Mr. Speaker, the member speaking is certainly a member who asks questions. I invite him to listen first and then ask questions.
Housing is an issue that is extremely important to me because there is a major housing crisis in my region, like everywhere else. It is hitting us so hard that the city of Saint‑Hyacinthe, which is home to two-thirds of my riding's population, has long had the dubious distinction of having the lowest vacancy rate in Quebec. I think it is somewhere around 0.4%. Today, it has gone up, and that is a good thing. For a long time, however, it remained at an extremely dangerous rate of 0.4%. It is the same as saying there were no more vacancies at all. It is as simple as that.
On top of this, there has been a series of fires in downtown Saint-Hyacinthe. The people they affected were primarily vulnerable individuals, many of whom did not have insurance. It was even more difficult to relocate them afterward and help them out of the hardship the fires had caused.
Of course, the Saint-Hyacinthe region is not in an easy position either. We will never have extremely advantageous vacancy rates for the simple reason that we have the best farmland in Quebec. It is not a region that can easily be rezoned either, but there are still ways to implement smart, responsible projects.
We obviously fully agree with the intention behind the bill, namely, to promote access to affordable and secure housing for young Canadians and Quebeckers aged 17 to 34. There is no issue with the intention itself, but we will vote against the bill because, unfortunately, it is a useless empty shell that claims to create a national strategy while containing nothing whatsoever to that effect. At best, it will allow the government to boast that it has a strategy and claim to have the expertise to show the provinces how to proceed, because centralization and Canada-wide standards are second nature to Ottawa.
The government already has a multitude of programs and, in any case, its only role is limited to transferring money to the provinces and, potentially, transferring ownership of federal lands that are not being used. That would be relevant if that were the case, but this bill would amount to giving the government carte blanche right now. Although it provides for consultations with the provinces and other stakeholders, we have plenty of examples where consultations are limited to sending emails without any actual dialogue. Basically, these consultations are essentially briefings. That is what they end up being. People are told what is going to happen, and that is about it.
Quebec and the municipalities have a much better understanding of the local realities of their residents. That is the virtue of decentralization. Even though the federal government claims to want to collaborate, the usual “Ottawa knows best” attitude leaves little doubt as to how it will respond to such a strategy, and that is not very reassuring. If the past is any indication of the future, it is not at all reassuring.
The federal government already has a $55-billion, 10-year program and is struggling to make it work because of all the red tape. Now it wants to add to that. In any case, Ottawa does not build anything. The municipalities do all the work. That is why we are calling for all housing funding to be unconditionally transferred to Quebec. That would be a much better solution than what is being proposed here. That is the simplest and most economical way to create favourable conditions for housing construction. By adding conditions, the federal government adds public servants, in both Ottawa and Quebec City, to create reports and track the money that is spent. This approach is both costly and inefficient.
What is more, Ottawa's definition of “affordable” is inadequate. We want the government to adapt, adjust and clarify the definition of “affordable” in relation to housing so that the funding is actually used to build affordable housing.
The bill gives any designated minister the mandate to conduct consultations to develop the national strategy on housing, although, as I said, the word “consultation” is debatable. However, the government could conduct these consultations without a bill. Do we need a bill to say that a project or consultation should be launched? I see this as window dressing, a potentially useless empty shell.
The strategy, which is not created by the bill—for the reason I just mentioned—would aim to ensure greater access to affordable and secure housing for young people, that is, people aged 17 to 34. As I said, there is no problem with that. To develop the strategy, the minister will conduct consultations with representatives of provincial, territorial and municipal governments and other groups.
Not everything about this is crazy. There are things that make sense, such as cracking down on real estate flipping, but it is clear that the best solution would be to provide unconditional funding for any Quebec initiative to develop student housing as a way to take pressure off the residential and rental market, particularly in the regions and at the initiative of colleges and universities. I have a few in my riding. I have the CEGEP, the Institut de technologie agricole du Québec, the faculty of veterinary medicine, and the vocational school. All of them could benefit.
Fundamentally, the housing crisis needs to be taken seriously. It should be our chief concern, because housing must be seen as a right. Some community organizations are doing outstanding work in many places to keep tenants informed of their rights, because not all landlords are able to keep them adequately informed all the time. There are organizations doing outstanding work in that area.
Of course, we need to be able to build. Building takes money. Addressing the housing crisis involves more than simply drafting a bill that does not launch a strategy, but rather a discussion. Ottawa's track record when it comes to discussions is a little unsettling. Maybe the funding could consist of a permanent reinvestment. For example, 1% of the government's annual budget could be earmarked for housing construction. It could be that. It could be a fixed percentage that would stay the same year after year, regardless of inflation, and that would also reflect increases in costs and expenses. The percentage would always stay the same.