Madam Speaker, I am talking about the report that I have in my hands right now. My colleagues cannot see it, but they can sense that there is something important in it, and I am going to tell them about it.
It is a bit funny, I have 12 recommendations. Just before the first one, I wrote that the federal government should get out of housing. I will explain why.
Every time the federal government has made a new funding announcement in the past few years, Quebec has said that the federal government is not going to spend a penny in Quebec without the Quebec government having a say in the matter. Then the negotiations begin. The federal government launched its grand national housing strategy in 2017. It allocated $82 billion across Canada. The government spent money just about everywhere. We are still wondering where exactly. It spent money in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and St. John's, Newfoundland. There was not one penny for Quebec because Quebec declined, as is its prerogative. We wanted money, not programs. We wanted money, not criteria. We wanted money, not conditions. That led to three years of waiting. Earlier I was talking about the $250‑million homelessness program. It took a year before a decision was made.
Too many players are involved in housing. At the end of the day, housing is built in cities. Cities make bylaws, manage urban planning and organize construction. In fact, cities need money. The infrastructure fund is another fund that has a critical role to play in relation to the housing crisis. This $6‑billion fund is currently being negotiated with Quebec. Just building housing is not enough. Sewers need to be built too. Homes need to be connected to the sewer system. Roads need to be built. All these things are important for housing. Two or three weeks ago, the Association de la construction du Québec came to Ottawa to say that infrastructure is fundamental and that this funding is needed.
Cities organize housing construction. Quebec also has a housing department and various programs. Then, on top of all that, the federal government comes in and adds its own conditions. Take Rimouski, for example. There are problems there. The city should and would like to house women fleeing domestic violence. That is true everywhere in Quebec, but I want to focus on Rimouski. There are needs in this area. Every day, a woman knocks on the door of a shelter for women fleeing domestic violence and then goes home. We know what going home means. It happens every day. There is a desperate need for resources. In Rimouski, creating a shelter like that would mean building a 32-unit building for women who are victims of domestic violence. As it happens, Quebec has a program for that. It might be through the Fédération des associations et corporations en construction du Québec. It used to be AccèsLogis Québec. An organization would apply and wait one to two years. Finally, it would get the go-ahead. Great, it was getting funding.
If there is not enough money, it can apply to Ottawa, which has another program that grants funding. The criteria are different, however, especially when it comes to affordability. The affordability criteria make absolutely no sense. They are a disaster. Another two years is spent waiting on Ottawa. Often, in the meantime, the four-year-old offer to purchase the property falls through. In short, the whole thing is infuriating. The process takes years.
While I was touring Abitibi, I met Stéphane Grenier, a really amazing guy. He is a university professor who cares for homeless people, including homeless indigenous people. I attended the opening of a magnificent shelter, a brand-new building with 41 spaces. It opened a year ago, but people had been working on the project for eight years. That means eight winters, eight years of people looking for an emergency shelter, only to give up because one did not exist. It is infuriating.
Here is my first recommendation. Fiscal tools are available here in Ottawa. If Ottawa agreed that this is a provincial jurisdiction and if it gave the money to Quebec, just as it does for health care, there would be fewer players involved. This would achieve two things: it would shorten project approval times and lower costs. Everyone would win.