Debates of Oct. 30th, 2023

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I am looking at some numbers. This goes right to the member's own constituency. I know she does not support the government's policies dealing with housing but there is the 651 Cambridge Avenue project. From what I understand there are going to be 75 units, not to mention the commitment for the housing accelerator fund to provide millions of dollars in Kelowna—Lake Country toward the construction of 950 homes.

The member is exceptionally critical of the government and the government's policies of developing homes. Would she be prepared to be straightforward and honest with her constituents in her comments by saying whether that means she does not support these government-supported initiatives?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at what the results are as to why we are in this housing crisis. The results speak for themselves. People are paying twice as much for rent than they were eight years ago when the government took over. They are paying twice as much for houses. As I mentioned in my intervention, it takes as long right now to save for a down payment as it did to save for one's home. Those are the results of the government. The results speak for themselves.

It is incredibly challenging for people. I talk to residents in my community all the time. They have multi generations moving back in together and adults still living in their parents' homes. It is incredibly challenging for people and those are the results of the government after eight years.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Conservatives act as though they are the saviours of the housing crisis, but of course they are and were part of the problem that created the housing crisis. They cancelled the co-op housing program in 1992 and severely cut social housing funding. In fact, we just heard the leader of the Conservatives today talk about social housing and co-op housing as though it was a Soviet-style model of delivery of housing.

My question to the member is this. If they really want to actually address the housing crisis like they claim to, why are they not taking on wealthy investors who are jacking up rent, renovicting people, displacing people and rendering them to the streets?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is aware of this, but there are rent controls in certain provinces in this country.

The fact of the matter is that people cannot even afford to rent the most simple of places. We have people living in tents. We have people living in RVs in parking lots. The affordability crisis is really affecting people. They cannot even afford food, let alone housing. It is driving people even further into this housing crisis because everything costs more, including the government's tax increases and the inflation that is happening, leading to interest rates that are where they are.

Everything is becoming more expensive, and it is literally driving people into places where they cannot even afford basic necessities. Those are the results of this NDP-Liberal government over the last eight years.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who also sits on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I am trying to understand the motion. This is a committee report on the national housing strategy. We got information directly from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, and the strategy. The report contains some 15 recommendations. Certainly, some observations can be made. Has the national housing strategy worked? If not, why?

Instead of recommitting it to the committee, the motion should say that the recommendations have not gone where they needed to go, namely to the government, so that it can take note of them and deliver results.

We already have another report on financialization. We heard from CMHC again today. I want to try to understand why this report that the committee produced has to be recommitted, through this motion, to committee instead of being approved by the government.

As it stands, I disagree.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most, if not the most, important topics we are dealing in Canada right now. It is really important we get this right.

I would encourage the member to read the Conservative dissenting report that we have tabled, which brings out some disparate views that we heard during the committee testimony. It is really important that we spend more time focusing on this very important issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, typically, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House on the issue of the day. We all know that this was not supposed to be the issue of the day. This is the Conservative Party once again playing a political game on the floor of the House of Commons, preventing legislation from passing. The Conservatives do not really have anything to say about the legislation, so instead they bring in a concurrence motion to try to frustrate the government's ability to pass legislation.

That has somewhat been lost so far in the discussion that we witnessed after question period. Housing is, no doubt, a very important issue. I do not question that at all. In fact, when it comes to housing, when I was first elected back in 1988 to the Manitoba legislature, I was the housing critic along with the party whip at the time. I can say that even prior to that point, I had an active interest in housing and in non-profit housing in particular with the creation of the Weston Housing Co-op, and in working with associations like Blake Gardens and Gilbert Park to a certain extent after I got elected, on the Gilbert Park aspect of it. I had an interest in infill homes and the importance of having governments engaged in dealing with housing issues, from suburban new homes to inner-city housing problems of dilapidated homes that needed to be torn down, to vacant lots that were available and to housing renewal programs to improve the housing stock. Therefore, the issue of housing is not new to me at all. I am very familiar with it and I am very comfortable with respect to the way that the Government of Canada in the last number of years has approached this issue.

Before I get into some of the details of that issue, the reason we are debating once again another concurrence motion has not been lost on me. We all know that there is a finite amount of time here in terms of debate. The Conservatives always cry over there not being enough time for debate when it comes to government legislation. They constantly do that. They will whimper away. They will cry and say they want more debate, that we are limiting debate and bringing in time allocation. The Conservatives do not want to sit late nights; they have demonstrated that. They have shown that they will adjourn debates even before the day is over, but they will whine and cry that there is not enough debate on government bills. At the same time, they will prevent government bills from being debated. Then they will say that today's choice is housing, so they dig in and find the issue of housing and say that here is a super important issue. Yes, it is important, but every issue that the Conservatives bring to the floor through the concurrence debate they will claim is an important one. However, the primary purpose is not to debate the issue at hand; it is to prevent the debate on government bills.

Again, let us look at the amendment that has been brought forward and that the Speaker just finished reading. What is the essence of the amendment? The Conservatives want to bring it back to committee. I wonder if the member who moved the motion even brought it up at the agenda. We are going to have three hours of debate on this motion. Did the Conservative Party even raise the issue of having this debate at the standing committee? I would not be surprised if it did not. Actually, I would think that the members know full well that everything we are going to be debating for three hours here could have been very easily done in the standing committee. However, the problem with doing that is that it would have obligated the Conservatives to come up with some other excuse or to allow the debate on what was supposed to be debated today, which was Bill C-34, the investment Canada bill. The Conservatives talk a lot about foreign interference, but when the rubber hits the ground, they are slipping and sliding all over the place.

At the end of the day, there is a very strong correlation between foreign investment and foreign interference, and what we have seen is the Conservative Party now using the issue of housing as a way to allow the debate to continue. The Conservatives are making it very clear that if we want to see that legislation pass, like many other pieces of legislation, the government will ultimately have to bring in time allocation. We have to wait until we can get support from an opposition party in order to be able to bring in time allocation. Conservatives will tell people outside the chamber that they are concerned about foreign interference, but if anything, all they do is cause a filibuster and put up roadblocks to prevent good legislation from ultimately, in this case, going to committee, where it can actually be debated and talked about in great detail and brought toward amendments. The current government, unlike the previous government, is actually open to amendments if they are good ones, even if they come from the opposition side.

The Conservatives did the same thing in regard to the Ukraine debate and on many pieces of legislation. One would think they would be a little more sensitive in terms of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. If we can pass legislation, I believe it in Canadians' best interest, like a lot of the legislation we are bringing forward. The debate the Conservative Party wants to have today, in terms of housing, could just as easily have been done in a standing committee; in fact, the amendment is suggesting that it be done and brought to a standing committee of the House.

If only we were able to use the government business portion to deal with government bills, maybe we would not have so many whining and crying Tories saying we are bringing in time allocation and not allowing enough time for them to debate government legislation. I would argue they cannot have it both ways. They cannot bring in all of these different filibuster types of motions and then go to Canadians and say that we are not allowing them to debate bills. That is what they are doing, and to make it even more of a challenge, when we as a government say we want to provide more time and sit until midnight, the Conservatives are the first ones who jump up, yelling and screaming, and say no to that. How many times have we seen Conservatives stand up in their place and say, “I move now, seconded by so-and-so, that so-and-so be heard to speak”? It is not so the person can speak; instead of debating, it actually causes the bells to ring. That is what I mean by Tory games. That is really what this is: a reckless Conservative Party of Canada that does not understand the value of being more productive on the floor of the House of Commons. That is really quite unfortunate, because we all collectively pay the price.

I talk about housing because I, as I know my colleagues do, take the issue of housing very seriously. Even at times when the opposition is doing nothing but focusing attention on character assassination, we continue to be focused on the issues that are important and relevant to Canadians, whether it is inflation, interest rates or the cost of housing.

I go back to 1993, when something was felt here in Ottawa at the time, by every political party inside the chamber. Whether they were Reformers, Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats, every political party back then advocated that Ottawa's role in housing should be marginalized. I remember it well because I can remember debating, in the north end of Winnipeg, why it was important that Ottawa play a role in housing in Canada, why we should ensure, within the Constitution, that Canada, as a national government, plays a role.

Whether it was back then, when there was no political will, it seemed, from any political party to recognize the value of a national government's playing a role in housing, or today, my opinion has never changed. When one thinks of housing as an issue, one would probably have to go back to the world wars to find a prime minister who was as keen on developing a housing strategy. In fact, that is what this report is about. The Conservatives want to criticize the national housing strategy. They are saying, in essence, that we should not have one. They are being critical of the money we have invested in the national housing strategy.

I do not know the exact numbers today. If I were to speculate, I know that when I was the housing critic, we had somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000-plus non-profit housing units. Those housing units, in places like Gilbert Park, which I have represented for many years and still do at the national level now, provided affordable housing. That is not the only option out there; there are other forms of affordable housing that are important to support. When one thinks of the raw numbers, of a direct grant that goes toward a block of housing units, the federal government spends literally millions, going into the hundreds of millions of dollars every year, supporting non-profit housing from coast to coast to coast. The national housing strategy took that into consideration in terms of providing the assurance of multi-year budgeting potential. It provided the finances to ensure that a large portion of the non-profit housing stock can actually be maintained through capital improvements.

When the Conservatives start criticizing the national housing strategy, they need to factor in the tens of thousands of homes in the regions of Canada that are, in fact, being supported through the strategy, directly and often indirectly also. They want to have that kind of a debate. They want to hear some of the numbers. I would suggest that, at least in part, the motion that was brought forward makes some sense, in the sense that it is a great issue for a standing committee to deal with.

Think in terms of the alternatives to housing that are government-owned and government-operated, either directly or indirectly, through different groups or the municipalities or provinces but supported in good part by federal dollars. Think outside that box. Think of housing co-ops. Before I was elected as a MLA, there was the Weston Residents Housing Co-op. It was a way in which we were able to help revitalize a community and, at the same time, provide affordable housing for many people. I think of Willow Park and Willow Part East. Willow Park East might be the oldest housing co-op in Canada and possibly even in North America. Housing co-ops, I believe, are a wonderful opportunity for people to have joint ownership. There is a huge difference between a housing co-op and, let us say, an apartment block. I always say that in a housing co-op, someone is a resident, not a tenant, because they own. They have collective ownership of the property, so they have a lot more in terms of opportunities. For the first time in years, we now have a government that has been supporting housing co-ops and wants to see the expansion of that area.

What about non-profit groups? One of the most successful non-profits we have in the country today is Habitat for Humanity. In the province of Manitoba, it excels. It has probably put in more infill houses than any government program that I can recall offhand. In the province of Manitoba, it is about 500 brand new homes in communities, whether in Winnipeg North, The Maples, Point Douglas or everywhere in between. It is making these homes available to people who would never have had the opportunity to get homes. The federal government supports Habitat for Humanity because we recognize the important role that non-profit agencies have when it comes to housing.

We have taken a litany of budgetary actions that have provided opportunities for the federal government to play a strong leadership role in housing. The Conservatives say that the housing market is what it is today because of the federal government. I hate to think what it would have been like if Stephen Harper were the prime minister today. There are challenges, but it is wrong to say that it is all about Ottawa and the Government of Canada. I have news: It is not going to be the Government of Canada that resolves the issue, in terms of providing money. The Government of Canada has a strong leadership role to play, something the current Leader of the Opposition and Stephen Harper never provided when they were in government. We are at the table. We are working with municipalities and provinces, developing programs and encouraging the type of builds we need. That is why we have the rental support for new units to be built, anticipating tens of thousands of new units to come on stream over the coming years as a direct result of the federal government's initiative of getting rid of the GST on new builds.

Some provinces are now piggybacking on that particular policy. It is maybe four or five provinces to date. I hope the Province of Manitoba does likewise. It would ensure additional units being built in the future. It is not just Ottawa. In some provinces, the housing crisis is more severe than in others. We feel the pain in all areas. That is why the desire of the government is to try to assist and support local municipalities, not to take a big stick and whomp them over the head, saying that this is what they have to do. It is working with municipalities and working with the provinces. It is recognizing that non-profit groups also have a role to play. I believe it takes a team. The private sector obviously has to play a role; in fact, it will be playing the largest role in terms of overall construction.

The federal government is at the plate in many different ways, whether with the national housing strategy or with implementation through numerous federal budgets, to be there to support Canadians on the important issue of housing. We will continue to be there because we understand that it is an issue Canadians have to plow their way through, knowing that the federal government has their back and that it is doing what it can as a national government to ensure that the issues of affordability, the number of homes and renovations are all being taken into consideration.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to that lengthy speech. It was long enough that the member for Kingston and the Islands probably could have put out about three polls on Twitter.

When I listen to the member, I always come back to thinking about the disastrous Trudeau legacy of the seventies and eighties. These guys get a little confused sometimes between the disastrous Liberal legacies, but the legacy of the seventies and eighties led to an economic crisis, a housing crisis and a unity crisis. During the member's speech, he talked about the situation with housing in some provinces being more severe than in other provinces. The other thing that the most severely affected provinces have in common is that none of their residents were given a break on the carbon tax in the recent announcement by the government. It applied to only one part of the country.

After the comments of the Minister of Rural Economic Development over the weekend, I want to know, and my constituents and Canadians want to know, if the member can assure us that housing funding under the Liberal government will not be allocated on the basis of Liberal electoral outcomes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member had a flashback to the seventies, and he is right that there were some concerns in the seventies. Canadians, back in the early seventies, were concerned about things such as inflation, housing and affordability. I believe Pierre Elliott Trudeau did a wonderful job, and I am not alone in that thinking. Why? It is because he continued to win majority governments afterward.

People cannot say that about Pierre Elliott Trudeau during the situation with the issues of affordability, housing and inflation. Pierre Elliott Trudeau continued to form majority governments afterward because Canadians knew they could trust the Liberals and could not trust the Tories with their hidden agendas.

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

Mr. Speaker, even if Bill C‑34 passes, modernization of the Investment Canada Act will have to continue. Part of the legislation arising from Bill C‑34 also concerns national security.

How will the government address the lack of provisions on proper analysis of economic benefit?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Bloc wanting to talk about Bill C-34, because at the end of the day, foreign interference does matter. It matters a great deal to Canadians. When we think of the position Canada is in, whether it is with regard to trade agreements or being a safe country to invest in, we are talking about the modernization of the Investment Canada Act.

Like the member opposite no doubt, I would like to see the bill go to committee. We could have done that today. It is going to take co-operation from the Conservative Party in order for that to happen. All signs are that it will not happen because the Conservatives want to filibuster and prevent the bill from passing. The member, as other members do, has concerns and would like to see it go to committee so those concerns can be addressed. I hope the Conservatives will at some point act and support Bill C-34 going to committee.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not incorrect to say that the Conservatives' play is to disrupt this House. They do that all the time. I have been here for eight years, and I have seen them do this consistently. Nothing changes. This is the game they want to play.

I want to ask the member about the housing crisis. The truth, of course, is that part of the problem with the housing crisis is that both Liberal and Conservative governments relied on the market to deliver the kinds of housing people needed. What we know after 30 years is that it does not work. People need the government to invest in social and co-op housing. The Liberals walked away from that in 1993. The Conservatives walked away from the co-op program in 1992.

Will the member call on the government to invest in social and co-op housing like we used to, not what is happening right now under the national housing strategy, which is minuscule in terms of the amount of housing that needs to be developed to address the housing crisis? Will the member commit to that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I will continue to advocate for the benefits of housing co-ops. I personally believe in them. I have had this discussion with many of my colleagues, and so many in this chamber, in particular my Liberal colleagues, are big advocates of housing co-ops.

As the member points out, governments have been lacking when it comes to housing co-ops, but not this government. We have incorporated the promotion of housing co-ops into our budgets, and hopefully will see more of them getting under way. I will continue my advocacy for them.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting that the individual who moved this motion, the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, has seen a significant number of investments in his riding with regard to affordable housing over the years. I will read the numbers to the House, as I think it is important.

In the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka, the national housing co-investment fund helped provide 99 units for a total of $23.3 million. For the on-reserve shelter enhancement program, there were 17 units for $3.7 million. For the rapid housing initiative, there was $2.6 million for seven units. For the SIF and legacy programs, there was $6.7 million to assist with 321 units.

These are just five projects that have been started in the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka through this program, yet he is now critical of it, and they have just put forward an amendment to basically wipe the entire report clean of any further investments. This program, which he voted against, has seen significant investments in his riding.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has an explanation as to why the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka would be so against a program that has delivered a lot to his riding.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, the member highlights something that fits a word we can find in Webster's dictionary: hypocrisy. This is from both the mover and seconder of the motion, after major announcements noting that literally hundreds of homes are going to be built because of government assistance, at least in good part. Here in the Ottawa bubble and inside the bubble of the chamber, they are being super critical of what we are doing as a government and saying how bad we are for doing these things, but when they go home to their ridings, they are probably trying to get in the pictures and are celebrating.

Consistency is an issue whether we are in our home ridings or here in Ottawa. I suspect they might be a little embarrassed about it.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague that it is insane how expensive houses are these days. I was in Kelwood going up to the park at a local Legion. It is a community of 150. There was a young mom with a young family who was talking about the cost of housing in a small community like that in rural Manitoba, so I totally get that this is a very important subject.

I have a question for my colleague. To address the cost of housing and heating a home, has he asked the Prime Minister for a carbon tax exemption for home heating like our Atlantic colleagues did?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, personally, when representing Winnipeg North, I have constantly advocated for ensuring that we continue to have a healthy rebate for the price on pollution, the carbon tax. I am pleased to say that a vast majority, estimated at over 80%, of the residents of Winnipeg North get more money back through the rebate than they pay for the carbon tax or the price on pollution, however one wants to put it. This is not a number drawn out of nowhere. It came out of the parliamentary budget office, which is apolitical.

I stand up for my constituents, and ensuring that they get that healthy rebate is something I will continue to advocate for. I would hope the leader of the Conservative Party would not take that rebate away.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Small Business.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleagues whose energy motivates me when I am speaking.

Bill C‑34 was supposed to be on the agenda today, but the Conservative Party decided that we would instead discuss the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which has to do with the national housing strategy.

I think it is worthwhile debating report concurrence motions because they give the reports some visibility. The committees work hard on the report studies, and that was especially true when it came to housing. This is not the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. We conducted an extensive study on the urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy. We now have another study that mainly involves the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, because it is the one that administers the national housing strategy programs. We wanted the CMHC to report on the results of the national housing strategy, which was put in place by the Liberal government in 2017 and runs for 10 years.

Is this the right time to be having this debate? Should we have been talking about something else? In any case, we were ready to keep talking about Bill C‑34, but the Conservatives decided for other reasons to have this debate on this report.

During the study leading up to this report, CMHC employees came to testify in committee. We wanted to be able to study an important program that concerns the current infrastructure and seeks to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%. The Auditor General was harsh because we were unable to determine the targets.

All that to say that it is important that we discuss this report because that will allows us to see where things stand, to take stock of the situation. No one here disputes the fact that there is a housing crisis. We talk about it often. The cost of living and the issue of housing is top of mind for everyone. In committee, we tried to determine whether the situation had been corrected and what else could be done in terms of the amount of money invested in federal programs that are administered by the CMHC. This is part of the key recommendations of this report that the Conservative Party is asking us to study today. The majority of parties adopted this report in committee. The Conservatives have presented a dissenting opinion. That is their right.

What matters most to us in the Bloc Québécois is that the 15 recommendations in this report be implemented and that the government be held to account because CMHC is being asked a lot of questions. Let us consider the example of homelessness in this report. It is rather inconceivable that we have a strategy to fight homelessness and yet we cannot assess chronic homelessness rates any more than we could when this report was released. Even today, when CMHC and Infrastructure Canada appeared before the committee, we were told that the situation is stable. It is rather worrisome that we have reached this point.

One of the strong recommendations in the report reads as follows:

That in order to reach the Government of Canada's own target of reducing chronic homelessness by 50% by 2027–2028, that the Government of Canada show leadership by taking a whole of government approach, in collaboration with provinces and territories, to ensure wrap around services and other supports are made available to the those in need, and report back to the committee no later than December 2023 on a plan on how the government will achieve this goal.

This report contains some strong recommendations that call on CMHC and the government to take action. Although CMHC administers the national housing strategy, the government is still responsible for establishing the programs and objectives. It is investing $82 billion in the strategy through various programs. Given the housing crisis, we expect results. In collaboration with Quebec and the provinces, the program's objectives must be able to support supply and demand for social housing and affordable housing.

The committee asked CMHC some major questions. The report includes 15 recommendations. I will not read them all. We told CMHC that it must report on what is not working. Why have targets not been met? One could argue that the national housing strategy is a failure. It is a failure because the real needs centre on social housing and affordable housing. The most vulnerable members of society and low-income people are most affected by the housing crisis. The expectations are clear. Programs need to be more agile and more responsive. People should not have to wait for months, much less years, to get housing.

The federal government decided to take action and invest. It has the authority to spend money. There is no need for it to drag its feet for years before handing money over to Quebec and the provinces so that they can take action. Who is primarily responsible for housing in a given region? It is Quebec and its municipalities. The federal government decided to set up programs through its national housing strategy. We had to wait three years for an agreement. That makes no sense. As for the latest acquisition program, which was just adopted in 2022, we had to push the federal government and ask when was going to pay the $900 million earmarked for Quebec. Quebec demanded it. If the federal government wants to support housing, it has to be more flexible and tweak the conditions so that there can be real results. Many solutions have been put forward. It is interesting to hear all the witnesses in these studies. The government could act quickly.

As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has often said, some doors and housing units are boarded up. The national housing co-investment fund includes money for low-income housing that could be renovated. CMHC is freezing funding because renovation costs are higher now than they were then. We must take action. The process is taking a long time. We are talking about seven units and 300 units. It is not up to the federal government to do everything. However, if it decides to take action, it must take into account the fact that Quebec has the expertise and it is important to act much faster.

Some programs have made a difference, including accelerated housing programs. They were dedicated specifically to co-ops and non-profit organizations. Anyone could apply. It was faster. This produced results. Some things are working. CMHC was clearly called out in this report, which contains 15 recommendations.

I think it is important to talk about this today for one reason. When we do studies in committee, sometimes we delve more deeply into issues there than here in the House, unfortunately.

By all accounts, sometimes it is for strategic reasons that parties decide to talk about these things. In this case, we are talking about the housing crisis. I am not saying that the Conservatives are acting in bad faith, but sometimes we debate certain things without having the same objectives.

If everyone agrees that there is a housing crisis, we should be able to agree on what to do to ensure that the programs do not leave 10,000 homeless people in the street in Quebec. That is where we are.

Today, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation may come tell us that we will be short 3.5 million housing units by 2030. In Quebec alone, we will need 1.1 million. We can go ahead and build housing, increase the supply and provide an incentive by eliminating the GST, but will that have any impact on the cost of housing for renters? This will take time, and a lot of housing will need to be built.

In these programs, the concept of affordability is also debatable. Is $2,200 a month affordable for a person with an average income? It is not. In the national housing strategy programs, the definitions of affordability are not the same.

Now that the national housing strategy has been around for five years, is there a way to adapt and to look forward, taking into account what we are dealing with? Is there a way to take real action to avoid speculation, to do something about the financialization that is negatively affecting social and affordable housing and to invest in a way that enables non-profit organizations to buy properties on the private market? There are all sorts of solutions. Talking about it is useful, if we follow that up with action.

If the government shelves the committee reports and there is no accountability before the deadlines we set, that would be worrisome. That is why it is useful to discuss this report. Would it be useful to refer this report back to the committee? I would say no. However, I think that it would be useful for the government to account for what the committee and its witnesses are examining. The government also needs to recognize the real players who have knowledge and skills in the area of housing: our cities, our municipalities and Quebec.

The federal government decided to invest money with the objective of increasing the social and affordable housing stock. Now it must ensure that its actions complement that objective and that it does not impose conditions. That will go a long way to resolving the housing crisis.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too sat through the committee meetings, and the testimony was very consistent across all stakeholder recommendations. We heard from those in the non-profit sector that they needed more support from the national housing strategy. We heard from those in the private sector that they wanted to see more initiatives such as the removal of GST on purpose-built rentals. We also heard from stakeholders who said they wanted more support, contrary to the comments that were made by the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who said today in the House that we should scrap the strategy we have and spend less on the housing file.

I wonder if the member opposite, who also sat through the same committee meetings that I did, can make any sense of those comments, which are contrary to everything we heard from stakeholders at committee.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try my hand at interpretation at this time of the day. All I understood was that there was some question as to whether the national housing strategy was the right measure, and whether it had accomplished its mission after five years.

Personally, I would rather ask the government the following question. There are five years left in this strategy. When we returned to the House of Commons in September, the housing crisis was already bad. The government wanted to respond by introducing Bill C-56, which aims to abolish the GST on the construction of rental housing.

The government is spending $82 billion on the national housing strategy, which includes several programs. That said, a strategy is meant to be adjusted when it is not working. I would have expected the government to ask itself how it intends to resolve this situation or help resolve it over the next five years by supporting Quebec and its municipalities when it comes to social and affordable housing. That is how it is. I do not expect them to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I do expect them to make major adjustments to the strategy so it can achieve its objectives.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this evening's debate. My question for the member for Thérèse-De Blainville is this: What should the federal government do? Eighty-two billion dollars is being invested in the construction of supposedly affordable housing. What would she like the federal government to do better in order to quickly build housing that meets the public's needs?