Debates of Dec. 9th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Housing Supply

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will have to explain a few things to me. She talked about an effective measure that provides for the construction of 70,000 housing units in the next few years. However, Quebec alone needs 50,000 units in the next five years. Where is the logic behind that?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, there is a need for more housing units to be built, which is why, in this mandate, we are proposing a $4-billion housing accelerator fund that will help to increase the supply of housing. It is why we are making it easier for new homebuyers to buy their new homes through the flexible first-time homebuyers incentive. We are trying to reduce the closing costs and to create a new rent-to-own program.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, we have an incredible organization, the Aboriginal Coalition to End Homelessness. It does incredible work in our community, but it needs permanent, stable core funding.

Indigenous advocates and the NDP have been calling on the government to develop and fund a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy. Although the funding component is critically important, it is also important that indigenous people be directly involved in developing and governing the strategy.

Why has this not happened yet? The Liberals have been in power for six years. Will the member commit to pushing her government for a for indigenous, by indigenous housing strategy?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that we have a housing plan for indigenous peoples. We have invested in a plan for indigenous people. The national housing strategy targets many groups like seniors, indigenous people, and women and children fleeing home.

I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure that we have more housing built for indigenous people.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is my neighbour just down the street. I was wondering if she could comment on the government's proposals to make things more affordable.

I am getting a lot of complaints from young people. To put it in perspective, in 2015, in Oshawa, the average price of a home was $362,958. The prediction for this March coming up is going to be over $1 million, $1,157 million. Many young people are complaining that the dream of home ownership is out of reach. It is getting to a point where they just do not see a way of making it happen.

Could my colleague explain her government's plan for young people specifically?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we are seeing inflation. It is a global phenomena.

If the hon. member really wants to help Ontario families, it is really very important to talk to his Conservative cousins in the Ontario government on $10 a day child care. That program will put more money in the hands of families in Ontario. They will save approximately $1,000 every month if the Ontario government agrees to sign onto the $10 a day child care and early learning program. It will be direct money to buy better and healthier groceries and to put their kids into programs.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my ears perked up when I heard about inclusive housing, so I thank the member for those comments.

I have two amazing disability advocates in my area, who remind me often that the B.C. building code makes accessibility optional. They need protection in the national building code. I want to leave that comment with the member.

I also want to touch on the purpose-built rental and the fact that it is not accessible to not-for-profit groups. Is the government aware of the limitations for not-for-profits and co-ops to access the rental construction financing imitative, because they need to bring collateral?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important that all levels of government work together to ensure that we have more housing built in Canada. The federal government should be a partner working alongside provinces and municipalities to ensure we can help those who want to rent affordable housing for Canadians.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak today to an issue that people in the great riding of Thornhill and across the country see as a priority.

Also, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

We have a housing crisis. Our country is facing a severe housing shortage, contributing to unprecedented increases in housing prices in almost every part of the country, including one of the hardest-hit regions, the GTA. The government simply cannot ignore this.

I heard it on the campaign, in my constituency and from many young people, who continue to inspire me but whose dream of home ownership is falling further and further out of reach. Some even laugh at me when I suggest a future in which they own a home anywhere near my riding. Worse, any prospective home buyers have started tempering their expectations. I never thought I would describe our country as a land of tempering expectations, but here we are.

In my community, the biggest fear for parents, their constant refrain, is that their kids cannot afford to live in the same neighbourhood they grew up in. I hear over and over again how their kids “cannot afford to live here”, full stop. There is a bigger issue in all of this.

When people cannot afford to live where they grew up, when they are priced out of the market, there are deep impacts on families and the community. It impacts the connection between us, between one another, and has deep impacts on our connections to the institutions that help build our communities, such as our churches, synagogues and seniors centres. The connection points that do the work that government cannot, and never should, are further out of reach. Therefore, we live further from our parents, we see them less and they see us less, not because we want to but because we have been priced out. Many are leaving the communities entirely and are moving to more affordable parts of the country, wherever those places may be, and it does not sound like there are very many. That drives the prices up there, starting the same cycle.

A billboard in downtown Toronto reads, “Can't afford a home? Have you tried finding richer parents?” While this might be tongue-in-cheek, it is not untrue. Here is the problem. I do not have rich parents. Most Canadians do not have rich parents, although some do. The real estate forecast in Toronto, and in my riding at its gates, will see huge gains next year. The average price is expected to hit $1.16 million in October. That is up 10% from this year. Over the past year, the average sale price increased 7%. That is 7% higher than the almost $1.2 million that it will take to break into the market. Therefore, people are going to need some very rich parents to break into that housing market.

The government will tell us that it is all a product of global inflation, supply chains and whatever the buzzwords of the week happen to be. However, as this side of the House continues to point out over and over again, with the hopes that one day the government will realize it, land prices are not tied to global supply chains.

The Prime Minister has failed to take action and address the growing housing and affordability crisis in Canada. In fact, home prices have reached record levels. Prices have risen under the government by more than 20%. It had six years to fix the rising home prices in Canada, but the problem has only become worse.

Instead of putting forward policies to build homes, it has doubled down on failed policy and pumped billions of taxpayer dollars into a national housing strategy, which has resulted in higher home prices. Therefore, the government's affordable housing strategy has built housing units that are more expensive than the average rent, not less.

We will hear the government brag about spending money on this issue, a record amount of cash, yet $1.2 million for a starter home in my riding is a record that nobody wants to break. It is one we cannot afford to break. Therefore, it is the wrong metric. We can never define the success of a federal strategy with the number of tax dollars the government can spend. The metric should be the number of Canadians who are able to access the home that they need, the home that they want.

With all those tax dollars and the promise to build and repair over a million homes, construction is down from the previous election to this recent one, which means things are getting worse.

Our motion today touches on something very serious. There is a lot of foreign money flowing into Canada's housing market. Some of this is being funded through money laundering and proceeds of crime. In some cases, foreign investors are sitting on the investments and leaving homes empty. There are 1.3 million empty homes in Canada. Obviously, we know this pushes prices up, putting home ownership further and further out of reach for more and more Canadians. The government's solution is to actually tax them 1%. Billionaires have the government on their Christmas card list because of how absolutely generous it is at the cost of Canadians.

Today's motion offers something better for Canadians. It is to ban foreign ownership. Billionaires abroad will not like it, but Canadians will, and our motion today has solutions. In fact, so many of my colleagues have provided thoughtful solutions in the House.

We can take, for example, the vast amount of land and number of buildings the federal government owns, more than 37,000 of them, and we have heard that number before, and nearly 41 million hectares of land. This is a substantial amount of property and buildings that could immediately provide the municipalities and provinces with help on supply. This is, after all, a supply side problem. These are tangible solutions, and we are faced with a government that simply spends more to get less.

I have more in the way of solutions. What can work well is if we tie the building of houses to infrastructure funding, infrastructure has dollars that the government spends on housing supply; that is if the infrastructure dollars ever get out the door. I know there is some trouble with that, but we suggested building more in high-density areas, working with municipalities that are already getting cash for infrastructure. Stakeholders agreed, communities in which they would be built welcomed it and it seemed the government also agreed to at least announce them over and over again, stopping short of just building them.

The motion makes clear that we also never want the government to commit to introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences. For communities like mine, for people like my parents who came to this country in the seventies and fulfilled their dream of home ownership through hard work, they did not have the benefit of fancy financial advisers or a retirement savings plan. For them, the equity in their homes is their retirement plan. That is it, and that is how it is for many. With that tax, I am sure we would not see very many home sales, regardless.

I hope members opposite understand that this is not a phenomenon that exists just in Thornhill. It exists for many others.

I have heard all day from those who have tied themselves in knots with reasons to not support this motion, but I will remind members that we have been talking about solutions. We have heard it from the member for Carleton, who apparently lives rent-free in the heads of the members opposite. Our own platform made commitments to increase the rate of home construction, to build a million homes over the next three years, to make homes more affordable by renewing the extensive real estate portfolio of the government, the largest property owner with over 37,000 buildings, and we are talking about buildings, and releasing at least 15% of that so we can build some more homes. We have talked about requiring municipalities receiving federal funding to tie them to high-density public transit and things like that. We brought forward the notion that encouraged Canadians to invest in rental homes by allowing the deferral of capital gains tax when selling a rental property. Imagine that from the current government.

There are many solutions. We want to see a government committed also to making it easier to get a mortgage.

For those reasons and many others, on this last opposition day of the year, I hope members of the House support the review and consolidation of all federal real estate in order to make 15% of that available for development. I hope members will vote to ban foreign investors from purchasing Canadian real estate and commit to never introducing a capital gains tax on primary residences, ever.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to get right to the last point the member made. She raised the issue about capital gains tax on principal residences. Everybody on this side of the House has said at every opportunity that this will never happen. The finance minister has said it will never happen. The Prime Minister has said it will never happen.

Will she commit to stop saying this when she knows it is not true? The only reason those members are doing it is purely for political purposes, but it does not help the debate on housing in any constructive way.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if that is not true, then I look forward to him supporting the motion.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois made a very simple proposal during the last election campaign. It proposed that, year after year and without exception, the government dedicate 1% of the spending budget to housing, not only to affordable housing, but also to social housing.

I have not heard much about tenants. In Quebec, however, there are over 400,000 tenants who spend more than 30% of their income on rent.

What does my colleague propose for those tenants? Not only do they not have a home but they also face a major problem with affordability and access to housing.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is part of a solution that needs to encompass all types of housing, including rental housing, including those who do not have housing and including those in social housing. I know that the hon. members on this side from my party had spoken about it. I look forward to engaging in a constructive conversation with the hon. member on solutions for the increased supply of rental housing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for this motion today and for talking about housing. We talked a lot about housing for all people. One thing I am worried about is the homeless people in my riding. When the government rolled out its rapid housing initiative, it housed fewer than 5,000 people in its first round. It was the same thing in the second round. There are over 200,000 people who are homeless right now right across our country.

Does my colleague agree that the government needs to rapidly scale up its contribution to the rapid housing initiative so it can house more people? At the rate it is going, it is going to take decades to house the homeless, the most vulnerable people in our country. I am hoping she will support that call to action.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our platform during the last election talked about reimplementing the housing first plan to deal with this. I think there are a lot of different measures we want to see from the government, such as more investment in mental health, a strategy on addiction and wraparound services on recovery. There are some core issues that I think affect some of that population. There could be a lot more done on the periphery of this, including engagement in the housing first plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on something. Today, after question period, there was a question posed for unanimous consent. That unanimous consent would have meant that a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences would be a no-go factor. The Liberal government said that we wanted the Conservatives to be onside to vote against it, but the Conservatives denied that motion to even come forward.

Does the member not recognize that there seems to be a lot of hypocrisy coming from the Conservative Party? With the 15% of land that is going to be available, what parks are they going to shut down or take land from in order to fulfill that commitment?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by asking the member opposite to read the motion. I know my colleague just read it into the record again. He knows very well that he was talking about buildings. There was a period of 62 days after the last election before we recalled everybody to this place and he might have forgotten that promise was actually in the Liberal Party platform. It is on page 13 if the member opposite wants to revisit it. If he believes he is against this today, as he was not during the last election, then I look forward to him supporting the motion today.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on her great speech.

I think it is important to remember why we are here today. The opposition believes it is extremely important to address this cost-of-living crisis. Everything costs more, especially housing.

My colleague from Edmonton Riverbend would agree with me, since he is the one who moved this very important motion for all Canadians.

I would like to take a moment to read it.

That, given that, (i) the government has failed to increase the housing supply in Canada, (ii) the government's $400 billion of new spending has produced a surge of inflationary pressure that has driven home prices more than 30% above pre-pandemic levels, the House call on the government to: (a) review and consolidate all federal real estate and properties in Canada in order to make at least 15% available for residential development; (b) ban foreign investors from purchasing Canadian real estate; and (c) commit to never introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences.

The motion is that simple.

I just received a message from my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière that is hot off the press. It is a press release that was just issued by one of my colleagues, the finance critic, the member for Carleton.

The press release reads as follows: “JustinFlation is coming to a grocery store near you. Families will pay an extra $1,000 to feed themselves in 2022 as inflation balloons. Inflation hurts Canadians, and 80% say that the cost-of-living crisis is making their lives less affordable. Sixty per cent of families with children under the age of 18 are afraid that they will not have enough money to buy food. The report released today only makes the situation worse. The Prime Minister's inflation tax is eating into the paychecks of middle-class Canadians while the Liberals plan to spend even more, pouring inflationary gas on the fire. Government spending increases the cost of living. Spending more money to buy fewer goods results in price increases. Enough is enough.”

That is exactly what we are talking about today. There is a report that tells us the cost of living is going up, not just for housing, but across society, particularly when it comes to groceries. That is worrisome.

The last line in the press release is also worth reading. It says, “It is clear that the Conservatives are the only party looking to lower prices, fight the rising cost of food, and bring an end to just inflation”.

I thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for sending me this press release. I thought that it was important to share it with all of my colleagues in the House, because this is exactly what we are talking about. We are talking about the cost of living. We are talking about young families who are struggling to make ends meet and are stretching their budgets so that they can have a decent standard of living. We are talking today about how more and more young families across Canada are having a tough time realizing their dream of owning their own home.

The member for Durham, the leader of the Conservative Party and the official opposition, said that a poll released yesterday shows that half of Canadians under the age of 30 have given up on the dream of home ownership. Canada is a country of wide open spaces, with room for everyone, and everyone should be able to realize that dream. When half of all young people under 30 give up on the dream of one day owning a home, we certainly have a problem as a society.

To make things worse, this dream will become even less attainable in the coming days, weeks and years, because real estate prices continue to rise. Some say that prices could rise by over 9% again next year. Add to that an expected rise in interest rates, and the dream of home ownership for young Canadian families is becoming increasingly out of reach.

I looked for information to find a way to keep the dream alive for young families and to give them hope.

I have done a lot of research and analysis, and I have talked to all kinds of banks and financial services, but I do not see good news on the horizon under the Liberal government.

The National Bank of Canada released a major report on housing affordability by Kyle Dahms and Alexandra Ducharme. Here is what it says:

Housing affordability in Canada worsened by 1.7 points in Q3’21, marking a third consecutive deterioration since the beginning of the year. Over the last 12 months, affordability has worsened the most in a decade.

It would now take 46.5% of income for a representative household [of the average population] to service the mortgage on a representative home in Canada.

That is not necessarily good news. I have more like that. I did my research, and I tried to find some way to give back hope to young families under 30.

A survey conducted by the Regroupement des comités logement et associations de locataires du Québec found that the scarcity of housing has led to an explosion in costs, which the government's figures do not reflect at all. We see the numbers, but the reality is even worse than what the numbers suggest. According to this study, which was released in June 2021, there is a 49% gap between what the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation studies say and the reality.

The average cost of a rental unit is $1,302 in the metropolitan Montreal census area, which is up 8% over last year. In Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières and Granby, the situation is untenable because prices have increased there too. The situation is difficult because there has been a jump of about 12% compared to last year in what people have to pay for housing.

Other cities in Quebec are also affected. Rents in Granby have increased by 15% compared to last year. Prices have jumped by 10% in the cities of Drummondville, Joliette, Saint-Hyacinthe and Victoriaville. In short, it is never-ending.

A recent December 8 article in Le Devoir indicates that the price of houses spiked by 21%. According to the Quebec Professional Association of Real Estate Brokers, residential property sales in the Montreal area are down and the number of new listings has dropped. There are fewer sales, but the prices have spiked by more than 20% compared to last year, not compared to six years ago, but compared to last year. It is incredible. These people know that to be true because they are the ones selling the homes and making the transactions. They have to know what they are talking about.

The median price of buildings with two to five units increased by 15%. The median price of a single family home rose by 21% to $525,000, and the median price of a condo rose by 18% to $374,000.

I will keep going. I have more examples. Unfortunately, I have pages full of bad examples that will discourage Canadians and young families from finding the means to buy and own a home.

The motion being debated is clear and simple. It calls on the government to do something after six years of inaction. In my view, if the government is sincere about wanting to ensure that young families under the age of 30 can realize their dream of buying a home, it will do the only logical thing it can in the House. It will support the motion moved by my colleague from Edmonton Riverbend and vote with the opposition and the Bloc Québécois in favour of the motion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to support the motion, for many different reasons I articulated earlier today.

I am asking the member to recognize, if we are going to be successful at overcoming the housing crisis in Canada, that the national government has been at the table historically with this Prime Minister. We have not seen the dollars, financial resources and commitment brought to this particular issue in generations. We would have to go back 60 years or 70 years.

We have a Prime Minister and a government committed to the housing file, but we also need provincial governments and municipal governments. How important is it that provinces and cities continue to work with the national government to try to resolve this issue?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to be elected in a municipal government instead of here. Maybe he would see what the responsibilities and roles are of each and every level of government. We are in the House to talk about the Liberal government, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, who make life unaffordable for so many Canadians that they cannot dream of ever buying a new house.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the accessibility of a first home. This summer, the Liberals talked about how young people under the age of 40 could put $40,000 in a tax-free savings account.

That really seemed to be a gift for the rich. In today's world, very few young people under 40 can set aside $40,000. We expect that rich parents will be the ones lending their children money to purchase property and that the property will end up being part of the children's inheritance.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of this measure, which does not really target those who need help buying their first home.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can continue in the same vein. I was the mayor of a municipality. When a government starts throwing a lot of money at something, whether it is housing, construction, or infrastructure, what happens? Prices skyrocket, and then, eventually, nothing more can be done.

The solution of this government, the solution of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance, is to spend more money. We hear the Liberals say that they have spent more money than ever before. The result is that, in this country’s history, the dream of home ownership for people under 30 has slipped out of reach, since this government has been acting this way, thinking that money is the answer to everything.

What is needed is something more well-thought-out, more substantial, more adapted to the reality of today’s young families.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my NDP colleagues and I support the ban on foreign homebuyers and remain committed to not introducing a capital gains tax on the sale of primary residences. This motion is crafted in a way that would allow governments to give up federal land to rich developers essentially for luxury condos. I think the member would agree that is not what we want and that is not what will fix the housing crisis. Would it not be better to ensure that we have public housing, non-market housing or, at the very least, stricter affordability criteria for any development from federal lands?

The Conservatives, while they were in power, decreased investments in co-ops and social housing and did not announce any plans to restore or expand the funds stemming from the expiration of operating agreements. Will the member admit that this was a mistake and we need more co-ops, public housing and non-market housing?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reread paragraph (a) of the motion, which states that the House calls on the government to:

(a) review and consolidate all federal real estate and properties in Canada in order to make at least 15% available for residential development;

I do not see anything in the motion stating that we will favour one group over another. I think that the motion is quite clear. It says that the federal government should dispose of buildings and land in order to create more housing, and to make housing more accessible to Canadians. I see nothing in this motion saying that we are going to favour one group over another.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, whose mother is here with us today.

When I found out that we would be talking about housing today, the first thing that came to mind was a number since I am an economist. That number was 100,000, which is the number of additional housing units we would need in Canada today for our housing per capita ratio to be the same as it was in 2016. That means that since the arrival to power of the Liberals, who blame everything that is wrong in the world on the Harper government, we have generated a deficit of 100,000 housing units. That is serious.

The government blames a lot of things on the pandemic, but the housing crisis existed well before 2016. In 1994, the Liberals under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, in addition to eliminating the deficit on the backs of the provinces, withdrew funding from social housing, which may also happen in Quebec. At that point there was a deficit of 80,000 housing units, which was never filled. The years 1994, 1995 and 1996 were not so long ago when it comes to housing and buildings. Once the foundation for a building is laid, it will last 100, 150, or 200 years.

Therefore, the housing crisis existed before the pandemic, and the stage was set for even the slightest shock to raise concerns for our economy, given that there was so much pressure in this sector and that we had a hard time containing it.

The shock came in the form of a health crisis. What happened? The health authorities locked down the population and people had to stay home. What did people do? Their preferences and their relationship with space changed. We cannot blame Quebeckers and Canadians for wanting a bigger backyard, a bigger lot or a bigger house.

That is how a crisis that was mainly present in our major census metropolitan areas, as shown by the statistics, spread to a first suburb, then a second, then a third, and finally to our farm areas. The result is that, today, it is difficult to find a simple cottage on a recreational lake. It has come to this.

We must prepare for the recovery. Foreign students are returning. We want to increase immigration targets. We have problems recruiting workers. We are told and we believe that these immigrants we are welcoming are the future of Quebec and of our economy.

However, when we look at housing on a per capita basis, we can see that the Liberal government is prepared to make that future sleep on the street. This is a major problem.

Although at the beginning of my speech I showed that things have gotten worse under the Liberals, they are going to tell us that they have tried so very hard and have spent $70 billion on the national housing strategy. Last week I said that I am very fair-minded. Therefore, I checked it out.

When we look at the numbers, we realize that the amount is not really $70 billion but rather half of that, because the funding is shared equally between the federal government and the provinces plus other stakeholders.

One could then think that there is at least $35 billion left over to help our people, those who are having a hard time accessing housing. However, most of this funding is in the form of loans, not supports or subsidies to those who need it the most.

One could then think that at least there is something left, but a closer look at the numbers reveals that 25% of the program funding has not been allocated to date, and that the 25% that has been allocated has not necessarily translated into any bricks being laid.

Even worse, only 6.3% of the funding for the rental construction financing initiative has been allocated. In political polling, 6.3% is within the same margin of error as zero. Less than half of the money of the national housing co-investment fund has been allocated. This is a problem.

That is better than nothing, but what did we get over three years? Nothing. Quebec wanted to be able to spend and invest that money in accordance with its own model. It wanted the money to be transferred, it wanted things to be easy and fluid so it could help people now while they need help. They went back and forth for three years because Ottawa wanted a cute maple leaf in the corner of each cheque. The government is really focused on being there during announcements. People in Quebec could not even watch those announcements because they did not have a house or a living room where they could tune in. That is what happened.

Here is why I will support the motion. I think housing is important, I think we need to talk about it more often and more constructively, and I think there has to be a dialogue. What we are doing today is starting that dialogue. That is why I will support the spirit of the motion.

Now, I would like to talk about the Conservatives for a bit. There are some ambiguities in this motion. The Conservatives' definition of inflation, or at least their crusade against “Justinflation”, is characterized by verbal inflation. In homage to the Conservative leader, I might even suggest that they are employing a little verbal “Erinflation”.

From the preamble to the motion, it seems as though the Conservatives never wanted to help people during the pandemic. They make it sound like the government took a bunch of Hercules aircraft, landed them across the street at the Bank of Canada, filled them with cash and then gave it to so many people that the price of houses went up.

I would remind the House that all parties in this place agreed to help Canadians in a time of crisis in a non-partisan way. Was it done how we wanted and exactly when we wanted? Not necessarily. Were all the amounts right? Not necessarily. Was there the necessary accountability? Perhaps not. Did it go on too long? Did we miss the mark? Maybe, but everyone agreed to it.

This suggests that the Conservatives may not be as willing as the Bloc to help those who are most vulnerable. Let us take the example of the federal lands. The Liberals are going to ask me what land we want. We want Mirabel back.

That said, when the decision is made to build more housing and to increase the housing supply—because, yes, the supply of housing needs to be increased—it is crucial to begin with those who are struggling the hardest, with those who need it most. Some will say that these housing markets are all interconnected. As an economist, I know this full well. We will hear that when a million-dollar house is built, a million-dollar family moves in, which will free up a smaller house for a less wealthy family. That in turn will free up an even smaller house for another family, and this will eventually free up a three-bedroom apartment for those who need it most. However, it takes a long time for all this housing to trickle down. Meanwhile, people are suffering. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of households in Quebec alone are spending more than 30% of their income on rent. This is unacceptable.

Yes, I support this motion, because I think that it is a way for the Conservatives to do some soul-searching, given the enormous damage they did during the Harper years. I support it, and I will say that to the Liberals.

Obviously, some action has been taken, but that action has been flawed. In fact, it is much more flawed than they care to admit. This soul-searching is needed, because, with the government dragging its feet, taking too long to negotiate with Quebec, and failing to give Quebeckers their own money back so that there can be a strategy made in Quebec for Quebeckers, too many are left waiting, too many are left suffering.