Denis Trudel

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I was a little taken aback by something my colleague seemed to be implying in his speech at one point. He seemed to be saying that we could be encouraging foreign interference, emboldening other countries, merely by asking questions. Apparently, the opposition parties are somehow making us more vulnerable simply by asking questions in the House or on committees about interference. That kind of talk is really hard to bear.

What does my colleague think our work here is about anyway, if not exactly that, to ask questions about important issues like a foreign country's interference in our democratic process? Does he really think we should stop asking questions about it?

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative motion accuses cities of being gatekeepers that are blocking construction. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Part of the collateral damage of the federal government's withdrawal from housing in 1993 is that we have seen the emergence of something called the financialization of housing, in other words, big national or international conglomerates owning large apartment buildings. This is problematic.

According to one study, in 1996, just a few years after the federal government withdrew from housing, the rate was 0%. The ownership of large apartment buildings by big corporations did not exist. As we know, these groups are not interested in the right to housing. They are only interested in making a profit.

The same study noted that, by 2021, 22% of the rental stock in Canada was owned by large groups. This poses a serious problem in terms of affordability and accessibility.

Can my colleague suggest any solutions to this major housing problem in Canada?

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, this day has not been easy. All day long, the Liberals have been playing us the same tune about how things are not so bad and the situation is not so dramatic.

We do not agree with the Conservatives' motion, but at least they brought this debate to the House today. I thank them for it because it is truly an important debate.

I would like to set the record straight on the situation in Quebec. A CMHC economist I talked to recently said that we need to build 1.1 million housing units in the next 10 years. The private sector will build 500,000 that the government will not need to get involved with. To safeguard affordability and allow people to have access to housing they can afford, the governments need to step up directly or indirectly to build 600,000 housing units. It is believed that in the past five years, under the great strategy, 115,000 units were built.

When will the government really get to work for this society's less fortunate?

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, let us put aside today's Conservative motion and talk seriously about housing.

One week after the budget, the National Housing Council stated that the national housing strategy is a failure, that it is not working and that in 10 years in Canada, between 2011 and 2021, a total of 550,000 affordable housing units were lost, while the strategy only produced 115,000 units. Since the Liberals have been in power and the strategy was launched, we have moved backwards.

I would like to remind members that the National Housing Council was created by the federal government to provide advice on the national housing strategy. It has reported that the strategy is not working and it is a failure.

One of the Bloc Québécois's recommendations, and one that has also been made by the council, is to establish an acquisition fund. As it is difficult to build quickly at this time, the government should follow the lead of British Columbia, which has created a $550-million fund to help organizations or cities to purchase private housing stock, remove it from the market and ensure that it remains affordable. That is what the National Housing Council is proposing and what we are proposing as well.

Does my colleague agree that we should move quickly to do that?

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I somewhat disagree with what my colleague just said about the NDP always being prepared to support housing measures.

Before Christmas, we voted on Bill C-31, which sought to send a $500 cheque to everyone who earns less than $20,000 a year and puts more than 30% of their income toward housing. Most tenant advocacy organizations in Quebec criticized this measure, saying that it was the kind of thing a right-wing government would do. The government was just sending out cheques so that it could say that it was helping people.

That does not build housing. The government spent a lot of money sending out those one-time cheques. Obviously, they were good for people who need housing and who do not have a lot of money. However, the government could have taken that money and built housing units so that, in a few years' time, more disadvantaged people could have a roof over their heads and a place to call home.

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I spoke earlier about the $500-million acquisition fund in British Columbia. We should have such a fund at the federal level, with no strings attached. All they need to do is agree with the idea, believe that it can happen, and just write a cheque. It is the cities' job and we have nothing to do with it, but they still need funding to make things happen. We need to find a way to support the cities.

In Montreal, there is what is called the 20-20-20 bylaw, which requires that private real estate developers who build, for example, more than 60 or 80 units—I do not know the exact figure—build 20% social housing, 20% affordable housing and 20% family housing. It is not a perfect solution, because often developers choose to pay the penalty for non-compliance rather than build this kind of housing. Even still, it is not a bad solution. If we could, on a large scale, require private developers to build real affordable housing for the most disadvantaged, that would be a solution.

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I feel like talking about Vienna. I know that there are some Quebec mayors currently in Vienna, where 60% of the rental housing stock is social housing or community housing. This program did not start yesterday; it has been funded for 100 years.

This is a major program. The broad strokes are that new housing is built and old housing is renovated using a special tax imposed on owners of the remaining stock. In Vienna, they understand the principle of the right to housing, which we adopted in the House. They have understood it for a long time and have taken steps to implement it.

It is important to mention that in Vienna, it is not only low-income people who live in social housing. There are doctors, lawyers, and engineers who live in these residences. In Vienna, they understand the need build a rental housing stock that belongs to the community and is maintained by the community. This is a truth that we should strive to apply here on a larger scale.

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, I read a statistic that said every day in Quebec, a woman fleeing domestic violence knocked at the door of a women's shelter and was turned away. Imagine being turned away from a shelter with two children in the middle of winter because of insufficient resources.

Last week, I visited Trois‑Rivières as part of my housing crisis tour. I met a woman from Trois‑Rivières who is a victim of domestic violence, and she was living in her car with her two children. I utterly fail to comprehend how a G7 nation is willing to put up with this situation.

[Business of Supply, May 2nd, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou, who is here in the House.

Yesterday, I was totally amazed, dumbfounded and impressed. I was almost moved. I was almost overcome by emotion when I learned that the Conservatives would be moving a motion on the housing crisis. I had a strange feeling that I will not name in the House but that was very, very special.

I wondered what was happening for the Conservatives to take an interest in the most vulnerable, in single mothers, in the homeless and in women who are victims of domestic violence, and what made them want to talk about the housing crisis. I could not believe it. I thought that we were finally going to have an opportunity to really talk about it and to find solutions.

Since I have been in the House, people have heard me talk about the housing crisis hundreds, if not thousands, of times. This is one of my major concerns. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing mentioned, and as everyone will mention today, the right to housing in this country is a fundamental issue, a pressing need.

I have never heard the Conservatives propose even a hint of a solution and tell us what we should do to help the less fortunate in our society. I have never heard them say what sort of investment we should make or what sort of area we should target to achieve this goal.

Let us look at where we are. What is our starting point? What is the target? What is the challenge? Where do things stand, what is the bar? According to the CIBC and the CMHC, we need 3.5 million housing units in this country over the next decade. That is the challenge, that is what we need to do.

I expected that the Conservatives would come here today with solutions, that it would be an intense debate, that we could discuss the issues. However, the only thing they are doing with this motion, and we heard it from the leader of the Conservative Party earlier, is calling other levels of government incompetent.

All the Conservatives are doing is telling the provinces and municipalities to get out of the way. They are saying that, from their office towers in Ottawa with their ties and computers, they know how many social housing units need to be built in Victoriaville, and how many people experiencing homelessness there are in Victoriaville's different neighbourhoods, and if we give them the power to act, they will be so effective, good and wonderful.

I would like to remind my Conservative colleagues that, if we do not build more social housing in Canada, if we needed the national housing strategy rolled out by the Liberals in 2017, it is because of the Conservatives.

Let us not forget that, for years, the federal government built social housing for the poorest Canadians. After the Second World War, the federal government understood that it had to become involved in one way or another in building housing units. It understood that housing could not be left to market forces alone. For 50 or 60 years, the government built housing units. It did so by sending money to the provinces to be distributed to the municipalities to build housing units. It worked, as 60% of our low-income housing in Quebec right now was provided by the federal government. At the time, we understood that we had to invest to help the poorest Canadians, and that we could not allow market forces to control something as fundamental as housing.

In the 1993 election campaign, Mrs. Campbell, who was leader of the Conservative Party at the time, said that that was over. There would be no more investments in housing. Jean Chrétien, based solely on his courage and his ignorance of the issue, said that the Liberals would continue to invest in social housing, that it was too important and basic a need. That is one of the reasons he was elected, because people understood that there was still a housing problem. Unfortunately, it did not happen. He reneged on his promise.

Are my colleagues aware of how many social housing units would have been built in Quebec if we had continued to invest as we did between 1950 and 1993? There would be 60,000 more social housing units in Quebec. Right now, it is estimated that 45,000 people are on the waiting list for low-income housing. Let us imagine if we had continued to invest. In the meantime, the Conservatives were in power. They did not reinvest either, so we lost 60,000 social housing units, and there are 45,000 people waiting for low-income housing in Quebec.

In other words, housing is under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has money. I will not get into the details of the fiscal imbalance, but the money is in Ottawa, and the needs are in the provinces. It is not hard to understand.

A few days ago, I was in Quebec City to discuss housing with my hon. colleagues from Beauport—Limoilou and Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. I spoke with the people from Quebec City, those who my Conservative friends call incompetent, those they are telling to get out of the way so they can get the job done instead. They told me that, if the money were to arrive tomorrow morning, they could break ground immediately, right now, to build 700 units. I do not know who calls them incompetent, but the people I spoke to understood the situation on the ground; they knew what they were saying, knew what they were talking about. We had constructive discussions about what needed to be done. I thought to myself that, while the money may flow from Ottawa, no one understands the needs of the local population better than them. They are the ones who can meet those needs.

Unfortunately, that is all there is. In fact, I was disappointed. I would have hoped for progress, for there to be a motion. Not only that, the Conservatives are like my friends in the NDP. It is interesting. The Conservatives are adopting NDP techniques. They are using blackmail for funding. They say that, unless certain actions are taken, then funding will come with certain conditions. It is always the same thing with the federal government. It is the same thing in health. It is the same thing in all areas.

The New Democrats say they want to link social housing to immigration. We need to accept a certain number of immigrants or we will not get a single penny for housing. It is completely absurd reasoning. If we accept more immigrants, we will need housing, among other things, so they promise a certain amount if we meet a certain target. It is the same thing with the Conservatives. The cheque they are promising us comes with strings attached.

The problem, however, is the underfunding from the federal government. The problem is that the existing programs do not work. The programs are poorly put together; the co-investment program and the rental housing accelerator program make affordable housing at $2,000 in Montreal. Essentially, they provide loans to private entrepreneurs. They do not create affordable housing. They do not create social housing. They have nothing to do with it. They want to see a return.

Now, they want to impose conditions when what is needed is for funding to come primarily and massively from Ottawa.

I think it is fascinating that we cannot seem to find solutions. The money is here, but the needs are there. How many people are in core housing need in Quebec alone? There are 250,000 households in Quebec in core housing need.

There is a solution. We could spend the rest of the day trying to find solutions, but organizations in this field, such as the Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation and the Canada-wide network, already have a solution. What we need is a dedicated fund to buy privately owned housing and take it off the market to ensure accessibility and affordability. That is the solution everyone agrees on. British Columbia just did this. It invested $500 million. That is one of the things we have to do.

True, construction is tough. It is hard to get projects off the ground. Construction costs and labour shortages complicate things. That is why we have to take existing housing off the market and make it affordable for the lowest-income households for a long period of time. That is one of the solutions the Bloc put forward.

I hope my Conservative and Liberal friends will open their eyes to the severity of this crisis and bring real solutions to the table. This is a huge problem.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, May 1st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleague is gushing over her government's budget.

Let us talk a little about the housing crisis. According to CMHC and Scotiabank, Quebec alone will need 600,000 housing units in the next 10 years to deal with the affordability and accessibility crisis we have right now. There is just one page on this issue in the budget. That is ridiculous.

I would like to know how my colleague believes that her government can reconcile this demand for housing over the next 10 years with its $700‑million investment over five years for Quebec's anglophone community, which, as we all know, is threatened with extinction.