House of Commons Hansard #113 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was prices.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. We noted that there was no funding in the last Liberal budget for the urban aboriginal strategy. My colleague lives in an urban area and represents the people there.

Some 40% of indigenous people live in urban centres and, although they represent only 5% of Canada's population, they account for 30% of emergency shelter users. Can my colleague tell us where we are with the urban aboriginal strategy?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that we are committed to co-developing an urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy and that the dollars are there, but we are waiting for the indigenous housing providers to articulate exactly what the new urban, rural and northern housing centre should look like, how it should be funded, what priorities should be set, and what kind of communities should be built.

For the government to arbitrarily set a dollar figure and to arbitrarily and unilaterally decide which program funding models are going to be pursued would betray the “nothing about us without us” concept and the “for indigenous, by indigenous” principles that indigenous housing providers have demanded of the federal government.

We are in the process of setting up the other side of the table and supporting indigenous housing providers as they move forward on that project. We will see the full weight of federal spending arrive when that table is constructed, to start building housing in urban, rural and northern centres.

In the interim, every single part of the national housing strategy is open to indigenous housing providers. If members look at the recent rapid housing initiative, close to a third of the dollars and almost 40% of the units went to indigenous housing providers.

We are very serious about solving the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing crisis in this country. We will work with indigenous housing providers to deliver the housing that is needed to meet those needs. We are fully committed to realizing—

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Tim Louis Liberal Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his leadership and his advocacy in the field of housing.

I recently hosted a round table discussion with stakeholders in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, talking about the national housing strategy. One of the things that came up was, in smaller communities, seniors wanting to be able to downsize and stay in their community. Can the member discuss how we can work together as a federal government with municipalities and developers, even churches and organizations that have land, understanding the needs of their local realities, especially in these smaller municipalities, so people can age at home in their communities and stay with their families?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, the national housing strategy sets a target for seniors housing and, for the first time ever, has a carve-out specifically for seniors in retirement living. We are also stepping up with long-term care investments, which is another form of housing, with deeper supports that benefit not just seniors but all sorts of Canadians who live in long-term care facilities, who require supports to realize the highest quality of life possible at affordable rates.

Working with seniors-led organizations, there is a project in Woodstock, a fascinating project that is off the grid. It actually contributes more electricity to the city than it takes. It was built not just with national housing strategy dollars but also with some of the funds made available through NRCan and through our programs that support the conversion of housing or the upgrading of the environmental performance of housing. It is a form of housing that is actually cheaper to operate and therefore has a lower price for seniors.

It has been working with the local city government to waive fees; it has been categorizing the waiving of fees as a contribution. It delivered seniors housing to keep people in a small rural community and to allow the homes they used to occupy to be made available to more Canadians to purchase.

All of the elements of the national housing strategy approach all of the different housing needs, and seniors are not forgotten in this calculation, nor are people with disabilities or people with specific medical needs who require specific kinds of housing to be built to accommodate the choices they need to make in their lives. Seniors are a very strong—

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We have a moment for one last question.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, I know the sincerity of his deep commitment to housing.

I am looking at the budget for this new tax, which he mentioned briefly, of 1% on non-resident vacant housing. I note in the budget that there will be consultations and more details. Can the hon. parliamentary secretary tell us whether he thinks 1% is enough, and whether this might apply to the increasing use of online bookings for what is replacing bed and breakfasts now, as people book in non-resident vacant housing for their vacations instead of staying in hotels?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Adam Vaughan Liberal Spadina—Fort York, ON

Mr. Speaker, as several other members have spoken to, the federal government does not act alone in the housing sector. B.C. also has some very strong measures around foreign ownership and vacant housing, so we are adding to that. It is not the federal government alone that is trying to curb that speculative force out of the market. We are working very hard with the B.C. government to explore other options and other methods, including using FINTRAC to trace some of the questionable money-laundering techniques that are hurting housing prices in this country and pushing them away from Canadians.

We have also worked with municipalities that are bringing in regulations to limit Airbnb or ghost hotels emerging in new projects. We have worked very closely using the tax codes to track ownership, to tax it properly as income-producing property, and to make sure that we try to return much of that housing to the market so that Canadians can buy it, instead of having it rented out in a speculative manner. We are working with municipalities on that front to provide a solution.

Each one of these methods by itself may not appear to have a comprehensive approach to solving the problem overnight. I wish there were a flip of the switch that we could trigger to solve the crisis, but we have to work on all these fronts: limiting Airbnb's impact on the market, limiting foreign ownership, limiting the money laundering, limiting the way speculation is driving housing prices. All of these measures are being approached through the national housing strategy, while we also focus on social housing supply and new market rentals. It is a comprehensive, coordinated approach—

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

We will have to end that segment.

I will ask members to indulge me for a moment before we resume debate.

Last Thursday, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands offered some wonderful words in tribute to my work here in the House and, in my haste, I did not properly thank and recognize her for those words and the wonderful way in which she expressed them, as she always does. I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

The housing issue is a major cause of concern. Like food and clothing, housing is an essential need. Any self-respecting society must at least be able to ensure that every individual has access to housing.

The cost of housing must also be reasonable. These concerns are shared by virtually every country, city and village in the world. No place in the world seems to be immune to rental and real estate market disruptions, despite the fact that we do not live like Jack London’s People of the Abyss.

When a problem arises, solutions appear to be varied and complex, and several crises have shown that, when the situation gets out of hand, it can be serious and long-lived, causing much suffering. We need to take this very seriously, we need to be concerned about the housing shortage and skyrocketing rents, and we have to take strong and concrete action right now.

It has become difficult to access not only affordable housing, but home ownership as well. People’s ability to become homeowners must be protected at all costs. On this, I would like to refer to Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. In this book, Piketty stresses the historical importance of the emergence of the middle class. Higher income levels allowed the middle class to build up a little capital, which largely manifested in the purchase of property. It was a real revolution, and we must preserve our gains.

Preserving the ability of the working class to become homeowners is a crucial issue for anyone who wants to live in a society where wealth is not over-concentrated. Today, though, how can a person who earns $45,000 a year, the median salary in Quebec, buy a $690,000 house, the median price of a home in Montreal?

Even a $385,000 house is virtually out of reach. Still, that is the median price of a house in the most affordable area, the north shore of Montreal. Even with two salaries it is very difficult to afford buying, even a condo.

We are witnessing an alignment between income and real estate and rent prices. Prices of real estate are rising, making it a good investment for people who can afford it. However, rising real estate costs reduce home ownership opportunities for the less fortunate, which is eroding the middle class. The situation is leading us away from the type of society we want.

Skyrocketing real estate prices have led to a boom in rental costs. Individuals and families are spending far too large a percentage of their income on housing. As a general rule, housing costs should not exceed one third of income, and ideally they should account for about a quarter. Unfortunately, this is less and less the case. We are now at the point where this basic need is becoming less and less affordable.

Let me give two examples. Today, if I want to rent a small apartment in Montreal, I will have to pay $1,200 a month. This is 30% higher than in 2019, and three and a half times more than I was paying when I was in university about 20 years ago. Obviously, salaries have not increased by 30% since the beginning of the pandemic, and they have not tripled in the past 20 years. The upshot is that many individuals and families are devoting a much larger proportion of their income to housing. The corollary is that they have to cut down on other costs. First they cut out the little extras and treats, but they soon find themselves having to choose which basic needs to forgo. That is the point that regular folks have reached, and it is not acceptable.

My second example concerns Saint-Jean-de-Matha. About 15 years ago, I went to see a small house for sale on a nice lot right in the middle of town. The house was really cute. The seller, a friend of mine, was embarrassed to ask for $34,000 because he had bought the house from another friend a few years earlier for $25,000. That is how things are in Saint-Jean-de-Matha: everyone knows each other, and everyone is friends with one another. He ended up selling his house for $30,000 because he could not bring himself to price it at full market value. Today, that house or its equivalent would sell for at least $150,000. However, salaries have not increased 500% in the past 15 years. The price will probably even continue to rise, because $150,000 is well below the median house price on the north shore, never mind in Montreal proper.

In recent decades, there has been an overall increase in residential real estate prices and rents. Of course, all this has gotten worse since the beginning of the pandemic. It is not all that surprising, since people spent more on housing during the pandemic. There were fewer places to spend money, and people wanted to spend the lockdown in a bigger place with more space. However, this latest surge in prices is highlighting a problem that has existed for decades. There are several factors involved, and there is no simple solution for stabilizing the market. Low interest rates played a role. Mortgage payments are monthly. When interest rates fall, people can buy a more expensive home and keep the same monthly payment. That makes sense.

However, when interest rates begin to rise again, then they are in trouble. That is why I agree with the new measure that requires people to demonstrate their ability to pay a higher interest rate before they obtain financing. That should help bring the market to a more acceptable level.

Obviously, the issue of foreign investors is troubling. The promise to grant citizenship to a person who comes and buys a $500,000 condo has always been a bad idea. The goal was to attract capital, but it caused real estate prices to climb and reduced the number of available housing units, since these condos usually sit empty. This sucks the life out of the downtown cores, because there are not as many people living there. We need to revise this policy, and I am not certain that the 1% tax will help.

We are having the same type of problem with foreign money laundering in real estate, which is causing prices to shoot up and reducing the number of housing units available. We need to address this problem as well, since it is unacceptable and extremely detrimental.

We also have to tackle the issue of Airbnb and other sharing platforms. The prospect of renting one's home to a tourist is appealing, but it becomes problematic when many homes are rented to tourists and are no longer used to house people. That exacerbates scarcity and drives up rent. That has to change.

The government plays an essential role in the social housing supply. When it plays its role well, it supports low-income individuals and families and indirectly helps keep prices more realistic across the market. Unfortunately, Ottawa has been neglecting that role for nearly 30 years. New investments are still nowhere near historical levels, and that has consequences. When Ottawa chose to cut funding for social housing, it was well aware that its decision would lead to misery and distress, and it knew full well that its actions would contribute to the problems we are having today.

I welcome the new funding for social housing and homelessness. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not nearly enough. Actual dollar amounts may have increased, but Ottawa has in fact reduced its funding as a percentage of GDP. We need the government to keep up, not gradually fall behind. I also condemn the lack of predictability and the unjustified delays in transferring the money to Quebec.

The Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, points out the importance of specifically targeting social housing.

Whether it is co-operative, non-profit or public, social housing protects tenants from exorbitant rent increases, repossessions and renovictions.

We must also remember the whole issue of housing for first nations people, especially in urban areas. That is very important.

Let us also consider that with such an increase in housing prices and rent, we should expect an increase in residential construction, because an increase in the housing stock will help rebalance market forces. We must figure out how to juggle the land shortage and the issue of urban sprawl, while bearing in mind concerns about climate change. This increase is also held back by the availability of resources. Building housing takes time, and we are currently seeing that the construction sector cannot meet demand. As a result, prices are increasing, especially for building materials.

I would like to remind my colleagues that Quebec and the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over housing. Since housing needs vary considerably depending on the socio-demographic context, the provincial and municipal governments are in a better position to assess and identify their residents' needs, since they are closer to local issues. They are asking the federal government to increase funding for social housing and to immediately transfer the necessary funds to Quebec and the provinces, no strings attached.

In conclusion, I would like to remind members how important it is to have a healthy real estate market. The well-being of regular people and the less fortunate depends on it. That is the type of society we want to live in. We must also watch out for real estate bubbles. Think about the bubble in Tokyo in the 1990s, when the land value of downtown Tokyo surpassed the value of the entire state of California, or the subprime crisis in the U.S. When these bubbles burst, there are always terrible consequences, and we need to avoid them at all costs.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the intervention by the member from the Bloc Québécois. He was very thoughtful and covered a number of areas.

In the speech given earlier in the chamber by the member from Toronto, he talked about how Mr. Harper tried to teach him a lesson about the Constitution. I remember that during the Harper years, Mr. Harper negotiated affordable housing frameworks with British Columbia to provide services. I see that the member from the Bloc Québécois also thinks that local areas and the provincial government, which has a responsibility under the Constitution, are the most effective choices for doing this.

It seems to me that there is a disagreement in how the government operates. It seems to want an Ottawa-knows-best methodology, or mythology depending on how we see it, instead of directly supporting agencies that have the expertise. What does the member have to say about that?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. First, I want to remind him of the Liberal government's cuts to social housing in the 1990s. This caused hardship to ordinary people, and we must not forget that.

Second, as my colleague and I both mentioned earlier, elected officials in the municipalities, the provinces and Quebec are more familiar with their communities and are in the best position to implement successful social housing policies. The role of the federal government is to transfer money, because Canada is a federation. The federal government needs to stop trying to manage everything and stick its nose in everywhere, trying to set conditions. That is not a federation; that is a central government. Ottawa is disconnected and out of touch with the people.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned FRAPRU and the strong work it does in advocating for better housing policy in Quebec. I have had many conversations with its representatives over the years, including when we launched the national housing strategy and dealt with the demand that all the dollars simply be shifted to the provinces while we hope for the best. They were very critical of that approach. They said that some pockets in Quebec were favoured and others were being punished by the provincial government. They need federal money to be available to all housing providers in Quebec, not just simply sent to the provinces so they can play their political games with housing dollars.

The housing sector and the activists in Quebec say they want a blended system operated by federal, provincial and municipal governments. They want options to pursue so they can get funding when one level of government is not responding to their analysis of the housing need. How are we to respond to them and to FRAPRU if all we do is simply ignore them?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. What FRAPRU is asking the federal government for is more funding.

Even with the funds announced in recent years, federal investments in housing have fallen as a percentage of GDP. Then there are the interminable delays. It is terrible that social housing and homelessness initiatives are being subjected to longer and longer delays. Parliament voted for funding, but no money has been spent. In the meantime, families are ending up homeless or without social housing. The federal government needs to do more and do it faster. It needs to transfer the money.

More decision-making centres, especially in areas that are not under federal jurisdiction, means more bias, more bureaucracy, and fewer public services. We need to act now and provide better funding.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Joliette, who always has something interesting to say. There is a shortage of social housing, yet social housing is the best tool for putting a decent roof over people's heads and reducing poverty.

Does my colleague not also think that social housing can benefit people who want to buy a home, because it helps cool the overheated housing market?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I salute and thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his tireless advocacy on behalf of ordinary people, particularly on the housing issue.

When there is a good social housing system in place, it reduces the pressure to raise the rent across the housing market. That is the system we want, because housing is a necessity. Our society must ensure that there is enough housing to accommodate everyone. There is a clear link between the two.

Ottawa must do a better job of funding social housing by restoring funding to the levels that were in place before the cutbacks of the 1990s.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by echoing the comments made by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP earlier regarding the tragic events that occurred in London yesterday.

Like all Canadians, I was shocked by what I heard about this tragic event. We obviously still have not found the right words in this country to ensure that events like this do not happen again. On behalf of all Quebeckers and all Canadians, my thoughts go out to little Fayez Salman, who is about to go through a truly difficult time. We need to do more, and we need to do better. I think this is the responsibility of all Canadians, including all parliamentarians. That is what I wanted to say about what happened in London.

Now, as for the motion before us, I am quite happy to be talking about it, to say the least. At the same time, a question comes to mind. This is a Conservative motion. Today in the House, we are going to talk about housing, at the behest of the Conservatives.

I have been an MP for a year and a half. I was elected a year and a half ago, and I am the Bloc Québécois housing and homelessness critic. I do not recall seeing the Conservatives rise once on the issue of housing. I do not remember seeing that at all.

Are they doing this because there is an election on the horizon? They might be thinking that it is time to talk about housing, which seems to be an issue since there is a housing crisis. No, I did not forget. I have just never heard them say a word about it. I am not always here, but it is an important issue. There is a housing crisis going on in Quebec and Canada. In fact, it is more complicated than that. There was a housing crisis before. Now there is a pandemic housing crisis, and there will be a housing crisis later.

I recently spoke with members of the Réseau SOLIDARITÉ itinérance du Québec. According to them, we are going through a health crisis, but we are facing a social crisis that could last five to 10 years. They think that the adverse effects of the current pandemic will linger for years.

The government we have right now is not doing anything, or at least not enough. There are problems with housing, and the government needs to step up. I want to give some context about how this crisis is playing out in Quebec. What is the issue?

Right now, there are 450,000 households in Quebec in serious need of housing. That is equivalent to about five or six federal ridings' worth of people who are spending 30% of their income on housing or living in substandard or inadequate housing. Some people may be paying a reasonable amount, but to share a one-bedroom apartment with seven other people. That does not work.

Some 200,000 households are spending more than 50% of their income on housing. These figures are from before the pandemic. Last, but not least, is a shocking figure that I have been repeating in the House for the past year and a half. I do not even understand how we can allow this to happen. Before the crisis, 82,000 households in Quebec were spending more than 80% of their income on housing.

To give members an idea of what that means, 80% of an income of $20,000 means that $16,000 is spent on housing, with nothing or practically nothing left over. If we divide the remaining $4,000 by 12 months, members can just imagine what kind of life that is. My mother called it living in squalor. We are letting that happen.

Right now, in Quebec, 40,000 households are on the waiting list for low-rental housing in Longueuil, Saint-Hyacinthe, Rimouski, Brossard and Montreal. There are 23,000 households on the waiting list in Montreal alone.

We are talking about numbers. With regard to homelessness, Mayor Valérie Plante said that it appears the homeless population doubled during the pandemic. It went from 3,000 to 6,000 because people were made vulnerable by the crisis. We saw it last year in the streets. People set up camp along Notre-Dame Street. This year, they have been moved, but it does not seem as though the situation has been resolved.

We know that house prices have increased by about 20%. That also contributes to making people vulnerable. Obviously, the federal government has a role to play in this. Obviously, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction. In 2017, the federal government launched a major, multi-billion dollar strategy, saying that it would house everybody, that nothing like this had been done in 30 years, and that everyone would see that the government was going to take care of people, people who were vulnerable and at risk.

I do not remember how many billions were promised as part of that strategy. For three years, the federal government spent money everywhere in Canada except Quebec. The crisis raged on, but no money was spent, not a penny. It took three years to sort the situation out, and the Canada-Quebec agreement was signed in October of last year. However, I have heard that sectoral agreements are still being signed and that things are still being worked out.

Earlier, while I was asking a question that my colleague, as usual, did not answer, I provided a striking example relating to renovations. The agreement includes nearly $1.2 billion to renovate decrepit low-rental housing. That is a good thing, and we are happy about it because our cities are full of boarded-up low-rental housing that we need to invest in.

In early May, as part of the agreement that was signed three years after the national housing strategy was launched in 2017, it was announced that 500 new units would be renovated in Montreal. However, no one could move into these units for three years.

If the agreement had been signed three years ago, we could have housed a single mother in my riding who was the victim of domestic violence. She made the headlines in the Journal de Montréal about a month ago. This poor woman does not have a home and is in a vulnerable position. She was trapped in a toxic relationship, but the government is doing nothing to help. In Longueuil, a single mother in her situation needs a two- or three-bedroom apartment, which costs between $1,500 and $1,700 a month. There are none to be had. If the federal government had acted quickly, instead of trying to get its flag on the cheques to show that it was the one providing housing for people, this woman would already have a place to live.

The government has finally reacted. Let us put the agreement aside and talk about the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, that was launched by the government last fall. I must admit that it is not a bad program, but it is grossly underfunded.

The first part of the program was for the big cities and had a budget of $500 million, which is scandalous in and of itself. Of that $500 million, Toronto received $200 million, Montreal $57 million and Quebec City $7 million or $8 million. Why is that? In Quebec, we have 23% of the population, but we received only 11% of the money. Is that because our needs are not as great? I never got a decent answer to that question.

The second part of the RHI was for everyone: non-profit organizations, other organizations and towns, among others. An application portal was opened and that is when we really saw the crisis come to the surface, when the program received applications for projects worth a total of as much as $4.2 billion. However, the envelope for that second part of the program was only $500 million.

The applications were for projects for people with real needs, desperate needs: victims of spousal abuse, addicts, people suffering with mental illness. We know what mental illness is. We have talked about it quite a bit throughout the crisis. We could have taken care of those people.

The organizations that submitted project applications were not just a bunch of guys who had nothing better to do between periods in a hockey game and so decided to submit a project to address domestic violence before the start of the third period. The application process is complicated, and these are serious individuals who know and care about the needs of their communities. The projects were valued at over $4 billion, but there was only $500 million in the envelope. When we talk about underfunding and say that people's needs are not being met, that is what we are talking about.

Meanwhile, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents municipalities across Canada, whether it be Calgary, Toronto, Victoriaville or Rimouski, applied for $7 billion under this same program. It saw an opportunity and thought that it was a good program and that the government was reinvesting.

In closing, while I have probably made my point to the members of the House, I would still like to reiterate that the government is not doing enough and not moving fast enough. We are not taking care of people and ensuring they are properly housed. We need massive reinvestment in social housing and we need it now.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his dynamic intervention.

When the parliamentary secretary spoke earlier today, he mentioned that the Liberal plan addresses every single component of the housing continuum and in that is saying the government is addressing supply. We have to assume if it is already addressing supply, then it had a role in leading to the affordability crisis we are facing today. What would the member from the Bloc Québécois say to that?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understood the question, but there is something very interesting about which little has been said and that I have not spoken about in connection with housing.

The government is saying that rent is not that high. The average rent in Montreal is $895. The problem is that the average rent of available housing is 30% higher. Currently, the average cost of available housing in Montreal is $1,300 a month. We need to consider that. We must do something to help.

A little earlier, I spoke about the woman from Longueuil. There are many people like her, people made vulnerable by the pandemic and who are waiting for social housing. We must do something for these people.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I support the member's call for more. Members will never hear me say that we have done enough. We are doing more than the previous government and we have more work to do.

I would like the member to respond to several positions advanced by Conservative MPs in this conversation about cutting red tape at the municipal level, taking away zoning regulations that the cities of Montreal and Sherbrooke have put in place, and overriding the provinces' planning criteria and jurisdiction in the supply chain as they manage, as many have said, the exclusive responsibility around planning, zoning and construction standards in provinces.

Does the member from the Bloc support the Conservative position that we should be overriding and changing the local jurisdiction's rules and regulations around the construction and siting of housing, and what sort of housing gets built in local municipalities and ignore provincial jurisdiction over planning acts at the provincial level? Should the federal government be intervening in that way?

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

I would ask the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert to be patient as there is a point of order.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary is misrepresenting the position of the Conservative Party.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

That is debate.

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Opposition Motion—Housing PolicyBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Denis Trudel Bloc Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else to say. The same thing happens with health care. Housing is a provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government needs to send money to the provinces. Historically, the federal government has established its authority over spending. It is responsible for the crisis we are in now because it does not spend enough.

I cannot get over this. Over the past 15 months, the government has spent $400 billion on all kinds of things, which were good things, but why can it not seem to find $3 billion or $4 billion to house the most vulnerable?

I do not get it.