Louise Chabot

[Privilege, October 30th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question. We have been dealing with this question of privilege for over two weeks, and we all hope that, as a result, the government will hand over the documents. However, if the government does not do so, what is the Conservatives' plan? Do they intend to raise another question of privilege?

[Committees of the House, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to know that I will be sharing my time.

First of all, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for initiating a debate on this report. Had he not, I would have done so myself, because this report on the financialization of housing is one of the most important and widely supported reports produced by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, even though it has drafted a number of very important reports.

We produced this 67-page document after hearing from many witnesses. Although its recommendations were quite strong, the government's response was quite weak. The report concerns the financialization of housing. However, considering the crucial importance of this issue, I have been somewhat saddened to see that, from the start of the debate, all sides have focused on asking what the Conservatives are going to do or what the Liberal government is going to do.

To place the report in context, I am going to read a few passages from it. First of all, what led us to study this question? The report was tabled in October 2023. Here is what it says:

On 8 September 2022, the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate released a series of reports on the financialization of housing in Canada. Each of these reports focused on an issue or group of people impacted by the financialization of housing, including: seniors, racialized people, those living in multi-family rental housing and tenants more broadly, as well as an examination of the international landscape. They also included a variety of recommendations for Canadian governments at all levels.

This was no small feat. The report defines financialization of housing. That is what our committee's report is about, and that is what we should be focusing on today. Here is what the report says:

Martine August, author of one of the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate's reports on financialization of housing and Associate Professor, University of Waterloo, described “financialization of housing” as “the growing dominance of financial actors in the housing sector, which is transforming the primary function of housing from a place to live into a financial asset and tool for investor profits.” The Federal Housing Advocate clarified that

[i]t's not new that these buildings are privately owned. What is new is that they are now increasingly owned by large institutional investors and financial firms whose focus is making maximum returns for shareholders.

That is truly what this is about and it is having an impact on people and renters, even though the right to housing is a fundamental right.

The committee heard from the Federal Housing Advocate about her perspective on how financialization of housing has expanded and shaped the country's housing system in the last decades. She noted that

regulatory changes enabled the creation of real estate investment trusts and allowed pension funds to invest in financial markets and instruments.

The report also addresses the impacts of financialization:

Houle told the committee that 20% to 30% of Canada's purpose-built rental housing is owned by institutional investors. She discussed the harm she sees being caused by financialized housing, that it is “contributing to housing unaffordability and it's worsening housing conditions. It is leading to evictions and displacement.” She explained that the trend toward financialization “is violating people's right to adequate housing in Canada,” as defined under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed by Canada in 1976, and enshrined in the National Housing Strategy Act.

These troubling reports led to witnesses being called to committee. They came to tell us that, basically, the Liberal government's national housing strategy is not working. Over $80 billion has been invested in affordable housing, but we will not get anywhere as long as everything is determined solely on the principle of supply and demand. This is evident when we look at how the market works: When we act on the supply side, that reduces demand. This is partly true, but we must act on the real demand.

In the current housing crisis, the real demand is for social housing, non-market housing. We must ensure that these housing units meet the affordability criteria, which means that people must not spend more than 30% of their income on housing. We are not talking about the average income per capita per city. We also need to ensure that we are building sustainable housing.

My esteemed colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who is the housing critic, has toured Quebec extensively. He has travelled across 15 regions. Many recommendations were made, including increasing the supply of non‑market social housing to 20% and taking meaningful action to counter financialization so that housing is no longer subject to speculation. That is what we are talking about.

In its concluding statement in response to the committee's eight recommendations, the federal government said, “The Government of Canada acknowledges the potential impact of the financialization of housing on access to affordable housing and recognizes that there is more work to be done”. That is weak and rather sad.

There is a fundamental issue that we need to address. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities has done just that. I think that we need to take all of this into account when we talk about the housing crisis and the effects of the financialization of housing. Safe, affordable, decent quality housing is a fundamental right.

[Employment Insurance, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des sans-emploi, or MASSE, is on Parliament Hill today to launch the 2024-25 edition of its report on unemployment, the “Dossier noir de l'assurance-chômage”. This document paints a picture of the problems encountered by the unemployed. Through their stories, they share the many ways the system has failed them. It is an unfair, outdated federal program that the Liberal government has repeatedly promised to reform, yet it has done nothing. After 10 years, it is time for the government to take concrete action for workers.

MASSE, the Conseil national des chômeurs et chômeuses, or CNC, and Quebec's major labour organizations are leading a major campaign under the theme “Employment insurance must protect us” to demand that the injustices and inequities of employment insurance be corrected. The Bloc stands with them in solidarity.

[Privilege, October 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you are feeling on top of your game because for the past few weeks, listening to these debates here, in the House, has been a test of strength. I am a strong person, but even I have had my moments.

We agree. We are examining a question of privilege because an order was made. Instead of lobbing questions from the other side of the House, as it is doing now, the government should take appropriate action.

Indeed, this is a complicated and dense program. Still, some businesses were counting on it because it had the potential to make a difference. Now that it has been tainted with scandal and corruption, however, we have to get to the bottom of things. That means we need the documents.

The Conservative Party also says that it has Canadians' backs and is looking forward to moving on to something else. What is the something else it wants to move on to? Could it be an election?

[Committees of the House, October 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I think we need to take note of something in this debate and that is the fact that Canada is lagging behind when it comes to legislation to regulate AI.

Whether we like it or not, AI is advancing, progressing, and we do not have a regulatory or legislative framework. We cannot always blame someone else. This is our own fault because we have been slow to face these challenges.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities conducted a study on the effects of AI on the labour market. It was very interesting. We heard from experts who said that such a framework was needed. In 2023, the European Union agreed on a legislative framework.

It is the government's responsibility to put forward ideas to ensure that these issues are resolved once and for all. The government needs to be proactive.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of the groups we represent in Quebec and Canada are deeply disappointed. They were also hoping for recognition of “by-and-for”. It is a broken promise.

It is a broken promise because they do not understand what happens next. They do not understand the amount. They do not understand how this will apply. They do not understand why they were not fully involved in this debate. There are a lot of questions and a great deal of disappointment.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, if members want to talk about the early history of Canada and the Constitution, then I would say that it is rather interesting to see that the Bloc Québécois is always the one that is forced to defend the provinces' jurisdictions.

It is quite astonishing that we are being forced to remind the Conservatives, the NDP and the Liberals to respect jurisdictions, especially when it comes to health, education and dental care.

However, there are some who could care less about carrying on with centralizing programs. I am not talking here about the Canada disability benefit. At some point, history will speak for itself. We will be happy to be an independent country and govern ourselves as we see fit.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the question back to the member.

Did the government take the time to consult Quebec and the provinces before announcing the benefit in the budget? I will answer that. The answer is no.

Did the government undertake to ensure that the benefit complements what is being done in Quebec and the provinces? The answer is yes, it is in the bill. The government is therefore responsible for making sure there are agreements and collaborations, and that people with disabilities are not deprived of their benefits because of red tape. It needs to make sure that the amount is sufficient. That is now the government's responsibility. Its bill must complement what the provinces are doing and not involve any clawbacks. I have no doubt that Quebec will not deprive people with disabilities of anything to which they are already entitled.

[Committees of the House, October 3rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the member for Manicouagan.

I feel like taking the debate to another level. I would like to recall in chronological order the events that led to the report being brought back from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The Bloc Québécois held a debate this week on the situation our seniors are in, but people with disabilities also deserve a lot more consideration than what they typically get in our parliamentary debates, where this important issue is so often used to play politics.

I commend my NDP colleague who brought the report back from committee. The report is a motion, actually. It fully validates the work we did in committee when studying Bill C‑22. The aim of this bill was to introduce, quite simply, a Canada disability benefit, which would have complemented the measures in place in Quebec and the provinces. It basically emerged from the desire to allow these individuals to become fully contributing members of society. Most of them live in poverty. We must lift them out of poverty so they too can live with dignity. That was the aim of the benefit.

At the time, the Bloc Québécois had raised an objection to the bill. The benefit amount, eligibility criteria and terms of application were to be defined in regulation, by order In council. The Bloc Québécois introduced an amendment at that point calling for the regulations taken by order in council to be brought before the House for debate. If a benefit amount is decided by order in council and through regulation, that means that any minister may change the benefit amount by regulation and by order in council. For example, one minister might set it at $5,000 a year, while another might decide by regulation and order in council that it should be set at $5 a week.

Our amendment calling for the regulation taken by order in council to be brought before the House for debate was one of our major amendments, but it was rejected. The NDP and Liberals voted it down. That being said, it needs to be prescribed by regulation.

When the 2024 budget was introduced, we learned that the disability benefit would be $2,500 a year, barely $200 a month. There is also an eligibility criterion based on the tax credit. That raised the ire of most people with disabilities and those who represent them, in both Quebec and Canada. They were unanimous on the matter. They were also unanimous in saying that the benefit, as well as its terms, conditions and eligibility criteria, should be established by and for people with disabilities.

Two things happened. First, here in the House, we called out the amount announced in the budget. Then, when it came time to adopt the motion in committee, we had the minister responsible in to explain the eligibility criteria. We also called out the fact that the amount would not be enough to meet the stated objective, lifting people out of poverty. The goal is to allow people with disabilities to live with dignity. In addition to their disability, these people have multiple needs in terms of caregivers, medications and support.

There is also mention of employment inclusion but, even in that respect, most of these people live on welfare, at least in Quebec. We have made major strides in Quebec in terms of tailoring the amounts in such a way as to allow people to earn sufficient additional income without losing their benefits. That was the goal of the Canada disability benefit.

Now we see what is happening. The regulation was not passed, people were not consulted, and the amount was simply announced. We learned that the benefit would be in the form of a tax credit. The government decided to align eligibility for the Canada disability benefit with the disability tax credit. We know, however, that thousands of people who should have access to this tax credit cannot get it because of administrative reasons. I will not address these because it would take too long, but tax credits involve some administrative tasks. People need to apply and provide supporting documents. Many people were unable to benefit from the tax credit because they were not registered. We raised this question when the matter of the additional amount equivalent to a one-time CERB payment was raised. That is red tape, and that is why we keep hammering on these issues of red tape and wasted money that could otherwise be given to people.

The government refused to submit the eligibility criteria and the amount in an order in council instead of by regulation so that we could discuss them. No one was consulted and, although we now know the amount, the regulation has not yet been adopted. It was presented as a fait accompli, and we supported the NDP's motion that appears in the report we are discussing.

In particular, we want the federal benefit to be accessible, and we want the tax credit to be reviewed. We also questioned the minister responsible for administering this benefit. After the administrative failures we have seen with passports and other things, will we have to get through a mountain of red tape that has nothing to do with the purpose of the benefit?

That is greed or the inability to implement a program that could strengthen Canadian legislation and enhance what already exists. Here we are again. Once again, people with disabilities will be the ones to pay. We will continue to fight to ensure that the initial objective of the bill is fulfilled. These people must be recognized once and for all as full and equal members of our society.

[Business of Supply, October 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right, that question continues to be relevant. The oil companies are getting $82 billion in subsidies. My colleague talked about a pipeline. These are political choices and decisions.

What we want is for the government to choose the right policy, which is to invest in these programs, to invest in seniors and to invest in fairness for those who receive OAS benefits—