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.

Louise Chabot

$496,234.00