating the two of us. I also congratulate him for the work he is doing in his constituency.

My colleague and I understand that the housing crisis in Montreal and the rise in housing prices are being felt everywhere. Just like him, I am concerned about my constituents who are looking for solutions.

However, I would remind him that our government is the one that introduced the national housing strategy, the very first housing strategy. The Liberal government has made historic investments in housing, and I am very proud of that.

I look forward to working with my colleague on housing issues and projects in our respective ridings.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Green

Mike Morrice Green Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations to the parliamentary secretary on her new role.

I want to pick up on a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East earlier in this conversation. We know activists across the country have been calling out the need for more investments in non-market, public, subsidized and co-op housing. We have not built co-op housing in this country since the early 1990s.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on that need, and the commitment from the government to begin reinvesting in co-op housing?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the opportunity to point out that when his party was in power, it invested the least in housing.

I know that because at the time, I was a private citizen trying to get funding for co-operative projects, but there was no money.

Today, our government plans to fund co-operative, affordable and social housing projects across the country to fix the previous Conservative government's mistakes and make up for its long history of inaction.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Windsor—Tecumseh Ontario

Liberal

Irek Kusmierczyk LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague for her excellent work on this file.

In the last two years, I was able to participate in a number of historic announcements in Windsor—Tecumseh on affordable housing, which is a critical issue there. There was a $170-million partnership, through the repair and renewal fund, to repair and renew 4,700 units across Windsor-Essex with local partners; a $25-million partnership with a private developer to build 33 or 31 new units in the town of Tecumseh; $22 million, again in partnership with local partners, to build affordable housing in the Meadowbrook project; and $9 million to build new units for the rapid housing initiative, as well.

I notice that in the opposition motion there is no mention of partnerships. I wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary this: Is that one reason why we have seen more investment in affordable housing in Windsor—Tecumseh over the last two years? These are historic investments, more than we ever saw in 10 years of Conservative government.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the opportunity to point out that it was the Conservative government that pulled out of all of the housing partnerships and abandoned the housing file altogether.

The funds that we have created, including the national housing co-investment fund, will enable us to create at least 60,000 new housing units over several years and invest more than $13 billion over 10 years. I believe that these historic investments will deliver meaningful results every year for all Canadians across the country.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, let us tell it like it is. The government is making big funding promises for all of its programs, but very little money is actually being spent. Sometimes, only 25% of the expenses are covered. Other times, the program criteria are so restrictive that no one is eligible. The reality is that the current government is not spending that much more than in the Harper era.

Given that we are at the height of the housing crisis, does my colleague not think that the government should stop talking and actually take action?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. However, comparing our government's track record to the Harper government's is just plain bad faith.

I worked in the renovation and affordable and social housing field for many years, and I have to say that real results are being achieved.

Two low-income housing providers in my riding waited for over 30 years to get funding. Some of the housing units were boarded up. Thanks to federal government investments, those units can be renovated. That will deliver real results across the country and provide Quebeckers and Canadians with affordable, accessible housing.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

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?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

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

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Soraya Martinez Ferrada Liberal Hochelaga, QC

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.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

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—

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

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.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

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?

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

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.

Opposition Motion—Housing SupplyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

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.