Great entertainment in the documentary Corruption: the shocking revelations of the Charbonneau commission (by Sébastien Trahan, broadcast on Noovo.ca) a few weeks ago. For the record, following this fascinating incursion behind the scenes of a world, certain practices have, it seems, “cosmetically” changed in appearance.
1957. A log cabin in the boreal forest. On the long weekend in May, a foreman from a logging company asks his construction workers (without family or without interest in the leave) if any of them want to stay and build a camp with him. A hundred dollars a man. Three days later: four walls, a roof and a floor. A Mr. Cardinal, who was there, told me this story. The chalet is holding up, 66 years later. Back then, if you needed a 12-foot length, you didn’t needlessly cut down a tree that was too long, he said.
We come back to the present. A mechanical shovel operator I met this spring also told me a construction story: he is on a huge publicized project in Montreal. On his second day on the job, four men with identical t-shirts (same logo) come out of a big truck black au break in the morning. We make him a sign to enter the construction trailer, we tackle him against the wall, he eats a slap “sua yeule”. We tell him he’s working too fast, we have his address and those of his immediate family. To dig a trench 600 feet by 54 inches deep for the pipe and other conduits, it takes him 1 hour 45 minutes. We make him understand that no, in reality, it takes 8 hours.
We will not dwell on this fact. It really doesn’t matter. It was easy, as in the sitcom of the Charbonneau commission, to question certain sectors in recent years. But the malaise has several heads.
We’ve crossed seven of the eight planetary boundaries of our ecosystem. Fires are burning. Inflation too. Cost overruns have become huge windmills that scare off all housing starts in the province.
And the 1er July is almost here. There will be a lot of talk about the housing crisis in the coming days, with good reason.
We are crying out for social and affordable housing. And yet, it seems that we take the thing backwards.
Yes, it’s underfunded, yes, housing is not an expense, but an investment, yes, it’s all short-sighted, yes, it’s necessary. But.
We tell, between two doors, the incredible heaviness of the system. How can we, in 2023, lack housing? We build without too much regard for materials. For example: if you need an 8 foot length, you order a 10 foot. We lose 2, but it enriches people.
The construction sector has, since the sitcom of the Charbonneau commission, a practical explanation. I’m not looking for a cuff here. The entire system is to blame. In the end, people can no longer find housing. And in a strange reflex, we are asking for more funding. Sometimes it’s the fault of overheating, later of the shortage of labour. Some culprits are more useful than others. In fact, it’s painting a ruin.
Let’s do the exercise of building the same log camp in 2023: first a permit from the City, an architect’s plan, an engineer’s seal, a soil test, a survey, work standards to be respected , reduced hours, approval of materials, contributions deducted from wages, a site inspector, an engineering consulting firm, a surplus on fuel, a decontamination or a study, the costs for risks, more costs for the constraints, for the feasibility, for the deadlines, the deadline traps, the project managers, other fees will follow, and a shitload of taxes here and there, not to mention the CNESST, the environment, insurance . Can we really be surprised that housing is less affordable?
Even in the depths of the woods, more than 100 km from a village, one must obtain a permit before cutting down a tree to heat the stove. Note: I’m not crying here. It is an attempt to explain the extra cost and what makes housing (affordable or not) increasingly inaccessible. Perhaps the solution should not come only from the State (oh the heresy!)? This state that some still see as a miraculous clergy.
Let us mention here in passing the government standards still in force (for social housing) since the mid-1970s (an excerpt from a 2005 report by the Metropolitan Community of Montreal is quoted here): “Some stakeholders ironically qualify these ( norms) of “criteria of modesty”. This political choice has resulted in a lower quality of construction, much higher maintenance costs, reduced durability of buildings and reduced possibilities of adaptability of housing to changing household needs. […] Too often sustainability trade-offs have to be made to meet budget constraints. Admit that she is no worse. For the poor therefore, materials of lesser quality. Maybe we could amend?
Unfortunately, there is more and more of a gap and violent fractures between the Providence of the State (which is no longer enough) and the capitalism of happiness that we endorse. And this extraordinary administrative burden (increasingly heavy) that binds the two. It also extends to health and education.
We return to our mechanical shovel. It is no longer so much this prehistoric practice of “protection” that needs to be shown with a camera. Maybe we should get along with the guys at truck black and ask them (politely and kindly) if it’s possible to let people work a little more. Either. But more would be gained if the funds to build four walls and a roof were invested in four walls and a roof and not blown away by a bottomless industry before the first nail was driven.
Otherwise, it doesn’t matter at all. We continue like this. As Don Quixote said: it is not the load, but the excess load, which kills the beast.
In the meantime, thousands of people cannot find housing.