Housing crisis | Poilievre stick, Duranceau white cabbage

It is difficult not to be intrigued by the 16-minute video documentary broadcast by Pierre Poilievre on social networks this week.

The Conservative leader takes on the role of an educator who dissects the housing crisis based on an avalanche of reports, data and graphs. At a time when traditional media are banned from Facebook, the video has found its audience, with more than four million views.

But let’s not be fooled. Under its journalistic guise, this purely partisan exercise aims to demonize Justin Trudeau and blame the Liberals for “Housing Hell,” as the video is titled. The tone is set.

Let’s be clear: lack of housing accessibility is a major problem that creates serious intergenerational inequity. But we must not fall into alarmism, either. Students forced to live in “homeless shelters” or sleep “in their cars or even under a bridge” is not the norm.

Nor should we hide essential facts. Yes, debt exploded under Liberal rule, driving up interest rates and mortgage payments. But most of it is because of the pandemic, something Mr. Poilievre glosses over. Nor does he say that, without federal intervention, many homeowners would have lost their homes.

Hitting the nail on the head of the housing crisis is paying off for Mr. Poilievre.

But you have to believe in Santa Claus to imagine that real estate – which has been on the rise for more than 20 years – will become accessible again simply by voting Conservative.

It will take time. And solutions. However, those of Mr. Poilievre could hit a wall.

The Conservative leader wants to require large cities to build 15% more housing per year, otherwise they will be deprived of federal funds for infrastructure. Ottawa will pay the money when people are in their homes, not before. “Instead of financing promises, the federal government should subsidize results,” proclaims Mr. Poilievre.

Common sense, right? If only it were that simple.

If Ottawa plays a hard line by withholding funds, developers will have more difficulty financing and starting their projects. Counter productive.

And then, even if it is a good idea to impose targets to force municipalities to reduce the obstacles that slow down construction starts, we must not forget that real estate is essentially under provincial jurisdiction. So Mr. Poilievre’s authoritarianism will surely not be welcome in Quebec.

This fall, we saw how tensions delayed the payment of 900 million to Quebec, which balked at the targets for housing to be built that the federal government wanted to impose.

That said, it is high time for the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) to take the housing crisis seriously. But unlike Ontario and British Columbia, which have taken strong measures to encourage cities to build, the CAQ does not dare to get involved.

It is true that the Minister responsible for Housing, France-Élaine Duranceau, has just added an amendment to her Bill 31 to allow cities to override their own urban planning rules in order to change zoning to build more of housing.

But this measure risks falling short, because mayors who want to be re-elected often side with citizens who contest projects, as happened in Pointe-Claire and Saint-Bruno, where mayors blocked a densification yet logical.

To truly stimulate construction, Quebec must take its responsibilities, instead of passing the buck to the cities.

Between the authoritarian method of Mr. Poilievre and the carelessness of Mr.^me Duranceau, there is a way to set ambitious construction objectives without crushing local democracy.

Why not place citizen participation upstream of the process? This is what INRS professor emeritus Mario Polèse suggests¹. And that’s sort of what Ontario does with its community planning permitting system².

Instead of letting each developer make individual requests to review zoning, which increases the number of procedures and delays, this system allows municipalities to review the rules for an entire sector by taking advantage of the population. Subsequently, permits are issued within 45 days for projects that meet the criteria. In the event of disagreement between a developer and dissatisfied citizens, an independent court can decide, which eliminates political games.

Why not follow in these footsteps and demand that municipalities set construction objectives to meet the needs of the Quebec of tomorrow? Why not ask them to prepare the ground, in collaboration with citizens?

Let Quebec act, if it does not want Ottawa to force its hand.