Bill C-400 (Historical)

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians

The purpose of this enactment is to require the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consult with the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs and housing and with representatives of municipalities, Aboriginal communities, non-profit and private sector housing providers and civil society organizations in order to establish a national housing strategy.

Housing

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although we share some of the same concerns and agree on certain issues, I invite the parliamentary secretary to take note of some of the constructive bills that the NDP has introduced to help people gain access to safe and affordable housing.

I am talking about Bill C-241, which seeks to recognize an individual's right to proper housing at a reasonable cost, and Bill C-400, which seeks to ensure secure, adequate, accessible, and affordable housing.

Having been the head of a community housing organization for more than 10 years, I am well aware of the different roles of municipal, provincial, and federal governments. I worked in the world of social housing for more than 10 years. I expect great things from the federal government when it comes to social housing. I saw thousands of young people benefit from social housing and saw how it gave them what they needed to get ahead in life.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what is called the 2015 budget. However, to my perspective, it is actually the 2017 budget because none of the money for cities will arrive for two years.

We will hear in conversations from the other side about how the Conservatives have put all kinds of money into cities through the gas tax. I would remind everybody here that this was a Paul Martin Liberal Party initiative. To take credit for it is to give us credit for forward thinking.

However, the budget has been described by the minister on the other side continually in question period as having three Ts, and I agree with him. There are three Ts. This budget is totally useless, totally unnecessary and totally unfair. For cities, nothing highlights this more than the housing promises.

There is a provision in the budget bill to forgive mortgages held by CMHC taken out by public housing providers and to put a fund in place to pay off the penalties for discharging mortgages and refinancing, and that is taking up a second mortgage with a second, private sector lender. What is not detailed, but has now come out through questioning, is that when public housing providers take advantage of this so-called opportunity, they lose their subsidies for the rent-geared-to-income units in those buildings. In other words, they would give up a mortgage, take on a new mortgage and somehow, magically, would be expected to finance subsidies for low-income seniors, people with disabilities and other individuals who need assistance. They would actually end up spending more money, relieving the federal government's obligation to people who need housing.

That is the most cynical bait and switch I have ever seen on the housing file. What it ends up situating is one of two opportunities. Either low-income Canadians are subsidizing the government so it can provide tax cuts for affluent Canadians, literally Robin Hood in reverse; or else, the housing providers are given an opportunity to refinance the housing, but in doing so they send the poorest in the housing sector out onto the streets. Out west in Manitoba, where the minister resides, most of those people, close to 5,000 of them, are seniors on fixed incomes. Putting those people at risk is unfair. The fund is totally useless and the response to the needs of the housing sector is totally unreal.

However, it is not just that. There is a promise of $1.7 billion being spent every year as a result of provincial and federal agreements. The Conservatives said that would be continued, that there would be no cuts to this program. They know damn well that those funds actually shrink year after year as subsidies disappear and as mortgages expire. The suggestion is that because they would have no mortgage, they could somehow have a poor neighbour subsidize a less affluent, even poorer neighbour. That is just not fair.

What is really cruel about this is that the assumption is that because housing providers have retired their mortgage they can finally find sums to pay for the subsidy. The truth of the matter is that the funds that are needed when these mortgages retire are there for state of good repair. Because there is no federal capital funding to repair old and aging housing stock, the money that suddenly becomes available to housing providers is dedicated for that, not for subsidies for other poor people. It is the most regressive way of running a housing program we have ever seen.

We have a housing policy, and that policy is more than a plan to have a plan. It involves partnering with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and funding directly, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to create supportive housing programs with an endowment. The second part of that is to renew the co-op and housing agreements and to step back into the housing market, but then also to take those savings as they accrue to the department and reinvest them once again in sustaining and building more co-op and affordable housing across the country.

The final piece of this is that with a shrinking CMHC and pulling CMHC out of the housing market, we also need to ensure we do not just focus on affordable housing but housing affordability. That housing affordability is critical in places like Calgary, Saskatoon and Edmonton where, because of the drop in commodity prices, the housing market has suddenly become very fragile. We need a federal government that protects middle-class homeowners, access to rental housing and access to the market for first-time buyers. Instead, what we get is some sort of laissez-faire attitude that says “do what you will”. We have not indexed, for example, the tax breaks for first-time homebuyers, so it is still stuck in the 1980s model as opposed to being updated annually and making housing accessible to everyone who wants to gain that opportunity.

These programs need to arrive. The government on the other side has no program other than to pull money out fo the public housing sector and use it to subsidize tax breaks to the affluent.

The NDP, to its credit, has a plan but it is only a plan to have a plan. If we read Bill C-400, we see it is to have a big meeting. There are no actual specifics as to how to solve the housing crisis in the country.

When we speak about it and folks criticize an earlier government, they are fine to go off and build a time machine, and go back and prosecute that election. It is time to start building housing in the country and the Liberal plan would do that. This budget does not address one iota of that.

On transit, it is even sillier. There is no money for two years and then it comes in dribs and drabs. The program the government has proposed is too big for small cities and too small for big cities, and it will not get transit built in a timely way. Cities need that money now, and not just for new projects. The state of good repair in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver is a critical issue facing urban centres. Without additional dollars, not earmarked for ribbon-cutting exercises but earmarked for the development and sustaining of existing transit systems, those transit systems will fail.

Stepping in and providing that revenue is critically important today, not in two or three years' time. If it arrives in two or three years' time, the new transit does not arrive for five to ten years, and that is not a response to gridlock. In fact, what the Conservative government is saying with this budget is, “Wait at the side of the road. Wait for the bus for two or three more years. Wait, wait, wait, we'll get to you at some point”, because right now it is more important not to provide the assistance to cities for which they have asked.

Finally on infrastructure, two years ago there was a 90% cut. Last year, there were zero dollars in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and small communities and small towns right across the country. The odd dollar arrived, but the bulk of the program, once again, is back-end loaded for 10 years. For critical infrastructure, to build strong cities, in which close to 82% of Canadians live, there is no new money in this budget. There is not a new timetable. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the cities know this.

This budget has to change, and it has to change to support those very programs I just mentioned. If it does not change, cities will not grow, our country will stagnate, and 82% of all Canadians will see their cities fail as the government promises tax cuts that, quite frankly, do not even address the socio-economic needs of the people who live in those cities. This is a huge problem and it needs to change and it needs to change with a go-forward argument, not a debate about what happened 25 years ago.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member may not be familiar with our many initiatives, because he had not yet been elected at the time, but the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot introduced Bill C-400, which is precisely our proposal for a national social housing strategy. I invite the member to look it up online to see the details of our plan.

My colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill before Parliament calling on the government to continue to invest in rent subsidies, thereby maintaining the agreements. I invite the member to also look that up online for more details, and to consult the NDP website to learn more about our plans. We have concrete plans. We have brought them before the House, and the government refused to support them.

Finance

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for that very important question.

Affordable housing is definitely one of the biggest losers in this budget. Many organizations have condemned the lack of adequate funding. None of the recommendations coming out of the pre-budget consultations really address this issue in any meaningful way, despite the fact that we heard witnesses talk about the importance of investing in housing and express disappointment in the federal government's lack of interest in this issue.

Also, in our supplementary report, we specifically talked about how the government should take immediate action to address the affordable housing crisis facing Canadian municipalities by renewing social housing agreements and working to develop and implement a national housing strategy as proposed by Bill C-400.

Unfortunately, the government did not pay attention to that recommendation, which is a real shame because the affordable housing crisis is affecting the whole country and is not getting any real attention from the federal government.

Housing

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, I asked the minister about homelessness in Canada, about homelessness strategies that the government was not employing and the fact that homelessness was getting worse, not better, under the government. The minister's answer was somewhat glib and somewhat non-specific to what has become a crisis in our country.

Homelessness costs Canadians $7 billion. Beyond that, there is a critical housing shortage.

When my colleague presented Bill C-400 in the House last year, the Conservatives voted against it because they that said it would cost $6.2 billion. The purpose of that bill was to find a way to ensure that everyone in our country had a home. The $6.2 billion is less than $7 billion, so it would have been cheaper for the government to have adopted Bill C-400.

In my riding of York South—Weston, close to half the residents are renters and of those, more than 36% spend more than 30% of their income on housing, which is the standard by which the government and the banks determine when people are spending too much. Almost 90% of the renters living in those big concrete towers, which is 45% of my riding, have some form of insecurity attached to their housing, yet the government says that everything is fine.

Close to one-third of those renters are in critical risk of homelessness. They have four or more aspects of their housing that is on the edge, that is either insufficient for the number of people in their household or is costing way too much for them. If they miss one paycheque, they and their children will be out on the street, and nobody wants to see that happen.

In the past few years, the government has signalled that it will not renew some 600,000 affordable housing units that are provided through the co-ops that have agreements with CMHC, with the government. These are coming to an end over the coming years. Many of those co-ops will be unable to continue. They have huge bills that have mounted up over the years because they have been living on the edge and they will be unable to continue once that funding ends.

It is almost criminal for the government to suggest that the funding will end, that the money will return to the treasury and that everything will be rosy when in fact, it has admitted, through its responses on Bill C-400, there is a $6.2 billion gap in the housing in our country, a $6.2 billion need for housing. There are 1.2 million households that have some kind of housing need. Those households have an average of $4,779 of need and the government has decided it will not provide it. It is not going to talk about it because it does not want to know. That is no way to address a real problem.

Some answers have been given to us by those who have written the “State of Homelessness in Canada 2014” report. I would like the government to at least consider these recommendations: a new framework agreement that sets clear priorities and requires local planning between the federal, provincial and municipal governments; increased housing first investments that target chronic and episodic homelessness through an expansion of the homelessness partnering strategy; direct investment in affordable housing programs, specifically, federal funding for social housing, co-ops, non-profits, as operating agreements wind down; a housing benefit for those who face a severe affordability problem; a new affordable housing tax credit; and a review and expand involvement in aboriginal housing both on and off reserve.

Child Poverty

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as official opposition critic for Employment and Social Development, I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for bringing this important motion forward, especially because this debate falls just a day away from the 25th anniversary of the all-party motion to eradicate child poverty.

At the end of last week, I had the privilege of attending a phenomenal conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which addressed a large component of this motion: affordable and accessible child care. The NDP was the only federal party whose leader was in attendance. I want to take a moment to personally thank the leader of the official opposition for making it his priority to be in attendance.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the important announcement made by the leader of the official opposition last month. An NDP government would see no parent in our country paying more than $15 a day for child care and would create one million new child care spaces. That announcement cuts to the very heart of the child care crisis in Canada right now. It cuts to the very heart of child poverty and to the eradication of poverty.

Right now in our country, two parents, working full-time at minimum wage, would struggle to pay for a full-time daycare spot. In Winnipeg last week, the leader of the official opposition said that this was not okay, that it should be no more than $15 a day for accessible, quality daycare. The NDP has also called for a $15 an hour minimum wage for federally regulated employment.

No parent should have to choose between affordability and safety. In 2014, in a beautiful developed country like Canada, one of the top in the G7, it is absolutely flabbergasting that we have child poverty. Unfortunately, eradication of poverty is not a given. Canada ranks 23rd among the countries in the OECD, despite the fact that we like to see ourselves as part of the G20 and the G7.

Not only that, but when it comes to public spending on early learning and child care, Canada ranks dead last among comparable countries. We can do better. Simply put, we do not prioritize our young people and that will have a significant consequence on the future of our country if we do not turn things around.

Currently 900,000 children in Canada are in need of affordable, quality daycare spots. The government promised the creation of 125,000 new spaces in 2006. Where are those spots? Not a single new spot was created.

The importance of quality early childhood education in the development of children cannot be understated. It prevents social exclusion and ensures that every child has an opportunity to develop into a contributing member of our society. Studies suggest that growing up in a household that lacks adequate financial resources for basic family needs has long-term negative impacts.

According to research by Pierre Fortin, Quebec's model of child care has a positive effect on the economy, and we know how much the Conservative government likes to believe it is a good economic manager. More than 70,000 mothers were able to join the workforce and generate a return of $1.75 for every dollar spent on child care.

In 1989, my friend, Ed Broadbent, introduced a motion that was was unanimously passed in the House. All parliamentarians in this place came together and committed to eradicating child poverty, because all of them could agree that one child living in poverty in our country was one child too many, yet here we are. One in seven children currently live in poverty. When we look at aboriginal children, the numbers are bleaker. Two in five aboriginal children live in poverty.

On these numbers alone, I implore all members of the House to stand and support my colleague's motion, but words are not enough. We need to take action. Let us all come together again in a renewed commitment for the betterment of all Canadian children. Surely all members in the House still agree that one child living in poverty is one too many. Surely, with all of the divisions that exist within these walls, we can agree on that.

I want to take a moment to thank a mentor of mine, Laurel Rothman, who has dedicated her career to eradicating child poverty in Canada. I have the deepest respect for her tenacity and dedication. In our short time working together, I have learned so much from her, both factually and ethically. She is my hero in countless ways, and I wish her the very best in her retirement. Laurel is an inspiration and I am a better person and member of Parliament for having worked with her. From the bottom of my heart, I thank her.

The Conservative government has led the country into such a housing crisis that one in four Canadian families spends more than one-third of its overall income on housing. Housing prices in Vancouver, and outskirts like Surrey and Delta, are sky high, yet Canada is still the only country in the G8 without a national housing strategy. I am devastated by that. Housing costs are among the top concerns of my constituents in Surrey, and I am sure the same holds true for the constituents of many members in the House.

The NDP proposed Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the government. Had it passed, it would have addressed the plight of 300,000 homeless Canadians and approximately 1.5 million households, many with children, that could not access a decent, affordable home.

For the NDP, a housing strategy that establishes a structured coordination between the federal and provincial levels of government, as well as with other relevant organizations, is of fundamental importance.

The eradication of poverty will only be possible when the national housing crisis is addressed. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is pleading with the Conservative government to invest in long-term funding for affordable and sustainable housing. Due to cuts from the Conservative government, many low-income renters are in a state of panic.

Since the 1970s, low-income renters have received federal subsidies, but the government claws them back and people are left without a solution. In first nations communities, the situation is even more dire.

This motion is not asking for too much. Quite simply, we are asking the Conservative government to make the elimination of child poverty a priority, not just in words but in real actions, and to develop a poverty reduction plan with timelines and measurable benchmarks that would include components to address children's poverty. That would involve taking action on the crisis of poverty for indigenous children, making housing more affordable for lower income Canadians, creating a national early childhood education and child care program, addressing childhood nutrition, and improving economic security for families.

Children are poor because their parents are poor. No child chooses to be born into poverty. Because of that, it means addressing poverty in a comprehensive way is essential to addressing childhood poverty and to ensure the future of our country. Poverty affects three million Canadians. Three million children, seniors, indigenous people, persons living with disabilities, single parents and recent immigrants are all more likely to live in poverty.

Over 967,000 children live in poverty, and 22,000 adults under age 25 are homeless. Canada ranks 15th out of 17 among peer countries when it comes to child poverty rates, and B.C. has the ignominious privilege, if I can call it that, of having the highest child poverty rate in Canada.

Thirty-eight per cent of children living with single parents live in poverty and forty per cent of indigenous children live in poverty. I said it already, and I will say it again, that collectively we can do better. As members of Parliament, we can stand together in the House and recommit to eliminating child poverty. What more meaningful way to mark the 25th anniversary of the unanimous motion passed in the House with an objective we have yet to achieve.

I ask all my colleagues to support the motion, because no one should be left behind and, mostly, no child. Let me remind the House, no child chooses to be born in poverty. It behooves each and every one of us to address this stigma on our country right away.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work in collaboration with the provinces, territories and First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities to eradicate child poverty in Canada by developing a national poverty reduction plan that includes: (a) making housing more affordable for lower income Canadians; (b) ensuring accessible and affordable child care; (c) addressing childhood nutrition; (d) improving economic security of families; (e) measures that specifically address the unique needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; and (f) measurable targets and timelines.

Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the 25th anniversary, I am honoured and privileged to stand and present my Motion No. 534, to reiterate our commitment to eradicating child poverty in Canada.

A quarter of a century ago, in 1989, a similar motion was introduced by former NDP leader Ed Broadbent to eradicate child poverty by 2000. That motion received unanimous consent in the House. Here we are 25 years later, and not much has changed.

I do not want to make accusations to any of the successive Liberal or Conservative governments for not taking proper actions to eliminate child poverty since the House made the promise and commitment to do so. However, I also cannot keep quiet and pretend that poverty rates among children have improved compared to 25 years ago, or that Canada is poverty-free.

For 25 consecutive years, Canadian children and their families who live in poverty have been left behind and marginalized on the agendas of successive governments. Twenty-five years is a long time. It makes me wonder why almost one million Canadian children are living in poverty today and why successive governments have allowed the rate of poverty to increase compared to 25 years ago. It makes me wonder whether the Liberal and Conservative governments over the last 25 years have felt that the opinions of the impoverished do not matter.

What went wrong? Why was a promise to our country's children broken? If we did not keep the promise to our children, then that is fine; it is perhaps that the governments of the day felt that children do not vote and so they are not a huge priority.

However, how about the promise that Canada made to the rest of the world when we ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1991? We agreed to uphold international principles, values, and standards. According to article 27.1:

States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

The section then continues and holds states more responsible by obliging them to do the following:

[...] take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

My motion deals with all of those, but specifically nutrition, housing, and child care.

As a state that is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada is not meeting its commitment globally today.

This past week, I spent a lot of time with children in our schools in Scarborough, and many of them found it difficult to imagine that there are children and families who go hungry and cannot afford to have their daily meals. The reality is that it is happening right here, in one of the world's richest countries, our great Canada.

In its November 7, 2013 report, Campaign 2000 stated:

Food security among families is highly critical with 1.1 million children experiencing food insecurity, a situation of inadequate or insecure access to food because of financial constraints, and children represent 36% of food bank users in Canada.

According to another recent article by Huffington Post, on November 4, 2014, there are 375,000 people in Ontario who use food banks, of whom 36% are children.

Health Canada's report entitled “Household Food Insecurity in Select Provinces and Territories 2009-2010” showed that Nunavut, in Canada's north, has the highest number of households in Canada that are food insecure, which is 28.8%. That is more than double the number in the Yukon, which holds second place at 11%.

Another question that one might think to ask is what the current government has done to lower the levels of poverty in Canada. When we pose questions in question period, the government says that it has lowered the levels. Let us look at some details.

The reality is that not much has been done. Some cabinet ministers have even demonstrated quite embarrassing hospitality when the UN special rapporteur on the right to food was in Canada. It was quite a shame.

The United Nations has also described housing and homelessness in Canada as a national emergency. An estimated 250,000 people are homeless, with another 1.1 million living in inadequate housing, and more than 500,000 are facing a serious financial burden which threatens their housing security. Over 10% of those identified as homeless are youth aged 16 to 18.

In its first universal periodic review, a number of members of the human rights council expressed significant concerns about poverty and housing in Canada. A number of recommendations were made to enhance the catastrophic situations of housing, for which we as a nation were heavily criticized. Despite the original denial from the government, it involuntarily, and under pressure, accepted some of the recommendations from the member states.

Canada agreed to consider taking on board the recommendation of the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, specifically to extend and enhance the national homelessness program and the residential rehabilitation assistance program. Canada also committed to double its efforts to better ensure the right to adequate housing, especially for vulnerable groups and low-income families.

However, just when we thought there might be improvements, the current Conservative government voted against Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. It did not stop there. In the June 2012 budget, it also defunded and closed down the former national council of welfare, the NCW, which was an organization that highlighted poverty and warned policy-makers of the consequences of neglecting those in need. By eliminating the role of the NCW, the government officially shut down the source of reports and information that depicted the depth and breadth of poverty in Canada. Instead of eliminating the problem of poverty, it eliminated the messenger, the NCW.

It is something like the metaphor where the cat thinks that if it closes its eyes and drinks milk that nobody around can see it.

We have heard the parliamentary secretary stating that we do not have much of a poverty problem in Canada. The truth is that we do not have a national information centre, the NCW, to do the research and present any reports to us. The government does not understand that affordable and adequate housing does not only offer shelter but also offers individuals and families a sense of stability, security, and motivation. The children I met with last week knew that. They know that ensuring that they have a roof over their houses means safety and security for them.

We need a comprehensive plan to tackle this issue and save more money for Canadians and the national revenue. According to a study conducted by homelessness Canada, each year it costs the system approximately $55,000 to leave a homeless person on the street, while providing adequate housing and support services would cost only $37,000.

Another report by the Canadian Medical Association, in 2013, concluded that child poverty is at the core of socio-economic problems. Over 20% of health-care related expenditure is derived from inadequate housing and the consequences of low-income conditions.

By implementing what is being introduced today through my private member's motion, Canadians will benefit on many levels. First, we will do the right thing; that is, removing homeless Canadians from the streets. Second, that will save Canadians more than $15 billion dollars annually—that is five from removing the homeless, and ten from savings on health care from inadequate housing—which could be used in other areas that could benefit Canadians in various tax benefits and could finance a national child care program, which is the third piece of the motion.

On many occasions when the government was asked about child poverty rates in Canada, there were no clear reasons as to why the rate of child poverty had increased over the last 25 years. On October 28, UNICEF issued its annual report card, and on November 3, it had a symposium entitled “Children in the Wake of the Great Recession”, which was dedicated to child poverty. Neither in the report nor during the seminar was anything positive said about the current and previous federal governments' serious engagement and commitment to eradicating child poverty. Even though the current government and ministers may avoid the facts, poverty is a reality for far too many of Canada's children. If these irresponsible policies continue, that will continue to be the reality for even more of our children.

The government likes to acknowledge that 180,000 children were pulled out of poverty due to its great efforts, which it likes to celebrate. However, it is in denial of the truth, that poverty exists and Canada has a high percentage of child poverty.

On several occasions, the Minister of State for Social Development and the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism have referred to the UNICEF report and quoted only the favourable parts from it.

I would like to bring to their attention that on November 3, I was present at UNICEF Canada's annual symposium to hear from other experts about report card 12. The government did not even bother to send a representative there to hear from experts on the ground.

The conclusion from the day was that children are worse off today than when the crisis began in 2008, and much worse off than they were 25 years ago. Here is some of what the spokespeople of UNICEF Canada had to say on the day that report card 12 was released:

...what disturbs us is that the relative poverty rate hasn't budged for many years. As a wealthy country we are not doing well enough for our children.

That was from Lisa Wolff, the director of UNICEF Canada.

I have another quote from Tiffany Baggetta, the spokesperson for UNICEF Canada at the symposium. She said:

Overall, child poverty in Canada has decreased but children who were the most poor to begin with have slipped further into poverty.

This means we are not really helping the most vulnerable people in our country: our children.

We can see that the government has a trend of doing things in its own way. We know that it does not like to have much consultation and it does not like to listen to experts or people in the field. It is true that during the recession years, Canada's child poverty rate did decrease from a shameful 23% to 21%. However, 25 years ago, when Parliament made the commitment to end poverty among our children, the rate was only 13%. Successive governments have contributed to the child poverty rate increasing from 13% to 23%. The Conservative government is celebrating that it is now at 21%, which is a significant increase from the 13% it was at when we committed to eradicating poverty in this country.

Let us compare our country with Scandinavian countries and the U.K. These countries have actually done a great job in reducing their child poverty rates. The child poverty rate in Nordic countries is below 6%. It is not 21%, as it is in Canada.

What have we done in the past 25 years in this regard? We can go in circles and have the Liberals and the Conservatives blame and accuse each other for irresponsible governing, but those excuses and accusations will not feed the poor or the children in our country, nor will they provide them with adequate housing, security, or child care.

Again, let me return to parts of the UNICEF report. The government quotes frequently from this report. The quotes lead the government into believing that it has accomplished the mission of eradicating child poverty by pulling 180,000 children out of poverty. According to Statistics Canada, in every year since 1989, on average, 180,000 to 250,000 children are removed from the category of being poor children. Regardless of these numbers, the child poverty rate has continued to increase, despite the fact that the fertility rate has not increased in the same time period. Therefore, it is not that we are having more children: the number of children being removed from poverty remains the same because they are aging out, and our poverty rates continue to grow.

None of the previous governments has done enough. Many factors have contributed in removing these 180,000 children from poverty. Around 12% to 15% of those children who were 17 years of age became 18 years of age and were removed from the count of child poverty. Basically, we removed them statistically from child poverty to make them adults living in poverty, and more than 23,000 of them are now homeless.

Over 70% of those children and their families were lifted above the poverty line through the efforts of provincial governments, private corporations, NGOs, charities, and other social agencies, such as food banks and shelters.

Mr. Speaker, you are giving me the one-minute warning, and I have so much more to say.

Poverty is also racialized in our country, and I will give members some statistics from the GTA before I conclude. Among the broad ethno-racial groups in the GTA, the rates of child poverty were about one in ten in global European groups; one in five for east Asian groups; one in four for aboriginal, south Asian, and Caribbean groups; one in three for children of Arab and west Asian groups; and one in two for children of African groups. Today the GTA has 79% of Ontario's immigrants and 81% of Ontario's visible minorities. This means that far too many of our racialized people living in the GTA are living in poverty.

I would like to conclude by saying that implementing a national strategy to eradicate poverty would have a positive impact on our Canadian economy in both the short and long run. High levels of child poverty generate very significant and growing human and fiscal costs to society and to the economy in the long run.

This motion calls for the eradication of child poverty by investing in affordable and accessible housing, child care, and child nutrition programs. Those are the three social determinants of poverty among our children, and it is our responsibility as the lawmakers of this country to ensure that we are investing in the most vulnerable people in society, our country's children.

Opposition Motion—Affordable housing

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Minister of State for Social Development.

I have two things to say. One, on the issue that we did not ask her questions at committee, we would welcome her return to the committee so we can do that. It is not a problem for us to schedule committee meetings so she can come back. I understand that the questions centred on temporary foreign workers. When we only have 12 minutes to ask questions and the temporary foreign worker program is such an enormous and timely problem, it is difficult to ask all the questions we would love to ask the minister. If she came back it would be wonderful.

The second point is on the $1.7 billion or the $2 billion they are spending currently on housing in some manner, some of which is inherited money from the existing programs or existing mortgage subsidies, as she calls them, although that is not what they really are. When Bill C-400 was presented, the Conservatives suggested that the size of the problem was $6.2 billion. If they are spending $2 billion and the size of the problem is in addition to that, so that the total problem is $8 billion, where would that $6.2 billion come from? Where is the Conservative strategy? Why are the Conservatives suggesting that this little drop in the bucket is enough?

Housing

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. However, they confirm my worst fears, that in fact the current government intends to cut the $1.7 billion it is now spending on affordable housing through the co-op agreements by simply allowing those agreements to expire without any replacement funding whatsoever.

In fact, the government will apparently determine that it will save $1.7 billion, which would then go to provide a more balanced budget, which at the same time, would leave several hundred thousand Canadians without adequate, suitable or affordable housing.

The government suggested, in its opening statement, that it has a commitment to safe, suitable and affordable housing. Yet, when presented with Bill C-400, which would have in fact allowed the government to create a strategy with the provinces and territories to do just that, the government decided to vote against that motion and to kill any idea that the government would be involved in a strategy with the provinces, territories and municipalities.

In conclusion, it appears that the government has not yet answered the question about what will happen to those people whose residences would become unaffordable when these long-term agreements expire.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on November 27, I asked the minister for social development about the government's plan to address the affordable housing crisis that exists in this country. Her answer shows that the government just does not understand the depth of the problem. It is a crisis that is causing the city of Toronto to bring people to Ottawa to rally and to ask the federal government to stop the cutting. It is amazing to see a city send people here. It is one thing to have social groups, but a city sending people here to rally is quite an amazing feat.

As the Conservatives allow the long-term housing agreements to expire, up to $1.7 billion in annual funding for housing will be lost. Low-income Canadians will bear the brunt of these cuts. They will no longer be able to afford to pay their rents when their rent-geared-to-income programs end.

I asked why the government is allowing the funding for housing to expire. What I received in reply was a litany of what exists today in helping people who are in housing need. There are 800,000 families and individuals currently being supported in part by federal funds, the result not of the government's action but the actions of previous governments, including the deal cut between Jack Layton and Paul Martin in 2005. The current government voted against it, and I heard nothing about the government's plans to help those in housing need.

The government has been cutting and plans to cut even more from its contribution to housing. The federal contribution to affordable housing was $3.6 billion in 2010. It has fallen to about $2 billion today, and it will fall further, to $1.8 billion by 2016. This is a 52% cut over six years, at a time when the need for affordable housing continues to increase. Further, the number of households served by federal funding to make their rents affordable will also decline, from 800,000 today, to 525,000 by 2016.

The minister also in her answer suggested that job creation would somehow solve the problem. It again shows how out of touch the government is. Many of those receiving assistance already have jobs, but the cost of housing strips many of their ability to pay for their rent. The government is making it worse by forcing people to accept less when coming off EI.

The need for affordable housing for low-income families in this country, which is already great, is growing. Housing need is defined as having to pay more than 30% of one's gross income on shelter.

In my riding of York South—Weston, there are nearly 16,000 households in housing need today. That is over one-third of the households in my riding.

If government members had passed Bill C-400, presented by the NDP, it would have forced the government to begin creating a strategy to deal with this crisis in collaboration with provinces and municipal governments. When it killed the idea of a strategy, it said that to fully correct the problem would cost $6.2 billion. It is good that it has identified the scope of the problem. That is based on the 1.4 million households needing help and that the help needed is an average of $4,779 per year per household. The government is good at pointing its finger at the problem but refuses to lift that finger to help.

When housing costs eat up so much family income, there is little left to pay for health needs, for the needs of children, or to save for the future. There is little left for food. It is no wonder that food bank use is so high in this country.

My question remains: With housing costs at an all-time high, why is the government allowing the funding for housing to expire?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to move concurrence in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented on Wednesday, December 12, 2012, with respect to labour and skills shortages in Canada. The subtitle of the report is “Addressing Current and Future Challenges”.

There is no doubt that a vital competitive economy in the global era requires the development of a skilled workforce that provides Canadian employers with the workers they need and that provides Canadian workers with the opportunities they deserve. In order to achieve that goal Canada needs to find the right match between skills and employment opportunities so that we do not suffer from skills shortages and high unemployment at the same time.

My NDP colleagues and I supported the standing committee's report on labour shortages in Canada, and we were particularly pleased to see recommendations on incentives for training and labour mobility. However, we also think there are some important areas in which the recommendations did not go far enough in addressing the crucial challenges that Canada faces.

Let me begin with some general areas of concern that were raised in testimony by a number of witnesses who appeared before our committee.

It is true that labour shortages were already being felt prior to the 2008-2009 recession, especially in the western provinces. The recession eased this pressure, but already shortages are reappearing in certain regions and sectors.

Given the aging population, it is likely that labour and skills shortages will increase, but this will not be true for all regions nor for all occupational groups. While shortages may be less severe in occupations requiring fewer qualifications, low-skilled occupations are also experiencing shortages, especially in regions with strong and rapid economic growth.

The first finding of the study, which was reiterated by many witnesses, is that no single solution will magically solve the challenges caused by labour and skills shortages. Various complementary solutions must be identified.

One solution that was mentioned often by the witnesses who appeared as part of the study was to make all the essential information on future labour needs available so that educational programs can be created and modified accordingly, and so that consequently young people can choose occupations that will be in high demand.

Obviously that will not be possible without high-quality labour market information. The holders of these data must work together to avoid duplication and find ways to improve both the quality of the information as well as the distribution of all LMI products to the people who can benefit the most from its use.

Another solution the committee heard throughout the study was to maximize the untapped potential of individuals and certain groups of the Canadian population that have a lower participation rate or a higher unemployment rate than average, such as mature workers, people with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and recent immigrants. These groups represent a huge pool of untapped talents and could help address a significant part of the skills shortages.

Other suggestions made by witnesses include increasing labour force mobility, increasing awareness of trades and professions in demand that are not popular with young people, providing workers with adequate on-the-job training, increasing the level of basic skills, improving worker productivity and increasing reliance on partnerships between various levels of government, companies, educational institutions, students and workers.

Of course, special mention was made of the temporary foreign worker program, around which there was a significant consensus that there had to be reform. Given the recent media spotlight on the temporary foreign worker program, I do not think that will surprise any member in the House.

The recommendations in the report address many of these concerns. In fact, there were 38 recommendations made by the committee, most of which my NDP colleagues and I agreed with. Let me re-emphasize the word “most”, because as one can imagine, on a Conservative-dominated committee, much of the language in this report is both self-congratulatory and slanted to the needs of employers only. Nonetheless, we did find some significant common ground.

There were, however, also areas of significant disagreement, and I want to spend the better part of my remaining time on those areas. These areas represent a huge missed opportunity, and I would hope that moving forward, the government will take a second look at our minority report and use it to shape additional measures that were lacking in the original recommendations.

Let me begin with comments about labour market information.

Time and time again the committee heard from witnesses that labour market information in Canada is not good enough. We heard that the data are not granular enough and do not allow for sufficient breakdown by occupation or region. The data are also not published frequently enough and do not allow for high-quality projections of shortages in the future. In fact, the committee's final report offers numerous instances in which the testimony from industries and the data available from current surveys disagree on whether or not there is or will be a skills or labour shortage in a given industry.

The Certified General Accountants Association recently published an examination of available sources of data that concluded that our current LMI is not good enough to enable policy-makers to effectively deal with labour shortages. It recommends “...closing the statistical information gap and improving the relevance and reliability of labour market statistics at the regional and occupational levels”.

Given that good LMI is the linchpin to good skills training and labour force development policy as well as crucial to good immigration policy and management of the temporary foreign worker program, we find the report's recommendation on LMI to be very weak indeed. We need more than better publicity for the data that are already being produced.

The experts on the advisory panel on labour market information established by the Forum of Labour Market Ministers have already provided an excellent blueprint of the steps that could be taken to improve the collection, analysis and use of LMI in Canada. For that reason, my NDP colleagues and I recommended that the government take steps to implement the recommendations made in the final report of the advisory panel on labour market information.

We also noted in our report that the weakness of our labour market information has been exacerbated by cuts to Statistics Canada and its surveys and by the elimination of core funding for sector councils, which play a crucial role in bringing together industry partners and provide very useful sector-specific LMI. Therefore, we also recommended that Statistics Canada be provided with the funding it needs to improve labour force-related surveys and that core funding be restored to sector councils.

Moving on to a second area that merited additional attention, I want to focus next on the need to develop the Canadian labour force.

While employers are experiencing shortages of both skilled and low-skilled labour, unemployment in Canada remains high, with six unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy. The Conservatives' response has been to blame the unemployed for their unemployment, to reduce access to employment insurance while trying to force Canadians to move to other parts of the country and to use the temporary foreign worker program to drive down wages.

By contrast, New Democrats believe that Canadian workers and employers benefit when Canadians are given the tools they need to be able to take available jobs. That is why we believe that investments in skills training are so important. We laud the report's recommendation that the government consider incentives to employers to invest in on-the-job training. However, we also recommend that the government review its bilateral agreements with the provinces to ensure that they provide maximum benefit to Canadians in need of training. For instance, the fact that the largest part of funding for skills training provided through labour market development agreements is limited to those who qualify for employment insurance benefits makes no sense when more than 6 in 10 unemployed Canadians are not qualifying for EI.

Similarly, we believe that Canadians need support for labour mobility rather than to be threatened with the loss of their EI benefits if they do not move for the jobs. We are pleased that the report recommends support for a tax credit for travel and lodging for those working more than 80 kilometres away from their residence. This is a proposal I have been pushing for years by introducing Bill C-201, an act to amend the Income Tax Act for travel and accommodation deduction for tradespersons. The building and construction trades have been lobbying for this bill for over 30 years, and it continues to be one of the key priorities at each and every one of their legislative conferences.

In every Parliament the government has made vague promises of progress to come; then each Parliament ends without concrete action. The time to rectify that situation is now, and I appreciate the committee's support in this regard. The ask is simple: allow tradespersons and apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so that they can secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres away from their home.

At a time when some regions of the country suffer from high unemployment while others suffer from temporary skilled labour shortages, the bill offers a solution to both. Best of all, it is revenue neutral for the government because the cost associated with the income tax cut is more than made up by the savings in employment insurance.

Now that the Conservatives have a majority in the House of Commons, there are no more excuses. The government can and must support the bill and act unequivocally to support Canada's building and construction trades. I am hoping to be able to test the government's resolve on this issue in the very near future.

Let me just give a quick shout out to some of the people from my hometown of Hamilton who have been instrumental in putting this issue on Parliament's agenda. In particular, I am thinking of Joe Beattie, Tim Penfold, Geoff Roman, Gary Elleker, Dave MacMaster, Paul Leger and all the members of the Hamilton-Brantford Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, whose support for the bill has been unwavering and who, frankly, were the first to bring the issue to my attention.

I could talk about my bill and the need for its speedy adoption all day. Nonetheless, I recognize that my time here is limited and I also want to get some other issues on the record with respect to the current skills shortage.

One of the other barriers to labour mobility that was raised over and over again was the lack of affordable housing. Regions that are experiencing an economic boom cannot develop housing fast enough to offer workers reasonable accommodation at prices they can afford. Therefore, in our minority report we recommended that the government support NDP Bill C-400, which called on the government to create a national affordable housing strategy in co-operation with the provinces and territories.

Members will know that in the time since we tabled our report, the Conservatives defeated that bill in this House. To New Democrats and housing activists from coast to coast to coast, that was a devastating rejection of a desperately needed program. Canada remains the only G8 country without a housing strategy, while 1.5 million families and individuals are unable to access adequate, affordable housing. It is a national disgrace. Certainly the evidence we heard at committee confirmed that the lack of affordable housing should have been a priority for our federal government.

Similarly, testimony confirmed that the Conservatives also mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program, allowing employers to bring in temporary foreign workers with little to no monitoring for compliance with the rules of the program. The result has been that Canadian workers have lost out on jobs that should have been available to them, while temporary foreign workers face exploitation and rights violations.

If managed properly, the temporary foreign worker program should provide a temporary solution to a serious problem while emphasizing a longer-term response that promotes the best interests of Canadian workers and employers and our economy. The government has announced a review of the temporary foreign worker program, and New Democrats recommend that this review be conducted in a thorough and transparent manner, with a report tabled in the House of Commons as soon as the review is concluded.

Although this is another topic about which I could talk for hours, I will keep moving along.

Let us look next at the need for effective partnerships. In its skills strategy, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that all relevant stakeholders must be involved in order to ensure an effective, comprehensive approach to skills policies. Designing effective skills policies requires more than coordinating different sectors of public administration and aligning different levels of government: a broad range of non-governmental actors, including employers, professional and industry associations, chambers of commerce, sector councils, trade unions, education and training institutions and individuals must all be involved.

New Democrats agree that policies are stronger when all relevant stakeholders are involved and consulted, and that is why we recommend that the development of policy options to improve labour market information to ensure a better match between the skills of graduates and the needs of employers and to develop strong curricula must always include all relevant stakeholders: federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments, businesses and industry, employee representatives and labour unions, educational institutions and student associations as well as not-for-profit groups.

Speaking of students, my NDP colleagues and I respect that one of the major goals of post-secondary education is skills training. However, we also recognize that this is not the only goal for Canada's colleges and universities and that there is a role for pure research.

We also respect academic freedoms and the rights of scholars to freely choose their subject areas and research projects. Therefore, we recommend that consultations on curricula always be undertaken with appropriate respect for the multiple roles of post-secondary educational institutions.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about the participation of aboriginal peoples in the labour market. Our committee heard some very compelling testimony in that regard. As the report notes, aboriginal peoples' labour market outcomes must be improved to ensure that aboriginal peoples benefit from resource development to reduce aboriginal poverty and to provide the skilled labour force that Canada will need in the future.

A key element of aboriginal labour market outcomes is education, yet the report offers no recommendations on aboriginal education at all. If educational outcomes are to improve for aboriginal students, they need adequately funded education that respects their unique culture and history in safe and healthy school facilities.

First nations education is the jurisdiction of the federal government, which does not provide equitable funding for first nations children.

While budget 2012 provided some new funds for first nations education, only eight new schools were built out of 170 needed, and so far, no money has been committed directly to first nations schools for front-line education services.

According to the Assembly of First Nations, $500 million is needed to bring funding for first nations K-12 education to parity with non-aboriginal Canadians. The AFN has also noted that a gap in funding for post-secondary education has prevented more than 13,000 first nations students from pursuing higher education. Those realities are completely unacceptable. That is why my NDP colleagues and I recommended that the government provide sufficient and equitable funding for first nations K-12 education as well as post-secondary education, including vocational training and apprenticeships, and that the government remove the punitive 2% cap on funding increases to first nations.

The Conservatives' failure to take consultations seriously has already derailed this process once, with the chiefs withdrawing from the process due to inadequate consultation. That is why we further recommended that the government recognize first nations' jurisdiction over education and abide by the federal government's duty to consult by holding extensive and meaningful consultations leading to the creation of a first nations education act that respects first nations' rights, culture and history.

The federal government also provides funding for Inuit education through territorial transfers and land claims agreements. The education system is seriously failing Inuit youth, with only 25% graduating from high school. Those who do manage to graduate are still not at the same skill level as non-aboriginal students.

The report of Thomas Berger, a conciliator appointed to resolve differences in the negotiations for the implementation of the land claims agreement, found that education was a key factor in impeding progress on Inuit representation in the public service. It called for an increase of $20 million annually to education funding beyond what is provided through territorial financing.

The same holds true for other jobs. Inuit youth need culturally and linguistically appropriate education that enables them to stay in school and graduate with the skills they need to join the workforce. New Democrats therefore recommended that the government increase funding for Inuit education beyond the funding provided through territorial financing and land claims agreements.

Finally, the committee heard from multiple witnesses that the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, ASETS, has been very successful in providing the training aboriginal Canadians need and the links with employers that help them find jobs after their training. However, the committee also heard that funding has been frozen since 1996, despite the fact that the need is greater than ever as the aboriginal population grows.

ASETS holders have also noted the heavy reporting burden that comes with their funding. A review of the program is beginning, and New Democrats recommend that the federal government include ASETS holders in the ongoing program review in a meaningful way and work with them to establish a process for stable, predictable and adequate funding to maintain and improve this highly successful program.

Let me try to sum up. To meet our labour force goals, we need more and better labour market data; incentives and/or requirements for employers to offer training programs; more support for workers seeking training; better EI programs; more affordable education programs; enhanced support for labour mobility; the ability of immigrants here to have their credentials recognized and a much faster and more efficient process; and better support for an immigration program that does more than simply provide cheap foreign labour with no path to citizenship.

Overall, we need to see the skills shortage as one important issue among a series of important labour market issues, the most important of which remains the still very high unemployment rate. With 1.4 million Canadians out of work, it is hard to make the argument that we have a national labour shortage. What we have are regional shortages that cannot overshadow the fact that the Conservative government's most lasting failure is to develop and implement a strategy to create Canadian jobs. Until that happens, at best we will be tinkering at the margins.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP contributed to these changes, but the Conservatives are taking all the credit. They do not deserve the credit; Jack Layton does. He worked very hard advocating for social housing.

Bill C-400 almost passed, which was the then Bill C-304. Everyone was in favour of it.

This time around, it is totally ridiculous that the Conservatives all voted against the bill. We were previously unable to pass the bill that the Conservatives agreed with and now suddenly they no longer agree with it. What changed? It is not true to say that it cost money. As I was saying earlier in my speech, a private member's bill cannot give rise to expenditures.

We were simply asking to sit down and talk. Why does that intimidate them? Are they afraid of what they might find? How did they come up with the figure of $5 million, or thereabouts? Were they already aware of the need in this area? Have they identified that need? Is the figure they came up with the one that they should be spending but are unwilling to? Is that the real reason?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Surrey North.

Almost a year ago, my leader gave me the official opposition housing critic portfolio. Since then, I have risen many times in the House to demand that the government make housing and homelessness priorities.

I also travelled across Canada to meet with Canadians and interest groups to find out what they think about these very important issues. When I read the budget tabled last Thursday by the Minister of Finance, it became clear that I have a long road ahead of me to get anyone to bother listening to these people.

I cannot say that I am surprised by the lack of housing and homelessness measures in the budget. I never once believed that they were priorities for the Conservatives.

I knew what what I was in for when the Conservatives voted as a block against Bill C-400, which was introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to ensure that the different levels of government and the stakeholders would sit down together to assess needs and establish a national housing strategy. But I was shocked when I saw that, the day before the vote, the government posted a document on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation website claiming that Bill C-400 would cost Canadian taxpayers $5.5 billion even though the stakeholders had not yet met to discuss what was needed, which was the one and only purpose of the bill. The government must be clear and honest with people.

On pages 1112 and 1113 of O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, we learn that:

There is a constitutional requirement that bills proposing the expenditure of public funds must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, which can be obtained only by the government and introduced by a Minister. Since a Minister cannot propose items of Private Members’ Business, a private Member’s bill should therefore not contain provisions for the spending of funds.

That seems pretty clear to me. What this means is that a private member's bill cannot commit public funds. In light of what I just said, I would like to know how Bill C-400—which was introduced by the member from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and whose only objective was to have government representatives and stakeholders sit down together to discuss housing issues—could have been assigned the kind of price tag that the Conservatives used to justify voting against the bill? Such a bill would have been considered out of order under the rules of procedure of the House. I will not speculate about the government's motives, but will allow people to draw their own conclusions.

The budget presented last Thursday does not satisfy the NDP official opposition with regard to housing and the fight against homelessness, but let us nevertheless play along and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

I am pleased that the government has finally committed to renewing the homelessness partnering strategy, as I have requested many times in the House without ever receiving a satisfactory response. However, when I said renewal, I was not just talking about extending full funding for the HPS. I was also asking that it be increased. Unfortunately, funding for the fight against homelessness has never been indexed since the SCPI was introduced in 1999.

You do not need an advanced course in economics to understand that costs and salaries have increased since the program was created and that funding allocated to the fight against homelessness in Canada has been doing less and less to meet the needs of groups in that regard.

I was not only asking that the budget allocated to the program be indexed to reflect those realities; I was also asking that it be increased to reflect the needs of the groups combating homelessness and its repercussions.

Why? Because, unlike my colleagues opposite, I consult stakeholders in the sector and I listen to them. They can tell us about the needs they see, and they can clearly see that homelessness is increasing year after year.

Unfortunately, I get the impression I was simply misunderstood. When the Conservatives say renewal, they understand it in the literal sense. To them, it means “change everything.”

Reading the budget that was presented to us last Thursday, in the section ironically entitled “Housing for Canadians in Need”, on page 228, we see that the government has extended the HPS, providing $119 million in funding a year over five years using a housing first approach.

We in fact learned about this on the morning the budget was presented because, once again, the Conservatives leaked the information to the media in a Canadian Press article entitled “Budget to fund and reorient federal homelessness strategy; new focus on housing.”

There are two important things to know about the HPS. First, not only have the Conservatives not increased or even indexed the program to reflect rising costs and salaries; they have also cut the amount that was allocated to it.

From 2011 to 2014, the program received funding of $134.8 million a year. Now it will be $119 million, which means that groups that already could not meet needs will collectively have to absorb an annual $15.8 million cut to the budget allocated to combat homelessness.

Second, the program's approach has been completely changed. With the housing first approach, any intervention funded by the HPS may be terminated if a number of projects do not give housing priority. Several organizations could thus lose their caseworkers, and the development of new projects to fund capital expenditures could be jeopardized.

In my riding of Hochelaga alone, where homelessness comes in many forms, the program's new purpose could harm several groups already established in the area. Dopamine, a substance abuse organization, and the shelter for prostitutes planned by the CAP Saint-Barnabé could lose caseworkers. This organization may also find it impossible to develop new services starting in 2014.

Far be it from me to speak out against the promising outcomes achieved by the inspirational at home project. However, I want to be very clear. Homelessness is not just a housing problem. Drug abuse, mental health problems and drug-related prostitution should also fall under this program.

In reaction to the budget, Tim Richter, president of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, who had asked that the HPS take more of a housing first approach, said the following:

While this news is very exciting, there are some important questions that will need to be addressed, namely: What does the government mean by Housing First? What will this shift to Housing First mean to HPS funded communities, programs and existing investments? How will community planning processes & Community Plans change? How will the transition to Housing First be managed?

It's also important to remember that Housing First is a critical component of ending homelessness, but it is not a silver bullet. There are many other critical elements that need to support community plans and Housing First programs in order to reduce & end homelessness.

For us, the HPS must retain a diversity of approaches and respect the independence of the provinces and municipalities that are more familiar with their communities' problems.

Now, the economic action plan has little to say about funding for social housing. The only intentions this government has are stated in the main estimates for 2013-2014, according to which a net decrease of $23.3 million in CMHC's budget, for this year alone, is “to reflect the expiry of long-term project operating agreements.”

Once again this year, the government is not only confirming its complete withdrawal from social housing; it is doing so on the backs of the least well-off in our society and of the Canadian provinces. Those long-term operating agreements currently allow co-operatives and non-profit housing organizations to grant subsidies to their members and tenants so that they do not allocate more than 25% to 30% of their incomes to rent. They also enable the provinces and municipalities to provide low-income housing to the public.

Many of those agreements with CMHC have gradually been expiring in the past few years, and the government is simply not renewing them. Even worse, it feels it is saving money.

If we let this withdrawal continue, by 2030, these cuts will have amounted to $1.7 billion a year, and CMHC will only be managing approximately 15% of its current budget. When I think that the Conservatives were prepared to sign a multi-billion-dollar blank cheque in the F-35 scandal, I feel like saying, “We want houses, not airplanes.”

Housing

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I introduced Bill C-400, on which we voted recently. It is about implementing a national housing strategy.

The government voted against it, but these people still want a national housing strategy to be developed.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and has commented, on this side of the House, the government voted against Bill C-400, on February 27 of this year.

It is important to note that investments have been made to address housing and homelessness in our country, in every community across this land. In 2008, our government committed an additional $1.9 billion, over five years, for housing and homelessness programs. As a result of that commitment, the homelessness partnering strategy was renewed for an additional five years.

We have worked closely with the provinces and territories to deliver funding earmarked for housing, most recently through the investment in affordable housing framework agreement, which provides for a combined federal, provincial and territorial investment of $1.4 billion over three years. It is focused on reducing the number of Canadians in housing need.

This funding is over and above the $1.7 billion we provide annually in the form of ongoing subsidies to support over 605,000 households who are living in existing social housing. These subsidies help to ensure that lower income families and individuals living in these homes do not pay a disproportionate amount of their salary or income towards housing, getting at the very root of what the member speaks about in terms of the issue of making a decision as to whether it is home or it is feeding their children or families. We have made a determination that it should be housing and the ability to ensure healthy meals are there on a daily basis for those individuals and families.

In addition, let us not forget the $2 billion-plus in social housing investments that were included in the stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan. As reported earlier, this funding supported an estimated 16,500 social housing projects across our country. I am sure that in Windsor, as in my community of St. Catharines, those investments were spent immediately and they assisted in delivering on repairs to the units in existence in cities like my home riding.

I know the minister came down a couple of times to make announcements. I know I had the ability to let the region know we are making investments in partnership with the region and with the provinces on social housing.

That was not a commitment the NDP was prepared to support at that time. That was not a commitment that it saw as a need in this country. The NDP made a determination that it was going to vote against it.

During a time when we were in recession, we included an investment in social housing as part of a stimulus program because we believe in the future and making sure we are able to deliver on behalf of these individuals and these families.

On this side of the House, we have made a commitment, and we are going to ensure we stay by that commitment to assist those in need of housing.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last November, I described Canada's housing situation to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Canada will have to report to the UN in April. That is not far off; time is running out. The government will have to explain why it is twiddling its thumbs when it made a clear commitment to the United Nations in terms of the right to housing.

Do I need to repeat that we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy? That is appalling.

Last week, the government voted against my bill, Bill C-400, which proposed a very effective strategy that is working in the other G8 countries. The Conservatives have flat out rejected solutions and tools that would help families who are in desperate need.

The UN states that safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing is a right. It is not a privilege, it is a right. Let us make that clear. Yet right now, as we speak, millions of families—at least 1.5 million—are having to choose between paying the rent and putting food on the table. That is a problem in a country as rich as Canada. Yet the government stubbornly continues to believe that decent housing is a privilege.

Having access to safe and affordable housing is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right and families should not have to make a choice between their house or buying food for their children.

I hope that my colleagues heard what I said. I think I was clear. We have to stop burying our heads in the sand and face the facts. All of the experts agree that we need a national housing strategy.

As I said earlier, over 1.5 million families have core housing needs. What does that mean? People who live in dwellings that are too small, unsanitary or unaffordable have a core housing need. They have to choose between buying groceries to feed their families and paying rent. Forcing people to choose between eating and keeping a roof over their heads is cruel. Yet that is what the government is doing.

At least 150,000 people live on the street. That number could be as high as 300,000. Getting precise numbers is difficult and that in itself is unacceptable.

Will the government report to the UN? What does it intend to do to keep its promises to Canadians? Will Canada remain the laughingstock of the UN on this issue and many others that I will not name because I do not have enough time?

Criminal Code

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about such an important issue, particularly since I am a young woman working in politics. Bill C-452 seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to provide consecutive sentences for offences related to procuring and trafficking in persons.

Bill C-452 also makes it possible to reverse the burden of proof for this type of offence. The accused would therefore be considered guilty until he proves beyond doubt that he is not exploiting others. Finally, this bill adds the offences of procuring and trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.

Public Safety Canada accurately describes human trafficking as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, often described as a modern day form of slavery. It is nothing less than that. The victims, who are mostly women and children, are deprived of their normal lives and compelled to provide their labour or sexual services, through a variety of coercive practices all for the direct profit of their perpetrators. Exploitation often occurs through intimidation, force, sexual assault and threats of violence to themselves or their families.

Human trafficking is a scourge that knows no borders and affects many countries, including Canada. We must not put on our rose-coloured glasses. People need to know that this is happening here, not far from where we live.

According to the Department of Justice, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates on the full extent of trafficking in persons within Canada because victims are reluctant to come forward, and understandably so. Often victims are afraid to testify against a procurer for fear of reprisal.

The RCMP described human trafficking as a growing phenomenon. Statistics are hard to ascertain; however, estimates indicate that between 1,500 and 2,200 people are trafficked from Canada into the United States every year. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates that around 600 women and children are trafficked into Canada each year for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and that this number rises to 800 when broadened to include those trafficked into Canada for other forms of forced labour.

Contrary to popular belief, victims of trafficking in Canada are not just young women from abroad. They are often Canadians. Unfortunately, trafficking of Canadian men within the country is a problem not often covered by studies and statistics about human trafficking, especially trafficking related to the sex trade. People who come to Canada to flee conditions of abject poverty in their own country can end up in a work environment where they are taken advantage of. So, too, can women from all over Canada, many of them young women in crisis and socially or economically disadvantaged women who leave their homes to join the sex trade in major Canadian cities.

There are a number of reasons why a vulnerable woman may be convinced to become a prostitute. We do not have to identify them all here. But no matter the circumstances, trafficking of Canadian men and women is a reality in our country, and it affects the most disadvantaged communities in particular.

For that reason, although Bill C-452 is a step in the right direction, we need a more comprehensive response to the problem of human trafficking. We have to wage this battle with practical resources. To solve the problem of human trafficking, we need a plan that will mobilize human, police, electronic and material resources that goes far beyond a simple bill. We need political leadership.

Surveillance of strip clubs, massage parlours and Internet networks and the creation of a joint investigative unit are solutions that should be studied. Canada must implement a strategy that will not only attack the source of the problem, but will also help the victims and support the work of our police services.

Julie Miville-Dechêne, president of the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, also recommends establishing shelters for female trafficking victims. She said:

There are no shelters specifically for female trafficking victims. But their issues are very different from those of domestic abuse victims.

However, there could be some problems with the proposed consecutive sentencing and the presumption that reverses the burden of proof for procuring and human trafficking offences. The reversal of the burden of proof could be challenged on constitutional grounds. As my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has said in the past, passing Bill C-452 does not guarantee that sentences will be much longer. The courts could potentially base their decision on the principle of proportionality, which means that sentences served consecutively may not end up being longer than if they had been served concurrently.

Despite these pitfalls, we will be supporting Bill C-452 so that it can be studied in committee. The problem is simply too serious to ignore. I have had the opportunity to meet with organizations in my riding that help boys, girls and women who are involved in prostitution. I would like to commend Projet intervention prostitution Québec and Maison de Marthe, which do excellent work with the limited resources available to them.

I want this government to take a comprehensive approach to the issues of prostitution and human trafficking. I would like it to address them here in the House, by amending the Criminal Code, as well as on the ground, where more help is needed for truly effective action. To me a comprehensive approach includes these simple bills that allow us to deal with other related issues.

This Conservative government has dismissed a bill as effective as Bill C-400 on social housing on more than one occasion. Organizations across Quebec are scrambling to get together and call on the Conservative government not to wait until the end of March 2014, but to renew the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, immediately.

This strategy provides a solution to associated problems and can help us take a comprehensive approach to this issue. It is important. The government must renew funding for the HPS immediately, for example, by adding an extra $50 million for Quebec. I know that my colleagues agree with this idea because it is an excellent decision. It is simple. We are talking peanuts here. Compared to all the F-35s and ships that will cost billions, $50 million is nothing.

The government is slowly destroying our social safety net, which would help us take a much more sensible and thoughtful approach to this problem we are facing.

I heard my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. Movies can sometimes have a huge impact on us. The movie that hit me the most was Human Trafficking, which came out in 2005 or 2006. This movie shows us how international the problems of human trafficking and prostitution are.

It is so insidious and pervasive that we must be aware. Who knows, we may have crossed paths with people who are experiencing these problems, in downtown areas, for example. We cannot be indifferent to what they are going through. My heart goes out to them, which is why I support Bill C-452. That said, I think we must do more, because small, simple actions could help us take a broader and more sensible approach.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for introducing this bill. Although it requires a few amendments from a constitutional point of view, it is a step in the right direction in terms of the fight against exploitation and human trafficking. I believe that the will to consider it in greater depth in committee should provide an opportunity for unity in this Parliament.

Let us remember that, just like arms trafficking and drug trafficking, human trafficking is highly lucrative. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the total market value of human trafficking at $32 billion. It would be foolish to think that Canada is exempt from this kind of vile exploitation.

Its clandestine nature makes it difficult to find out exactly how many people are victims of trafficking and how it happens. However, we do know that the majority of victims are women and children. Victims of human trafficking are linked primarily by factors such as poverty and ethnocultural origin. Social and economic vulnerability and the lack of strong support networks make the traffickers’ lives easier. They find it all too easy to lure their victims using manipulation, threats and violence. With increasing unemployment among young people and the rise in the cost of living, we can foresee unfortunately that a number of young Canadian women will be easily recruited by criminal organizations that will force them into the sex trade.

In Canada, aboriginal women are overrepresented among victims of trafficking. In certain areas, they may account for up to 90% of women who are trafficked for sexual purposes, although they make up only 3% to 5% of the Canadian population. I am saddened to see the cuts made by this government to the budgets for native women’s groups. It is essential that they play an active role in the fight against trafficking of young aboriginal women. I hope the government will correct the situation.

Considering that the impact of our colonial past on aboriginal peoples is still strong, Canada’s attitude to the damaging reports by the United Nations is shameful. It is high time that this Parliament took real action to improve living conditions on reserves. They are the primary reason for the trafficking of aboriginal women, who are looking for an escape by any means possible from the conditions on reserves shaped by the contempt of successive Canadian governments.

Canada is also affected by international trafficking. Although it is not the subject matter of this bill, I cannot ignore the systemic barriers to the fight against international human trafficking generated by our immigration system. With the tightening of immigration criteria, more people are turning to human smugglers or so-called agencies offering so-called migration services, and migrant women are undoubtedly more vulnerable to the traps set by organized crime. Given their justifiable fear of being sent back to their native country, migrant women who are the victims of trafficking find themselves all the more enslaved by those who exploit them.

Our immigration system must be revised to protect potential victims of human trafficking so they will testify against the persons who traffic them. On that point, a report by the Institut de recherches et d'études féministes at UQAM recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada work with police services to protecting victims. The researchers also recommend that a special category of refugees be created for victims of human trafficking.

I am shocked to see how commonplace this phenomenon has become. Imagine my surprise when I learned that Montreal was a hotbed of sex tourism. We need only glance through the classified ads in any newspaper to see that they are full of possible sex trafficking dens. The first individual convicted of human trafficking in Canada was prostituting teenagers through advertisements on Internet sites, in full view of the entire world.

Sexual exploitation is often connected to organized crime, and too often takes advantage of the vulnerability of women and girls who want to escape from hardship and earn substantial incomes. In Canada, the stakes are estimated to be between $120 million and $400 million U.S. per year. A single woman forced into prostitution by a criminal organization in Quebec brings in around $1,000 a day for the organization, or at least $250,000 a year. I am sure that this is not the kind of economic policy this government wants to encourage.

I think that passing this bill at second reading will give us an opportunity to come to a strong consensus in the House because we all want to help and protect the victims of human trafficking. We will have to build on this bill with a solid action plan that combines human, police, electronic and materiel resources so we can tackle the problem at its root, help the victims and support the work of law enforcement agencies.

I have spoken several times in the House about the drug-related prostitution that afflicts my riding. The proposed solutions are very controversial, but we all agree that we must protect women forced into prostitution. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada are important, and the institutional and community resources that provide front-line services to these women are essential tools in combating exploitation.

Indeed, the launch, in the coming months, of the community organization Dopamine in Hochelaga's red light district, and the opening of a respite care centre for prostitutes will allow us to take concrete action. These initiatives are the first cornerstones of a neighbourhood strategy to help people dealing with drug-related prostitution, homelessness and substance abuse. I want to say that this was made possible thanks to the federal government's commitment through an investment under the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to encourage government members to renew, in the upcoming budget, this HPS initiative, which is a critical program for many communities in Canada, including mine.

I also want to mention the tremendous work done by stakeholders from many organizations in my riding, including CAP St-Barnabé, Stella, Anonyme, Dopamine, the Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, Tandem Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the CSSS Lucille-Teasdale, and the SPVM community police station No. 23. These stakeholders, who work every day with Hochelaga's prostitutes, deserve to be thanked personally.

Despite the hard work of police and community organizations, improving women's socio-economic conditions is one of the most effective way to fight commercial sexual exploitation by unscrupulous individuals.

It is absurd that today women still only earn a portion of men's average salary, that they do not have access systematically to the EI program like young people, that they are overrepresented across the country among minimum wage earners, and that a majority of single parent families are headed by women and are significantly poorer partly because of the serious lack of affordable rental and social housing units.

Bill C-400, introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, offered a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, but the Conservatives chose to ignore this reality. The recent EI reform directly hits people who earn less money or who work part-time. Again, that group includes a lot of women.

As we approach International Women's Day, which is exactly in one week, I call for greater mobilization in this House to pass this bill. Together, we have the power to make it possible to live in a world where exploitation and trafficking in persons, including many women and children, will become a thing of the past. Let us not be afraid to make Canada again a champion of human rights protection.

Tabling of Documents

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday the opposition members asked the government to table in the House documents relating to costing that was conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in response to Bill C-400. This is the NDP private member's bill for a national social housing program. I have the document here today, which I am proud to table in the House, and it shows the clear reason our government could not support it. It would indeed put us $5.45 billion further into debt. I am pleased that we were able to do this work for the New Democrats since apparently they had not costed the document. I would like to table the document at this time.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-400 under private members' business.

The House resumed from February 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Housing

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in support of Bill C-400, introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The bill would create a strategy for adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today from people who are fed up with seeing the government ignore the issue of poverty and deny its very existence.

I am presenting a petition calling on the government to support Bill C-400, which would provide safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing to Canadians. I am starting to get used to saying that.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fiction being spouted by the President of the Treasury Board about the cost of my bill does not change the fact that they have been stalling for four years, while millions of Canadian families do not have access to safe, affordable housing. The experts all agree: we need a national housing strategy. The solution is right in front of them; they just need to vote for Bill C-400.

Will the Conservatives support families who need safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing? Yes or no?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would ensure safe, affordable, accessible, adequate housing for every Quebecker and Canadian.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have put a lot of thought into what I will say about this bill before the House makes a decision at second reading.

I could recap my colleagues' arguments that added to the discussion and enriched debate. I could repeat the troubling statistics that reflect the serious shortage of affordable housing. I could quote from the scathing UN special rapporteur's report, which ranks Canada quite low. I could remind the House that we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy. Or perhaps I could talk about the co-operatives that are worried about the end of federal government operating agreements and the impact that will have on their low-income renters.

However, I feel it is more important that the House hear about the many measures being taken by civil society organizations to demonstrate the importance of a national housing strategy.

Dignity for All, which works to eliminate poverty in Canada, launched a widespread movement in support of Bill C-400. The organization dedicated part of its website to the movement and launched a massive letter campaign. As we speak, representatives from this organization are trying to rally more people and elected officials around this cause.

The National Union of Public and General Employees, and its Women 4 Change initiative, also supports the bill. On its website, it encourages its 300,000 members to sign the petition in support of this bill and to write to their MPs to urge them to back the bill.

All kinds of organizations have done the same thing. The academic community is speaking out. Groups such as the Canadian Federation of University Women and the École de services publics at Université de Saint-Boniface have done their part, as have many religious organizations throughout Canada including the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Catholic Women's League, Canadian Unitarians for Social Justice, the Federation of Sisters of St. Joseph of Canada, and the Canadian Religious Conference. All these organizations have taken steps to raise awareness and convince the House to pass Bill C-400.

In a last-ditch effort, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, published open letters in a number of Quebec's daily newspapers. One of these letters was addressed to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, my colleague from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. The letter explains the following to the minister:

This strategy would achieve much more than the federal government's ad hoc and clearly inadequate interventions of the past 20 years in the areas of housing and homelessness.

I think this is rather compelling. I do not need to remind the House that Canada is supposed to have its universal periodic review with the UN Human Rights Council in the spring. I am anxious for that to happen. Canada will have to report to member countries of the United Nations human resources committee on its accomplishments in the area of housing. We will be following this.

Many organizations, including the Social Rights Advocacy Centre, have already indicated in their submission regarding this periodic review that Canada needs to create a national housing strategy.

Lastly, my office received a number of letters of support and several hundred pages of petitions from various organizations and individuals across Canada in support of Bill C-400.

I could not possibly thank everyone, since I have only a few minutes, but I wish to commend the following: Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario; AFEAS; CHRA; the Confédération québécoise des coopératives d'habitation; the Canadian Mental Health Association; the National Aboriginal Housing Association; the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents over 2,000 municipalities; as well as all previously mentioned organizations.

I even have a letter from the Province of Manitoba in support of Bill C-400. I ask the House: what more do we need to pass this legislation?

We must remember this.

Safe and affordable housing is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right.

Secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing is a right. It is not a privilege. It is a fundamental right and it is also a determinant of health.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-400—although I do not know the exact date of the vote—in order to ensure that all Canadians have access to decent housing.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak briefly today to Bill C-400. We hear the passion in the speeches today about why we have to get this bill through, a bill for an affordable housing strategy in our country.

I want to thank my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador and others who have spoken in the House today on their experiences and perspective about why the bill is so critical. It is critical because we understand that safe, appropriate, affordable housing is a basic human right in our country. If people do not have it, as the hon. member just said, there is not much else they can do in their life. Whether it is work or income, if people do not have safe, affordable, appropriate housing, it is very difficult to get by.

The bill has had a very long history. I first introduced the bill in 1998. I was so hopping mad when I came to Parliament in 1997 because it was the Liberal government in 1995 that cut out our very successful national housing programs. When the member for Winnipeg North got up on his high horse and said that the Liberals had shown leadership and this was a great issue, it was his government that cut our programs. They were good programs and, yes, we could go back to the seventies and the eighties. They were housing programs that municipalities and non-profit societies used. We had excellent co-op housing, not-for-profit housing, seniors housing, special needs housing and what did the Liberals do? Balancing the budget on the backs of poor people, they cut out housing programs. Ever since that historic day, we have suffered because we have not had a national housing program.

The bill in the last Parliament was almost passed, but the election happened and the bill was died. Here we are again. However, we are determined and committed to keep this issue alive and not give up on the fact that we need a national housing strategy. It is a responsibility of the federal government to work with the provinces, territories, first nations, municipalities and other housing providers to bring about such a strategy. The bill is all about that.

I have heard all the arguments from the other side that government is doing it. The fact is the government had some money for about two years as part of the recession economic plan. However, since then, it has not put any money into an affordable housing plan.

I recently dealt with a group in my riding that was trying to get some money under the homelessness strategy, which does still exist. This was a church group which had its own money, land and needed some support from the federal government, but it was turned down. Why? The group was told that its development was affordable housing and therefore it could not be supported because it was not homelessness.

What kind of crazy system is this? Yes, we need to provide shelters. In metro Vancouver we have a dire situation of growing homelessness, particularly among the aboriginal community, people who cannot find shelter. However, we also need a longer term program. We cannot have people living in and out of shelters. Shelters have become permanent housing for people. That is no solution whether it is in Toronto, Vancouver or Mount Pearl, wherever it is.

I want to congratulate my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for bringing forward the bill again. The New Democrats are here today to say that we will fight tooth and nail to get the bill through. There is tremendous support in the community. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, major organizations, over 60 organizations have supported the bill, not because they like us, because they know this has to be done. This is about a fundamental issue in our country of people who are suffering simply because they do not have access to safe, appropriate and affordable housing. We will keep this going and ensure that the bill gets through.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a housing forum was held in my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Newfoundland and Labrador, in September. Before this forum began, a woman in a wheelchair handed the three New Democrat MPs in attendance a sheet of paper. The paper contained just five words: “family, shelter, food, career and health”. The woman asked each of us to take a moment to visualize what each word meant in our lives. Then she asked us to take a pen and eliminate one. The woman said, there is no choice; one has to go. Then she asked us to eliminate a second word and then a third.

They were tough choices. Even hypothetically, the choices were impossible. I eliminated career first, then my own health, and then food. I was left with family and shelter. I remember the exercise leaving me with a feeling of desperation in the pit of my stomach. The woman said the point of the exercise was for MPs to imagine it. Her point was that she is living it. That was a powerful point.

There is a housing crisis. Even in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the economy is booming, there is a housing crisis. This week there are stories in the news back home about two men struggling to make ends meet. They are struggling to meet housing costs in a boom town. Rental costs have gone up by more than 18% in the St. John's area over the past four years, which translates into some people struggling to keep a roof over their heads.

According to the Single Parents Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, rent for a three-bedroom unit four or five years ago was around $650, and now it is up to $1,100 to $1,300 a month. From $650 a month to $1,300 a month in four or five years is an incredible increase. People are having a hard time coping with that. In many cases, they are not coping. Their income is constant; their rent is not constant.

The stories in the news back home this week are about two men. One is a single father with a young daughter getting by on worker's compensation. The other story is about a single man making minimum wage. These men are having an incredibly hard time getting by because of the rent.

The man on worker's compensation has a total income, including his daughter's baby bonus, which he pointed out, of $1,479 a month. His rent alone is $1,200 a month, so he has $279 a month for everything else. His daughter does not take a lunch to school because there is no money for that, and he pointed that out as well.

The single man making minimum wage heats only one room in his apartment, and he hangs blankets in the doorways to keep in the heat. His rent is going up on March 1 by another $75. Where will that money come from?

Right now that original list of five choices—food, shelter, health, family and career—has a very real face, a desperate face.

During the 2011 federal election, I remember knocking on the homes of seniors in the middle of the afternoon. They would often come to their doors in coats and jackets. They wore coats and jackets inside their homes in the middle of the afternoon because they could not afford to turn on the heat. These are the kinds of decisions that people are being forced to make. Rents are continually increasing, and for people, seniors, on fixed incomes that means something has to suffer. Food suffers. Heat suffers. Medications suffer. People often do not buy the medicine they need because these are the choices they are forced to make.

Labrador City is another boom town in Newfoundland and Labrador. The mining industry, specifically the iron ore industry, is doing very well. The vacancy rate in Labrador West is almost zero. The local college offers a mining course that practically guarantees employment upon completion, but classes are not full because there is no place for students to live.

We heard stories about how women remain in abusive relationships because there is nowhere else to go.

I also visited Fort McMurray, Alberta, in the past year. That is another place that is absolutely booming. The average income is $100,000. The average family income is $180,000 a year. However, the cost of rent is astronomical. A new three bedroom home with a double car garage and an unregistered apartment can go for between $700,000 to $900,000, so we can imagine the cost of rental units. In the meantime, the income threshold for low-income housing is about $80,000 a year.

There is a housing crisis in St. John's. There is a housing crisis in Labrador. There is a housing crisis in Alberta. There is a housing crisis across Canada.

Canada is the only G8 country without a national housing strategy, which is what Bill C-400 is all about. What does it cost? It costs nothing. It costs no money. It simply requires the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to work in collaboration with the provincial ministers responsible for housing, with representatives of municipalities, with aboriginal communities and with housing providers in the non-profit and private sectors. It requires all of these groups to work together to establish a national housing strategy.

How does that not make sense? That is smart governance.

Between 300,000 and 400,000 Canadians are homeless. They have no place to live. Three million Canadians live in housing insecurity, including 27,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and almost 9,300 in St. John's South—Mount Pearl and St. John's East alone.

The Conservatives have said that their commitment to safe and affordable housing has helped over 775,000 Canadians since 2006. The Conservatives claim that their investment in housing has led to the creation of 46,000 affordable housing units. At the same time, waiting lists across the country for social housing are consistently getting longer and vacancy rates are dropping to record lows everywhere.

Bruce Pearce of the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and Homelessness Network has described the bill as a life-saving bill. He said that Atlantic Canada would be hardest hit by the absence of a national housing strategy because there are fewer support networks in rural communities. There may be loads of shelters, for example, in downtown Toronto, but not so in places such as downtown Mount Pearl or places like it.

In areas of Canada that are doing well, where the economy is sizzling, the poorest people are suffering because of the increased cost of living, because of increased rents, because of increased everything across the board.

There was another story in the news recently back home of how 30 tenants in a low-income apartment building in St. John's were worried that they would soon be homeless. Their building is to be redeveloped into condominiums and they have until the end of April to move out. It will not be easy for those 30 families to find another place to live. One tenant stated, “Every time they put up the rent, that's less food you have every month, or it's a light bill you can't pay”.

Yvette Walton, the head of Newfoundland and Labrador's Single Parent Association told CBC news this week that rent is rising too quickly on the Northeast Avalon, which is on the extreme east coast of Newfoundland. She said that it was causing huge amounts of stress, especially for single parent families and that the solution is more affordable housing. That is where a national housing strategy would come into play.

Let me bring this back full circle. With respect to family, shelter, career, food, health, which ones can we live without? As MPs we are imagining it, but there are people who are actually living it. Maybe living is not the right word. Existing may be a more fitting term. It is those people who Bill C-400 is designed to help.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-400 and I wish to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, on all her hard work on this matter.

In 2013, between 150,000 and 300,000 people are living on the streets in Canada, and another 2 million suffer from food insecurity. According to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 4 million Canadians, 750,000 of them children, are coping with pressing housing needs. The situation is particularly worrisome in aboriginal communities. I saw this first-hand when I went to visit Attawapiskat. Over-crowding and substandard housing are posing significant sanitary and social risks.

It is hard to create a healthy environment for children to grow up in when eight people are living in a house built for four. In a supposedly rich and developed country like Canada, this situation is pretty dismal. The fact that millions of Canadians—mainly women, children, aboriginal people, seniors and new Canadians—are having a hard time meeting such a basic need as housing is sad and shocking. A home is so much more than a roof and four walls.

Having adequate housing makes it easier to find employment, promotes family integration and helps improve self-esteem.

In the Ottawa-Gatineau region alone, nearly 12,000 families are waiting for social housing. The wait can sometimes be up to eight years. And that does not seem to be improving. With the cost of living going up and wages stagnating, Canadian families are increasingly having a hard time making ends meet and finding adequate housing. When they do manage to find housing, they must sometimes make sacrifices elsewhere, to their food budget, for example.

Every month, 900,000 Canadians use food banks. This is a 31% increase over 2008 levels. I bring up the issue of hunger in Canada because it is closely linked to housing. When someone on a low income has to pay a high rent, there is less money remaining to put food on the table. A single mother earning minimum wage has a hard time finding adequate housing at market prices in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, for example. Some manage to do so, but they must sometimes choose between paying rent and putting food on the table. Some spend up to 70% of their income on rent, which leave very little to spend on children's clothing or school supplies.

That is one of the reasons why the House must pass this bill. To effectively combat poverty, we must tackle the access to housing problem head-on. It is high time for Canada to implement a national housing strategy, as proposed in the bill from my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Canada is currently the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy.

It is unacceptable for us to socially and economically abandon millions of Canadians on the side of the road. As the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said:

Chronic homelessness and lack of affordable housing are not just social issues; they are core economic issues. They strain the limited resources of municipal governments and undermine the economic well-being of our cities-the engines of national economic growth, competitiveness and productivity.

The federation, which represents 2,000 Canadian cities, has clearly indicated that every dollar invested in housing creates a $1.40 increase in GDP. It is a win-win situation.

This is true from a social and economic viewpoint, but also an international one.

Canada is a signatory to the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and has international obligations with respect to housing.

In a report on housing, the United Nations singled out Canada for its delay in meeting its obligations concerning social housing and fighting homelessness.

A national housing strategy would allow Canada to send a clear message to the UN and all its G8 partners.

We have to do more than just make an investment in order to fulfill our obligations and to deal effectively with the problem of access to housing. We have to make an intelligent investment based on a national strategy that will take into account the specific needs of our communities.

If Bill C-400 is passed, and I hope it will be, the minister responsible for CMHC will have to develop a strategy in co-operation with the provinces, municipal representatives, aboriginal communities, providers of housing and concerned civil society organizations.

We need leadership from the federal government on this issue, but above all we need the government to work together with the stakeholders concerned.

The Conservative government has already shown, in the health file for example, that it is not very open to working with the provinces.

That must change if it wants to find lasting solutions to problems such as access to housing.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak today about Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

A disturbing trend has been developing in Toronto and every city in Canada. Young people, parents and especially those living on the margins are all too familiar with it: affordable housing is becoming less and less accessible for many Canadians.

As a Torontonian, I am in a good position to know that a national housing strategy is vital to the future of our city. We have known for a long time that it will require more than goodwill to address the issues of homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. These are fundamental economic problems that are harming our country's economy.

Housing problems put an enormous amount of pressure on our cities, where the drivers of innovation, productivity and growth for the 21st century must be developed.

I was born in Toronto, and with my husband we raised our three sons in that city. I have seen first-hand the impact of rising costs of housing on families in Parkdale—High Park, the riding I represent, and in neighbourhoods across our city. Torontonians know well that our city's waiting list for affordable housing continues to grow. A year ago, that list reached an all-time high, with over 80,000 households on the waiting list. While a small number of those were able to find housing, many are left waiting, and not just for months; some are waiting for years, and some even decades. We simply cannot afford to ignore this problem any longer.

I recently received a letter from a constituent named Theresa, who urged me to support the bill. In her letter, she wrote that the right to housing is a core Canadian value that is centred on dignity, security and equality. She is absolutely right, and I thank Theresa for her concern and for taking the time to write.

Clearly, Canadians in Parkdale—High Park and neighbourhoods across Canada are watching us and they want us to act.

Given that Canada's household debt recently reached a critical level, we must now recognize that guaranteeing Canadians access to safe and affordable housing is not only one of the best ways to combat inequalities, but it is also vital to the health of our national economy.

Many international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, have warned our government about a steadily growing level of household debt, but our government does not seem to want to listen. The Bank of Canada and the IMF have said that the level of household debt in Canada is too high. It has reached 158%, which is unprecedented.

Household debt is the result of many economic factors, but it is important to recognize that housing constitutes a large part of every Canadian household's budget. Canada has a household debt level of 158%, but we know that mortgages make up 68% of that debt.

Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is a call to action. This bill calls on the government to do what it too often forgets to do: take initiative.

We are not asking for a new department, a new commissioner or even a new report. We are simply asking the government to be aware of what families across Canada are experiencing and to take initiative instead of shirking its responsibilities.

Bill C-400 asks the government to partner with provinces, cities, aboriginal communities, and with the private and non-profit housing sectors, to create a national housing strategy.

Why is Canada the only G8 country in the world that has failed to do so? Why is Canada falling so far behind?

We know that inequality is on the rise in Canada and when we look at the tremendous impact that access to secure, affordable housing has on social mobility and opportunity and the general economic vitality of cities like Toronto, it is clear that housing is not only an enormous challenge but also a very promising opportunity for economic leadership. When we see these factors come together, including all-time high levels of household debt, rising housing costs and growing inequality, it is easy to see that this combination will threaten the long-term economic prosperity of our country.

For each dollar spent on housing there is $1.40 increase in GDP. If we are committed to ensuring long-term prosperity for generations to come, then we must get serious about a national housing strategy.

Looking back to the 1990s there is an alarming pattern of neglect of affordable housing. In 1993 the Liberal government cut permanent funding for new affordable housing. By 1996 it had downloaded the responsibility to provinces, leaving Canada virtually alone among the high performing economies of the world without a national social housing program. Then some provinces, like my own province of Ontario, were quite happy to download social housing to the cities with no resources to be able to support it.

It is unfortunate that the Conservative government, like the Liberals, has continued to neglect this key area of social policy. For instance, under the Conservative government, funding for the affordable housing initiative will be reduced from $582 million in 2012 to zero by 2015. By 2016 consolidated federal housing investments will have been cut to $1.8 billion, a cut of 52% in just six years.

These cuts and the absence of a housing strategy affect diverse groups in our community, from young people trying to get a head start to our seniors who hope to retire in peace and security. Each group is impacted by what the government has failed to do, which is to take leadership on affordable housing.

The last census found that 42% of young Canadians continue to live with their parents. For many this is due to the high cost of housing or the challenges of finding a job in today's economy. A survey conducted last year found that in my home province of Ontario, the number of seniors on housing waiting lists has risen steadily since 2004, reaching nearly 40,000 households, or one-quarter of all waiting households at the end of 2011.

Recent changes to EI will also have an impact on many Canadians' ability to afford housing, particularly at a time when funding for many housing programs is being phased out. With a loss of EI benefits, more households will be at risk of falling into core housing need.

As finance critic, I recognize that investing in our cities and taking leadership on affordable housing is a smart choice for our national economy. As a Torontonian and the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, I know from personal experience that this is an area of urgent concern to our community. I urge all members of the House to lend their support to Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. This initiative is long overdue.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed emotion to debate this bill since it is not the first time that I have spoken on this issue and yet the dire need for secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing is no less significant now than it was when this matter was before a previous Parliament. The bill received its support then and there is every reason for it to receive the same support now.

When each of us here wakes up in our ridings, we wake in accommodations that we can afford. In fact, I would wager that many of us have cottages or, in the case of some here, a second residence for when they are in Ottawa. We are more than fortunate enough to afford that luxury, but not every Canadian is. According to the most recent figures that date back to before the recession in 2008, which brought about serious economic instability, 13% of Canadians exist in what is called “core housing need”.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation defines this situation as when “housing falls below at least one of the adequacy, suitability or affordability standards and [one] would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax income to pay the median rent of alternative local market housing that it is acceptable”.

Housing is adequate when it is reported by its residents as not requiring major repairs. Housing is suitable when there are enough bedrooms for the size and makeup of resident households, according to National Occupancy Standard requirements. Housing is affordable when dwellings cost less than 30% of total before-tax income.

These are basic common sense criteria that should be inalienable, yet still we can easily recall the images that came from Attawapiskat last Christmas where none of these standards were met, houses that were little more than garden sheds made of plywood, more mould than wall.

In the face of the most recent economic crisis, the government has been more than willing to promote its position within the G8 as an innovator and model for the rest of the world and yet we exist as the only member of that group, one of a few of all industrialized countries, without a national housing strategy. In fact, trends would show that we similarly lag in the development of a national food policy, another mechanism to combat poverty.

It will be disconcerting to a majority of Canadians if the Conservative government does not feel it is the federal government's role to more meaningfully deal with the national crisis of poverty, housing and homelessness. Indeed, on May 9, 2012, this very Parliament passed Motion No. 331, brought forward by the hon. member for Shefford, confirming that:

—the government should: (a) keep with Canada’s obligation to respect, protect and fulfill the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; (b) support efforts by Canadian municipalities to combat homelessness; and (c) adopt measures to expand the stock of affordable rental housing, with a view to providing economic benefits to local housing construction businesses.

Today's Bill C-400 is the natural progression from that motion if in fact we are genuine about dealing with this issue and our previous support of Motion No. 331 has been more than a meaningless facade to leave people thinking that we actually care.

Michael Shapcott, director general of the Wellesley Institute, a funding provider for multiple expert studies on housing and health, is clear on this issue. Canadians with homes are healthy Canadians and healthy Canadians mean reduced health care costs, yet another reason that we need to pass this legislation. Just yesterday, Mr. Shapcott wrote that while this bill was before the House, Toronto added its 700th name to the roll of men and women who had died as a result of homelessness in Canada's largest city.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is also clear on this issue. FCM policy advisor Joshua Bates said in committee during the last Parliament:

Chronic homelessness and lack of affordable housing are not just social issues; they're core economic issues. They strain the limited resources of municipal governments and undermine the economic well-being of our cities, which are the engines of national economic growth, competitiveness, and productivity.

According to the government's very own economic action plan from September 2010, every $1 invested in housing reaps a net benefit of $1.40 to the Canadian economy, spurring growth, jobs and productivity. Meanwhile, homelessness costs our fragile economy $4.5 billion each year without any net benefit at all. Clearly, investing in this problem is the only marketable solution, the only one that will negate the detrimental impact this scourge has on our economy, while fostering growth and productivity.

More still, the Senate report, “In from the Margins”, shows that this is a cross-partisan issue. The subcommittee, comprised of Liberals and Conservatives, concluded that regulatory constraints, time constraints and declining operational support from the federal government were interfering with an integrated consideration of housing and homelessness. Specifically they identified that:

—unaffordable and inadequate housing, even for those who are currently able to meet their needs and aspirations, can contribute to poverty, and to a spiral that can include losing jobs, dropping out of school, and being unable to sustain families.

To that end, the report very clearly recommended that an integrated approach to housing and homelessness requires that the federal government, in collaboration with provincial governments, representatives of municipal governments, first nation organizations and other housing providers, develop a national housing and homelessness strategy. We need a national housing strategy, and we need that strategy to work for lower income and marginalized Canadians.

My own community of Guelph is no exception to this. In my life before politics, my time with the Wellington and Guelph Housing Authority, working with valuable community groups such as Onward Willow, Women in Crisis and now the Guelph and Wellington Task Force for Poverty Elimination, affirmed my strong conviction that taking action to create affordable housing is, without question, one of the most effective ways to lift entire families out of poverty and into prosperity.

Still, as of this fall, Guelph's vacancy rate is 1.4%, well below the 3% that is considered a healthy balance between supply and demand for accommodation. Meanwhile, the population of Guelph and the surrounding Wellington County has grown 11.2% in the past decade. As of this month, unemployment in Guelph is at 6.2%. While Guelph's economy is above average for Ontario, affordability remains a challenge for families and seniors. The Guelph and Wellington Task Force for Poverty Elimination has observed a 120% increase in families using the shelters system.

When we combine a worryingly low vacancy rate with job market instability and general concern about the economy, very little choice is left for those at the lower end of the housing market, leaving individuals and families to accept accommodations that are painfully below standard. Not a week goes by without a constituent calling, concerned that they are on a four- to five-year wait list for affordable housing in Guelph. It leaves me feeling helpless that I can offer no solution.

Across the country, an astounding number of citizens either remain homeless or live in inadequate housing. More than 300,000 to 400,000 Canadians move in and out of homelessness, and there are 1.5 million households that lack secure housing. Approximately 3.3 million live in substandard housing, and more than three-quarters of one million families live in overcrowded housing.

Instituting a national housing strategy is more than simply a compassionate consideration. It is also the most effective way for Canadians to be sure their tax dollars, which fund our social programs, are being spent in the most efficient, effective and accountable way. With a nationwide comprehensive strategy, we are all better positioned to make a difference.

I call on all members, on compassionate grounds and in the interest of smart, sound economic policy, to pass this legislation. Let us begin the dialogue that will enable Canada to join its G8 partners and do the right thing for all Canadians.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again in support of the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot's motion to create a national housing strategy.

As we know, the Government of Canada used to be a big player in the housing market of Canada. However, the Liberal government, in the 1990s, got out of the housing market completely and left it up to the provinces and to the cities themselves. We have never really recovered from that decision by the Liberal government.

Whenever we ask a question about housing, the Conservative government likes to say that it is spending a lot of money on housing, but it is taking credit for something the NDP did. The NDP actually was the party that, in a negotiation with the Liberals in 2005, negotiated that there should be money spent on housing in Canada as part of the budget. That money is still there. However, the Conservative government is attempting to cut that money. It has also threatened to cut off money for the co-ops in Canada, which is another bad sign of things to come.

Bill C-400 would force the government to create a regime that would deal with the provinces, deal with the municipalities and deal with the territories to put together a strategy that would create affordable, reliable housing for all Canadians, not just those who have the money to do it.

In my riding, we have 16,000 seniors. Over 15% of the riding is currently over age 65. Some of those seniors are desperately afraid that they are not going to be able to find a place to live in the near future, because there is no strategy, either provincially or federally, to create housing that seniors can afford. We have a growing number of these seniors.

There are places where seniors' housing can be affordably built. In the province of Ontario, they are tearing down hospitals. They should be using those hospitals, as in my riding, as seniors' housing. They are tearing down schools. They should be using those schools, as in my riding, as seniors' housing, because those seniors deserve a better place to live. We deserve, as Canadians, to have a housing strategy put forward at the federal level, and the bill does exactly that.

The House resumed from October 17, 2012, consideration of the motion that Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Housing

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition supporting Bill C-400, which would finally give Canadians a national housing strategy.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to table a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing. The housing problem is acute in my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

The need is great in every part of the country. The time has come for government to act and develop a housing strategy. That is what the petitioners are asking for.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition signed by many Canadians who have recognized the serious lack of affordable housing in the country and the need for some federal responsibility and some leadership on this issue.

The petitioners have witnessed Bill C-400, which calls on the federal government develop a national housing strategy. They ask us to support Bill C-400 and to bring this matter to the attention of the government and to other Canadians.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as many members in the House know, safe, affordable, decent housing is absolutely central to the well-being of any family. Despite that, nearly 1.5 million Canadian households do not have the kind of housing they need in order to organize their lives, look after their kids and make a real contribution to community.

With that in mind, the petitioners in question have signed a petition in which they call upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 so we can have a national housing strategy that would ensure the right of every Canadian to a decent and affordable home.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to table a petition in support of Bill C-400.

The petitioners point out that Canada is the only industrialized nation without a national housing strategy. Perhaps that is why 1.5 million households, many of which are in my riding, Laurier-Sainte-Marie, are in core housing need.

I find this issue extremely important. The petitioners ask that we support Bill C-400.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition signed by Canadians on Bill C-400, the Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act.

In Quebec, Loge m'entraide struggles every day to find housing for young people. That is why I am presenting this petition to the House today.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions that call on Parliament to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. I can say that the need for affordable housing is as strong in my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing as it is in major Canadian cities.

The petitioners point out that almost 13% of Canadian households are in core housing need. They remind the House that access to affordable housing is defined as a fundamental right under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Despite the obvious need, Canada remains the only industrialized country without a housing strategy.

With that in mind, the petitioners ask Parliament to support Bill C-400, which would give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have presented petitions in support of Bill C-400.

I also have a pile of petitions from Canadians across the country, Canadians of all ages and social classes, who are calling on the government to step up and adopt a national housing strategy, so that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to affordable and secure housing.

I think that everyone has the right to proper housing. Everyone should have access to that.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would give Canadians access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

The right to housing is an inalienable right. We must ensure that this bill gets passed.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians in support of Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. Canada is the only industrialized country to not have a national housing strategy. The UN has declared that access to affordable housing is a fundamental right and yet one and a half million households, almost 13% of all Canadian households, are in core housing need.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 and give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, access to secure, accessible and affordable housing is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right. But in Canada, a rich country, this is not yet the case.

That is why hundreds of people are adding their voices to the debates in Parliament in support of Bill C-400.

I am pleased to present this petition.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in the House today in support of Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. Nearly one and a half million households are in core housing need in our country and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges that affordable housing is a fundamental right and not a privilege.

Canada is the only industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass NDP Bill C-400 and finally give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell the hon. member that Bill C-400 is not just about holding meetings. A national strategy is also about taking action.

Housing is not just a provincial responsibility. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has responsibilities when it comes to housing. It must make appropriate investments and work with the provinces. Working with the provinces means talking with them, consulting them. When I talk about the provinces, I am also referring to the territories, of course. Talking with the provinces means consulting with them, being open and listening to their needs. However, this does not seem to be what the government is doing right now with regard to housing in Canada.

The housing crisis is a growing problem. I would like to provide another statistic. Right now, in Canada, between 150,000 and 300,000 people are homeless. It is not normal for a so-called rich country such as Canada to see families in core housing need and people living in the streets—

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again asked about a national housing strategy for Canada. The hon. member clearly believes that the federal government should be telling the provinces and the territories what they should be doing, and we on this side of the House simply do not agree.

Our government has invested unprecedented amounts in a multi-pronged approach that respects provincial jurisdiction in housing to ensure that Canadians have access to affordable, sound and suitable housing.

Our approach works, because governments at all levels recognize that housing needs differ across the country. Local challenges need local solutions and we all recognize that provinces and territories are best positioned to design and deliver programs to address housing needs in their jurisdictions.

By not recognizing that social housing is largely a provincial jurisdiction and moving away from the local delivery of social housing programming, this approach could lead to more bureaucracy and, as a result, most costly social housing.

Our approach is collaborative. We engage with the full spectrum of housing stakeholders and we respect provincial, territorial and on-reserve jurisdictions. That is why we do not support Bill C-400.

Rather than being a solution to housing challenges across Canada, we believe that a prescriptive, national approach would slow progress, cause unnecessary friction between governments and actually impede the development of effective local solutions.

That is why, instead of holding meetings and developing discussion papers, we have opted for action. We worked closely with the provinces and territories to deliver more than $2 billion in social housing investments under Canada's economic action plan, and Mississauga—Brampton South, my community, certainly benefited from that important investment.

As reported earlier this year, this funding was supported an estimated 16,500 social housing units and first nations housing units across the country. It was delivered quickly and effectively, thanks to collaboration between all stakeholders. Tens of thousands of Canadians have benefited as a result.

In fact, our government is already investing more in affordable and supportive housing than any other government in Canadian history. Last year we announced a new investment in the affordable housing framework with the provinces and territories to guide the delivery of federal housing investments through to 2014. This framework provides for combined federal-provincial-territorial spending of $1.4 billion over three years.

Provinces and territories are responsible for program design, delivery and administration and they have the flexibility to invest in a range of solutions to improve the living conditions of Canadians in need.

Since 2006, our government has invested an estimated $13.1 billion in housing and homelessness programs. During this period, we have witnessed a tremendous level of co-operation between governments and other housing stakeholders, in fact, a truly national collaboration.

This is not the time to interrupt progress by shifting our attention to holding meetings rather than implementing actual housing solutions.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before Christmas, Food Banks Canada reported that reliance on food aid had reached an all-time high in Canada.

The report also indicated that government measures to increase the number of affordable housing units were the primary solution to this problem. I said at the time to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that there was no such commitment in her government's most recent budget.

When we ask questions on this issue, we are told that the government has invested over $2 billion in affordable housing through its economic action plan, and so on. According to the Conservatives' talking points, the government helps 755,000 Canadian households every year. The problem is that the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada reports that some 3 million Canadian households, including 750,000 children, are in core housing need.

The government does not seem to understand that it will take more than just funding to solve the housing crisis in Canada. We need a long-term plan that includes programs to end homelessness and to ensure that all Canadians have a roof over their heads. Canada needs a national strategy. We are the only G8 country that does not have a housing strategy.

With 3 million Canadian households living in housing insecurity, it is obvious that Canada has fallen behind when it comes to investments in affordable housing. Of all the developed countries, Canada has one of the least developed social housing sectors, and fewer and fewer Canadians can become homeowners.

In May of last year, this House unanimously adopted Motion No. 331 introduced by the hon. member for Shefford. This motion confirmed that the federal government has international obligations respecting the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The motion also recognized the duty to support efforts by Canadian municipalities to combat homelessness. Bill C-400 is a logical extension of these efforts.

Canada will undergo its second universal periodic review by the UN Human Rights Council in 2013. It will have to report to civil society organizations and member countries of the United Nations human resources committee on its accomplishments in the area of housing.

A number of groups think that the conclusions of the UN special rapporteur will be worse than those in the 2009 review. At that time, the special rapporteur criticized this government's inaction in dealing with the crisis, which is getting worse. This shows the importance of a housing strategy, which is supported by hundreds of organizations.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain to me why the government refuses to discuss such a strategy when it would greatly improve the situation?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition that calls for the government to pass Bill C-400, since we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy and since 1.5 million households are in core housing need.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country know that Canada needs a housing strategy. I am therefore pleased to present a petition signed by people from Regina, Saskatchewan, asking all parliamentarians to vote in favour of Bill C-400.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Nova Scotia who note that nearly 1.5 million households, almost 13% of all Canadian households, are in core housing need.

The petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 and give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by Canadian citizens from across the country, of all ages and social classes, who are calling on the government to take responsibility once and for all and to pass Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

Persons with Disabilities

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on this day in 1948. It says that everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing and housing. Canada has far too many people paying more than they can afford in rent.

It is our daughter Hollie's 37th birthday today. She has Crohn's disease and can no longer work. Typical of many Canadians on disability, her benefits are too small to provide an adequate standard of living. She pays too much in rent. She will never own a home or a car. She cannot afford Internet or cable TV. She will never have an RRSP. She could never qualify for non-refundable tax credits. She had to give up trying to provide for her son, who now lives with his father.

We need a national housing strategy like in Bill C-400, so that families can have enough after rent for their children, their health and for their future, and we need to keep our promises to the UN on the rights of the disabled. They deserve, as a human right, adequate incomes to provide shelter, health and food.

Housing

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition in support of Bill C-400 introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The bill aims to ensure accessible, affordable and secure housing. The petitioners are calling on the House to pass this bill in order to develop a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many Canadians who are calling on the government to pull up its socks, show some leadership and vote in favour of Bill C-400, which would finally implement a national housing strategy.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The second petition I wish to present has to do with Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

In both cases, the petitioners are all Quebeckers who signed in great numbers.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition in support of Bill C-400. People from all over Canada, of all ages and backgrounds, are asking the government to take action by adopting a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present another petition signed by people from across Canada, people of all ages and social classes, who want the government to take action and create a national housing strategy. These people also support my bill, Bill C-400.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by people from across Canada, from all social classes and of all ages, who are urging the government to take action and adopt Bill C-400, which would establish a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition signed by people in my riding calling on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 to adopt a national housing strategy.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition in support of Bill C-400, introduced by my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Like my colleague, as a member from Montérégie, I know that the housing problem extends beyond large urban centres. Furthermore, it is a problem that very few people are aware of. I am therefore very pleased to support my colleague's bill and to present a petition that also supports it.

I hope that this House will one day adopt a national housing strategy. This is a pressing problem that affects the well-being and dignity of all Quebeckers and Canadians.

National Housing Strategy

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to again present a petition signed by people of all ages and social classes from across Canada. They want a national housing strategy and they support my private member's Bill C-400. I am pleased to present this petition today.

Housing

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition signed by people from all across Canada, from all age groups and social classes, who support a national housing strategy, as described in Bill C-400.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it often enough: there is a housing crisis everywhere. Unlike the other G8 countries, we have no long-term plan. And today, 1.5 million Canadian families are living in substandard housing. The FCM, which represents 2,000 Canadian cities and towns, has asked the government to take action and support Bill C-400, to adopt a national housing strategy. But the Conservatives do not listen to anyone. To force them to listen, the NDP will be tabling petitions in support of the bill every day, starting today, until the vote on November 28. The government will be forced to see that Canadians want housing to be a priority.

Will this be enough to convince them? Will the government agree to listen to the voice of Canadians, once and for all?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly here today to present a petition concerning Bill C-400 introduced by my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that omnibus bills will now be the norm in the House of Commons. It gives me no pleasure to rise today at second reading of Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget bill.

In addition to implementing the 2012 budget, the Trojan Horse bill included a number of other changes that had not been announced beforehand. This is yet another budget implementation bill that goes well beyond implementing the budget.

We said it when the Trojan Horse bill was forced through the House in May, and we are saying it now: this is not an acceptable way of doing things in a so-called democratic country like Canada. The monster Bill C-45 is over 440 pages long and contains a huge number of disparate measures. It would amend over 60 laws, giving the minister more power and weakening environmental protection legislation.

It also sets out a vast number of complicated measures, including a reworking of the Canada Grain Act and changes to subsidies for scientific research and experimental development, elements that are essential to the nation's development. In addition, it sets out major changes to the public service pension plan and the Canada Labour Code.

Here are the facts. The Conservatives have introduced a bill encompassing dozens of disparate measures, and they want to have it passed as quickly as possible so that we do not have time to talk about it. That is because they do not want Canadians to know what really goes on here in the House of Commons. MPs do not have enough time to study the bill closely and analyze its repercussions. Who will pay the price for that? Canadians—the very people whose interests the government is supposed to protect. As elected representatives, Conservative MPs are also supposed to work for Canadians.

On the one hand, MPs are being prevented from doing the work they were elected to do, and on the other, Canadians are being kept in the dark. Fortunately, Canadians can count on the NDP, which strongly opposes the undemocratic nature of Bill C-45.

We have defended and will always proudly defend the concepts of transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for environmental protection. We will always stand up for old age security and health care. If we do not, who will? Certainly not the government, which is showing us once again that democracy is not its priority.

Canadians are not blind. They know that the government is not doing so and that it is preventing the official opposition from doing its job by imposing a gag order once again. Actually, how many gag orders have we had so far? I think it is a record number. I am not sure what the exact figure is, but I know there have been more than 20. In short, that is preventing us from doing our job.

As a result of the strong offensive launched by our party, the government is finally going to allow various committees to study this bill. What a privilege. However, we do not know whether we will be able to propose amendments during those consultations. Needless to say, that will greatly hinder the process.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, has once again said that members of Parliament are not receiving the information they need to be able to reasonably exercise their power of oversight. Well, yes, power of oversight, but also responsibility of oversight.

The PBO recently even had to threaten to take the Conservative government to court if it did not forward the information about the budget cuts that were announced. The government has to stop trying to obstruct the work of Parliament and must allow a real study of this bill.

Canadians will agree that the amendments and their impact on Canadian families need to be studied in particular. It is appalling to see that, once again, Canadian families are being completely ignored. The government is continuing to ignore the real needs of Canadians.

According to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 4 million Canadians, including 750,000 children, have core housing needs at this time. However, once again, the 2012 budget implementation bill does not contain any measures related to housing or any measures to fight poverty or homelessness. Yet major institutions like the Wellesley Institute and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have sounded the alarm several times. These national organizations asked the federal government to invest in housing in the most recent budget. Clearly, nothing has been done.

Housing is an important issue not only for families, but also for seniors, a very high-risk group. The current government reduced old age security benefits, which means that some seniors will have even more difficulty paying their rent. Approximately one-third of social housing is occupied by seniors, and one-third of that group is at risk of losing their housing because long-term operating agreements between the federal government and housing co-operatives are not being renewed.

A survey conducted by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association found that the number of seniors waiting for housing has been increasing steadily since 2004. That number is increasing, yet this government does nothing. Seniors represented one-quarter of all households waiting for housing in 2011.

Since we are talking about poverty, let us also talk about the changes to employment insurance. These measures will also have an impact on a claimants' ability to find housing, particularly since the federal operating agreements are about to expire. As a result of the loss of employment insurance benefits, more households may have core housing needs. Core housing needs are no joke. I am talking about substandard, overpriced homes that are difficult to heat and that are too small for families. These are not trivial matters.

Since the federal government did not introduce any housing measures in its budget, it could at least help all Canadians by supporting my national housing strategy. It will not do so under the pretext that housing falls under provincial jurisdiction.

And yet, the purpose of Bill C-400 is to provide secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, while respecting provincial jurisdictions. The government's inaction is a mystery.

Once again, the government is not demonstrating leadership. The omnibus bill contains another attack on agriculture, which provides even more evidence that the government is not demonstrating leadership.

Bill C-38 already hit my riding hard—really hard—by interfering with the CFIA's ability to conduct proper inspections to ensure the food security of all Canadians.

Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is one of the biggest agricultural regions in Quebec. The CFIA's services are thus very important to this region, which largely depends on agriculture-related economic activity.

Unfortunately, we still do not know what impact the cuts will have on the CFIA's regional centre, which is located in my riding. Many people are concerned about their jobs, and for good reason.

However, that is not my riding's only concern. Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is made up of 25 municipalities and more or less all of the farmers there grow grains. Thus, many of these farmers will be affected by the elimination of the grain appeal tribunals, which are independent committees set up by the region that provide a great deal of support to farmers. Who will farmers deal with if they do not have anyone to represent their region?

If Bill C-45 is passed, any recourse will automatically have to go through the chief grain inspector. Will the chief grain inspector be able to consider the unique characteristics of my riding as well as the local committees can? I seriously doubt it and so do my constituents.

In fact, all Canadians doubt the Conservatives' approach. The 443-page omnibus bill proves that they have reason to doubt.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for the representative of the Canadian Association of Community Health Centres.

You spoke about Bill C-400, which was introduced by my colleague and has to do with a national housing plan. Mr. Wolfe, the purpose of my question is in part to provide an answer to Mr. Adler's question.

Two days ago, Canada Without Poverty appeared before the committee. According to their representatives, the cost to get Canadians out of poverty is about $12.6 billion, but for Canada, the real cost of poverty is about $24 billion.

Would you agree that it is more expensive not to take on poverty?

[Scott Wolfe, Federal Coordinator, Canadian Association of Community Health Centres]

Thank you.

The good news is that we can change this and we know how.

For starters, we know that an increasing number of Canadians simply do not have the personal and household income and resources required to achieve and maintain health. A widening income gap and the lack of access to adequate and affordable housing across Canada are two key factors. These growing financial pressures and our eroding social safety nets at federal and provincial levels mean that many households simply cannot afford to access the nutritious food, the recreational activity programs, the family supports, and other resources needed to maintain well-being. We must level the playing field and we must give families and communities across Canada the opportunity to access the necessary preconditions for health.

I'm going to move along to our recommendations very quickly. We recognize that these five recommendations don't cover the full spectrum of actions necessary to get us to where we need to go. However, they do provide a launching pad, and we believe they act as key enablers.

The first of these is to design and adequately invest in a federal poverty reduction strategy, such as the one outlined currently in Bill C-233, An Act to eliminate poverty in Canada. This plan must complement provincial and territorial initiatives.

Second is to adopt and implement Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, thereby establishing a desperately needed federal housing strategy.

Third is to negotiate with the provinces and territories a new 10-year health accord, with stable and adequate funding at a minimum 6% escalator over the coming years, and to protect the Canada Health Act within it.

Fourth is to establish a federal pharmacare program and further protect the health and well-being of Canadians by exempting health care—including this new federal pharmacare program—from CETA and other trade agreements.

Fifth is to expand and invest in access for Canadians to high-quality, team-based, primary health care by establishing a federal strategy and funding for a pan-Canadian network of community health centres.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

I congratulate my colleagues who have spoken on the bill today, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot who presented this important piece of legislation before us, and the member for Hochelaga who speaks for our party on housing issues.

I also pay tribute to my colleague and friend, the member for Vancouver East, whose Bill C-304 from the last Parliament is the basis of the current legislation before us. It illustrates the commitment of the New Democratic Party to dealing with one of the most important issues facing Canadians: affordable housing.

This is not just about homelessness, as the member opposite would have us believe. There are many people in Canada who are under-housed and do not have enough housing. In my riding, for example, there is a widowed and disabled woman living with three teenaged children in a one-bedroom apartment, because that is all anyone has for her. Raising three children in a one-bedroom apartment is not good. She has been on a waiting list for seven years and is told it will be another five years she has to wait. Her children will have grown up before she receives adequate housing.

That is the message the government opposite seems to be missing in the debate. This is not just about homelessness; it is about adequate housing for all Canadians. It is one of the most fundamental needs of our society. Indeed, Canada is a signatory to a number of international agreements, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recognizing that adequate housing is a basic human right.

Unfortunately in Canada there are too many families without adequate and affordable housing in their reach. Nearly 1.5 million Canadian households pay too much on their rent, over 30% of their gross income, leaving not enough money to spend on their children, their health and their future. This is not acceptable when we live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

My own riding of York South—Weston in the city of Toronto is home to 115,000 people. It is an urban riding within the metropolis of Toronto, Canada's largest city. Of the 42,000 homes in York South—Weston, half are rental apartments. Many of these apartments can be found on Weston Road, Lawrence Avenue, Jane, Keele and Eglinton. In half of those rental apartments, or some 10,000-plus apartments, we have seniors, single persons, lone-parent families and families with children paying more than 30% of their gross income on rent. That is not acceptable to the NDP.

The members opposite have suggested that maybe we should get all of them better jobs. That will not happen to seniors or children. Moreover, it certainly will not happen when there is no industrial strategy on the part of the government to create the jobs that will pay enough. Every chance the Conservatives get, they want to lower wages and expectations. However, people cannot afford housing if their wages are being lowered by the government. By paying more than 30% of their gross income, they have less money to support their children, their health and to provide for their future.

In York South—Weston, why do we have so many paying more than they can afford for rent? Despite the government's action plan, it is because there are so many low-paying minimum wage jobs in our economy today that someone earning $11 an hour will be paying 40% of their before-tax income to rent a bachelor apartment in Toronto. No one can raise a family in a bachelor apartment in Toronto, and even that is over 40% of their before-tax income.

According to the CMHC, the average rent for a bachelor apartment last year was $822 a month. It is higher now. For a two-bedroom apartment, which the women I talked about earlier would need at the least, was $1,161 a month last year. Again, that is now higher. That is the average.

No wonder we have over 10,000 households in my riding alone paying more than they can afford in rent. That means less money for their health, less for their children and less for their future. That should concern us all, not just this side of the House.

It is not a story unique to my riding of York South—Weston, as the briefs from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, among many other groups, have made quite clear for over a decade now. The social costs of bad health outcomes, of lower educational attainment, of inadequate pensions that people with low incomes live with and endure are well-documented and indisputable.

We need a national housing strategy to be developed under the leadership of the federal government in concert with our provincial and municipal partners in order to address this housing crisis. A national housing strategy is needed now more than ever and Bill C-400 seeks to achieve that very necessary goal.

Earlier this summer, the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association released its 2012 survey of social housing waiting lists in Ontario. It illustrates the deepening housing crisis for low-income families. The data showed that, in 2011, there were 156,358 households in Toronto alone on the social housing waiting lists. Another year of increased numbers, a net increase of 4,281 more households waiting for housing whose rents they can afford. Of the 156,358 households on that waiting list, over one-fifth were seniors, one-third were families with children and, as Ontario has only 260,000 social housing homes, it takes a long time to gain access to this affordable housing.

Last year only 18,500 in Ontario were successful in getting into social housing, but despite that, the waiting lists grew larger for the fifth consecutive year. For some families, according to the Non-Profit Housing Association, the wait can be over 10 years. That is unacceptable in Canada.

In my hometown of Toronto, the survey showed there were 69,342 households on the waiting list for social housing in 2011, representing over 44% of the Ontario list, despite the fact that Toronto represents only 20% of Ontario's population and despite the fact that Toronto only has 96,000 rent geared to income social housing units. That means that for every 10 social housing homes in Toronto, there are 7 families waiting to get in, 7 families paying more rent than they can afford while they wait.

I met with the vice-president of the Toronto Community Housing last week. One of the things it has had to do in order to maintain the housing stock it has is to sell off housing stock. We are reducing the amount of housing.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-400. Our government believes in taking action. We are focused on delivering results, not holding more conferences.

Our plan is working. In September 2008, the government announced more than $1.9 billion in funding for housing for the homeless over five years, until March 2014. This included a two-year renewal of the homelessness partnering strategy and existing housing programs until March 2011, and a commitment to maintain annual funding for housing and homelessness until March 2014.

In the fall of 2009, the government consulted with other levels of government, as well as public and private stakeholders to tell us how the existing approach to housing and homelessness could be improved and how the federal government could make better investments in this area from 2011 to 2014. In line with the feedback we received during these consultations, we renewed our homelessness partnering strategy. Through the strategy the government continues to invest in communities and we are also working to further strengthen our relationships with the provinces and territories, building on the successful partnerships we have established to date.

What we do not need are endless talks and more committees. What we do need is action. That is exactly what the homelessness partnering strategy does. For example, just over a month ago the Edmonton Inner City Housing Society celebrated the grand opening of its new apartment complex for people who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness. The organization received more than $1.3 million in partnering strategy funding for the project. As a result, homes were built for people who may have addiction, mental health or developmental problems.

Examples like this Edmonton project prove that our partnering strategy is working. Since the strategy was first launched in April 2007, the government has approved nearly 2,200 projects to prevent and reduce homelessness in Canada. With approved funding of $134.8 million annually, thousands of Canadians have found shelter and restored dignity in their lives. This funding ensures that we can assist those who are homeless or are at risk, including women fleeing violence, people with disabilities, recent immigrants, seniors and off-reserve aboriginal people who need support.

Our partnering strategy recognizes that a stable living environment is a requirement for improving one's health, finding a decent job, becoming a parent and providing for one's children's education, in short, for leading a productive and fruitful life. It also recognizes that the best solutions are at the grassroots level, not imposed from the top down. That is why we encourage communities to develop local solutions to address their local housing and homelessness needs.

Despite being in a period of fiscal restraint and economic uncertainty, our government continues to invest heavily in this area. In total, the government is already investing more in affordable and supportive housing than any other government in Canadian history. Even more importantly, these investments are achieving rare results, making a real difference in the lives of Canadians right across the country.

The partnering strategy provides a comprehensive approach to preventing and reducing homelessness, providing both national and community based funding. Most of the program's funding is delivered to 61 designated communities across Canada. These are primarily major urban centres that have been identified as having a significant problem with homelessness. Organizations and local stakeholders that are contributing to the fight against homelessness set the priorities for funding in their local communities. This ensures that those who are closest to those requiring our assistance are the ones developing the solutions.

Funds are also targeted to rural and remote areas of the country where housing and poverty can be an issue.

The strategy's aboriginal homelessness funding stream addresses the specific needs of the off-reserve homeless aboriginal population.

At the national level, the partnering strategy funds pilot projects developed with other federal programs dealing with policy issues related to homelessness. As an example, we are working with Veterans Affairs Canada to test innovative approaches to addressing homelessness among those who have served our country.

The knowledge development funding stream provides grants and contributions to stakeholders for research. The funding is widely disseminated to support the communities' ability to identify problems and develop solutions.

The national homelessness information system is a federal database development initiative. It helps stakeholders across the country, including service providers, researchers, and different levels of government, to establish baseline data related to the use of emergency shelters across Canada so that we can better understand homelessness.

Finally, the surplus federal real property for homelessness initiative makes surplus federal properties available to community organizations, the not-for-profit sector, and other levels of government for projects and services to help prevent and reduce homelessness.

From 2007 to 2011, the partnering strategy has placed over 38,000 people in more stable housing, helped 11,000 homeless people pursue education or training opportunities, helped 15,000 people find full- or part-time employment, and successfully leveraged investments by external partners. For every dollar invested by the HPS program, nearly $2.45 has been invested by partners.

We have taken coordinated and strategic action to address homelessness. Helping the most vulnerable citizens in our society is a shared responsibility that requires the participation of our provincial and territorial partners, municipalities, first nations, the private sector and community groups. We will continue to work with our partners in a co-operative way to prevent and reduce homelessness across Canada.

Sadly, it was the NDP that voted against funding to provide desperately needed new social housing for aboriginal families, persons with disabilities, and low-income seniors. It is the NDP that voted against funding to renovate and put new roofs over the heads of thousands of families in need.

While the NDP talks about helping the needy, our government is getting the job done. While the NDP talks about helping the vulnerable, the reality is it has voted against every single measure we have put forward to help these very people. That is why I will be indicating my support for a plan that is working by voting against the bill.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as official opposition housing critic, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-400, introduced in this House by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. This bill would establish a Canadian housing strategy.

I also want to thank the member for Vancouver East, who championed this issue for many years on behalf of the NDP opposition.

It goes without saying that my constituents in Hochelaga are following this debate closely and want all members of this House to pay attention to this issue that is very important to them. They want all of hem to work together to enact this bill that would benefit all Canadians.

In Hochelaga, 69% of residents are renters; 30% of households spend more than 30% of their income on housing; and 42% of renters, or 18,250 households, have incomes that do not allow them to meet basic needs.

Canada is the only industrialized country that does not have a housing strategy. The NDP hopes to remedy that situation with this bill.

Many Canadians still have a hard time finding adequate housing, if they even manage to have a roof over their heads at all.

It makes absolutely no sense that, in a country like ours, countless people live on the streets or have to make tough choices between paying rent or feeding their family.

Voters across the country want their elected representatives to care about their basic needs, and I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, that adequate housing is a basic need.

The problem today is that the poor are not the only ones having trouble finding adequate housing. Middle-class families also struggle with this. To fix this situation we need a plan.

Two weeks ago I spoke here about World Habitat Day, created by the United Nations General Assembly in 1985 to highlight the fact that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living, including housing. Housing is a fundamental right under international law, and Canada committed to take action in this regard.

Another NDP bill, Bill C-241, introduced by the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, would amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to include the right to proper housing, at a reasonable cost and free of unreasonable barriers.

The purpose of the bill before us today is to move from words to deeds.

We want to work with the provinces, municipalities, aboriginal communities and community organizations involved in housing — as we have much to learn from them — in order to give Canada a meaningful housing strategy, so that all Canadians can finally have access to safe, appropriate, accessible and affordable housing.

What we mean by affordable housing is not something that costs $300,000, but a scenario in which housing costs—including rent or mortgage payments, property taxes, electricity, water, fuel and other municipal services—are less than 30% of a household's total pre-tax income.

It all sounds very good, but this is exactly where Canada has a real problem. According to survey results released by Habitat for Humanity Canada for World Habitat Day, 35% of respondents bought fewer groceries because of high housing costs; this percentage jumps to 46% in the Maritimes; one in four Canadians has postponed paying bills to pay the rent; and 84% of Canadians participating in the survey believe that the federal government should take action towards affordable housing. This is from people who elected us.

The advantages of having a truly integrated housing strategy are numerous: being able to assess the diverse needs of the elderly, women, aboriginal communities, students, people with disabilities, families, victims of violence, people taking part in rehabilitation programs and more; stopping housing crises before they start; reducing homelessness; ensuring that people are not paying too much for housing; allowing people to invest in other sectors of the economy; and making it possible for all to live in dignity.

Before adopting the strategy, we first need to consult with the people and special interest groups. That is why, last month, I launched Canada-wide public consultations on the state of housing in the country.

In the coming months, I will travel to every part of the country to meet with citizens and community groups in order to better understand their actual housing needs. I can already report on some of the things I was told by the people I met in the town hall meetings I organized. The federal government should maintain—or better yet, increase—funding for social housing.

In Canada, more than 620,000 social housing units, including 127,000 in Quebec, have been built under long-term agreements with social housing providers ranging in length from 25 to 50 years depending on the terms of the mortgage. These grants were meant to allow social housing projects to help their low-income tenants while paying off their mortgage. In the past four years, roughly 26,000 social housing units in Canada have been affected by the expiration of these long-term agreements. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's estimates, that number will grow by 73,000 by 2016, bringing the total number of affected units to some 100,000.

The problem is that after 25 or 30 years, the buildings have to be renovated, such that most of these social housing projects will no longer be viable at the end of their agreement.

Let me talk about renovations for a minute. Housing co-operatives that have recently tried to refinance their CMHC mortgage through a financial institution in order to do some renovations, were levied excessive penalties, which prevents them from doing the necessary work. It will be important to reduce those penalties to ensure the integrity of the buildings and the viability of the projects.

In the highlights of main estimates for 2012-13, the government points out a $21.7 million reduction as a result of expiring operating agreements for long-term projects, which means that the government considers this to be a savings and it has no intention of renewing funding for social housing.

In that case, around 2030, these “savings” will total $1.7 billion a year, or 85% of the total federal housing budget. In the coming weeks, I will be moving a motion in the House calling for the money saved at the end of operating agreements to be reinvested in social housing.

The major problem that I see with such a large budget cut is that social housing is the least expensive way to fight homelessness, as researcher Stephen Gaetz pointed out in his study on the cost of homelessness.

I would like to remind hon. members of some facts. In 2007, the cost of a hospital bed for one month was $10,900. In comparison, the cost of a bed in a shelter was $1,932. The cost to the City of Toronto—where rent is not the lowest in Canada—for a social housing unit was $199.92.

On top of all that, the federal homelessness partnering strategy provides only short-term funding that is not indexed. We are still wondering what will happen to this program when it expires in 2014, but, meanwhile, the waiting lists for social housing are getting longer and longer.

In addition to pressing social housing and homelessness prevention needs, many cities and regions of the country also have a shortage of rental housing. Right now, the vacancy rate is down from 2.5% to 2.3% for all of Canada and is at 2.2% for Quebec. For 10 years now, this rate has been below the break-even point of 3%, and the country has been experiencing a rental housing shortage. The situation is even more alarming in some regions of the country that have a vacancy rate of close to zero.

I could also give a number of examples of housing in aboriginal communities. What we saw last winter in Attawapiskat is only one of many examples of the alarming situation that exists in many communities across the country.

It is high time we had a national housing strategy. Time is of the essence.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on second reading of Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

The choice this evening is quite simple. We could support this private member's bill, which would host the conference, encourage a few more studies and essays on the topic and allow for more speeches to be made. Or members can support the unprecedented levels of funding our government has provided to social housing across Canada. More talk or more action? I know which one I support.

The sponsor of the bill tells us that it is meant to improve the access for Canadians to safe affordable housing. Regrettably this approach could have the opposite effect. By not recognizing that social housing is largely a provincial lead and moving away from the local delivery of social housing programming, this approach could lead to less effective and more costly social housing.

Having said that, hon. members should know that rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all solution, this government is pursuing and will continue to pursue a proven and effective multi-pronged approach that engages many stakeholders and facilitates access to housing across a continuum of housing needs. Rather than launching another round of meetings, discussion papers and conferences, as is proposed in the bill, we have opted for taking tangible action to address housing issues.

Our government has invested heavily in a broad range of housing and homelessness programs and activities over the past number of years. In fact, our government is already investing more on affordable and supportive housing than any other government in Canadian history.

Through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the government contributes to Canada's strong housing finance system by ensuring that mortgage financing is available for all types of housing in all parts of Canada.

Thanks in part to CMHC's mortgage loan insurance and securitization guarantee programs, 80% of Canadians are able to meet their housing needs in the marketplace, without direct support from government.

At the same time, we recognize that the government cannot turn its back on those whose needs are not met by the marketplace, including low-income families, people with disabilities, first nation households living on reserve, the homeless and others in need. That is why we are working with provinces and territories, municipalities, national aboriginal organizations, the private sector and not-for-profit groups to deliver a full range of housing support and assistance, from providing emergency shelter for those at greatest risk to assisted housing for low-income households.

Regardless of what form federal assistance takes, our government believes that local housing challenges require local solutions. We believe that the people closest to those requiring assistance are best positioned to develop and deliver effective lasting solutions. Unlike this bill, our government's approach recognizes the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories in this area of assisted housing, as well as the need to work with a variety of different partners in order to deliver results.

When Canada's economic action plan was announced, we immediately sought the engagement and support of the provinces and territories to deliver housing-related stimulus funds to the economy. Working through CMHC, in record time, we negotiated amendments to existing housing agreements to ensure that the bulk of federal investments in social housing could be delivered quickly and effectively by provinces and territories. The results speak for themselves.

Through our economic action plan, we have created 46,000 new affordable housing units and renovated 104,000 more. Every year the government is providing support for over 605,000 individuals and families with subsidized housing.

Since 2006, over 8,900 new rental units have been committed under the on-reserve non-profit housing program. In addition, under Canada's economic action plan, over 10,800 new units were created on and off reserve. These projects not only improved living conditions for tens of thousands of Canadians, they also put people to work quickly and stimulated local economies.

All of this was made possible because our government recognized the provinces and territories were in the best position to deliver housing-related stimulus funding quickly where it was needed most and where it would have the greatest impact. This philosophy is also reflected in the investment in affordable housing 2011-2014 framework that the government jointly announced with provinces and territories in July of 2011.

Under this framework, provincial and territorial governments are cost matching the federal investment for a combined total of $1.4 billion over three years toward reducing the number of Canadians in housing need. The new framework recognizes that Canadians have diverse housing needs and that a range of solutions from existing programs to new approaches is needed. To that end, provinces and territories are responsible for designing and delivering affordable housing programs that address specific housing needs and priorities in their jurisdictions.

Through bilateral arrangements negotiated with our government, most provinces and territories have opted for a new approach. In 11 out of 13 jurisdictions, federal housing investments are now provided under a single funding envelope and provinces and territories have the flexibility to invest in a range of programs and initiatives to reduce the number of households in need. As hon. members can appreciate, this is the opposite of the one-size-fits-all approach that could result from Bill C-400.

CMHC also works closely with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada and first nations leadership as well as housing organizations to deliver federal funding to address housing needs on reserve, including supports for new construction and the renovation of existing homes on reserve.

These are all important initiatives carried out in partnership with a range of housing stakeholders. They are key components of the multi-pronged approach I mentioned at the outset.

Since 2006, our government has invested some $13.1 billion in housing and homelessness programs. Working with our partners, assistance has been provided to about 755,000 Canadian households, including low-income families, seniors, persons with disabilities and first nations people.

Our government believes that actions are more important than talk and our focus is about delivering results, not holding more conferences. I urge all members to reflect on this and to vote in support of our government's strong record of action on housing and vote against this bill.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if my colleagues would keep the noise down and take their conversations into the lobby.

The City of Surrey has established a policy prohibiting the conversion or demolition of rental units, unless the vacancy rate for the entire city is under 4%. The city has also adopted a plan to provide housing for the homeless. We are talking about 150 emergency beds, 500 housing units for people in transition and 5,000 social housing units for the homeless, families and single people.

In 2009, the City of Regina adopted a housing policy that includes tax incentives for small densification projects, tax write-offs for rental units and $10,000 in subsidies for affordable housing. The most critical housing shortage in the country is in Regina, where the vacancy rate is currently 0.6%. With significant problems such as these, housing has become a major election issue. Why is it that housing is such an issue in Regina and the federal government barely talks about it?

On Monday evening, my office organized a non-partisan round table on housing. All members were invited. We invited the government a number of times. National groups and housing experts from as far away as Regina and Toronto flew here to attend the round table. However, only one Conservative walked over to the La Promenade building. I would like to thank my colleague from Mississauga—Streetsville for attending.

He finally had the opportunity to hear that Canada needs a national housing strategy.

Therefore, today, I am asking if the government is committed to supporting Bill C-400 right now so that every Canadian family can have decent housing.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

moved that Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be here today to debate Bill C-400, which would establish a national housing strategy. This bill would require the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to work with the provinces and territories, aboriginal communities, municipalities, non-profit and private-sector housing providers, and civil society organizations.

Coordinating these efforts is the key to success. Today is International Anti-Poverty Day, which makes this bill even more significant. I would like to sincerely thank the members for Halifax, London—Fanshawe and Vancouver East for working so hard and so diligently on the housing file. Another big thank you goes to the official opposition housing critic, the member for Hochelaga, for her support and co-operation over the past few months.

We have worked hard since this bill was introduced in February. We have met with dozens of stakeholders, participated in forums and got the support of a number of organizations across Canada. These organizations include YWCA Canada, the Réseau québécois des OSBL d'habitation, the Wellesley Institute and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents more than 2,000 cities. Like the NDP, these organizations believe that Bill C-400 can solve a lot of problems. It is no accident that I am sponsoring this bill. As elected members of Parliament, we are fortunate to be able to introduce bills that can improve Canadians' quality of life. I am a former community worker, so housing and homelessness are particularly important to me. I would like to acknowledge my former colleagues, the members of the Corporation de développement communautaire des Maskoutains and the Table de concertation solidarité itinérance maskoutaine. We always dreamt of having a bill like this, as did Jack Layton.

Whether as a Toronto city councillor, or president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or even when he was here in the House of Commons, Jack Layton always worked to make sure every Canadian had a roof over their head. I am introducing Bill C-400 in order to carry on Jack's work and the work of every housing and homelessness organization. Every Canadian should have access to safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing. Jack Layton said:

When all Canadians can say “I have suitable housing in my community,” then our work will be done.

That is so true that even the Conservatives agree. On September 14, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot said this about housing:

Our government is committed to supporting Canadian families and communities, but it takes the efforts of many and partnerships at all levels to get real results.

Working together and coordinating efforts are precisely what Bill C-400 proposes. But the government prefers to abandon Canadians rather than listen to the official opposition. That is the problem with this government. It hits us with rhetoric, but a reality check makes it clear that the situation is out of control. Canada is the laughingstock of the UN when it comes to housing, as the 2009 UN report on decent housing indicates. The special rapporteur said that Canada is lagging in its social housing obligations and in its fight against homelessness. He also criticized the government's failure to address this growing crisis. The rapporteur also expressed concern over the many cuts to funding and housing programs. The 2009 UN universal periodic review addressed these critical concerns in its final recommendations for Canada. Our record is poor.

Believe it or not, Canada used to be a world leader in terms of its housing record. But the cuts to housing programs in the early 1990s have prevented Canada from meeting its international obligations. The situation has been getting worse ever since.

What did the government do in response to this damning UN report? It promised to work more effectively with the provinces and territories.

The government made this promise to the United Nations Human Rights Council. Unfortunately, this commitment never amounted to anything. More empty words. The last departmental report published by the CMHC indicates that the federal government does not plan to keep its commitments. In 2013, Canada will undergo its second universal periodic review by the UN Human Rights Council. At that time, the government will have to report to civil society organizations and member countries of the United Nations human resources committee on its accomplishments in the area of housing. The way things are going, we are probably not going to do any better than the first time.

Nevertheless, the NDP is offering the government the solution on a silver platter. The national housing strategy set out in Bill C-400 would respond to most of the UN's concerns. The federal government's efforts must be coordinated with those of the provinces and territories, as well as those of the private sector and organizations on the ground. The solution is simple: we must stop improvising.

I am hardly the first person to say it. In 2004, the hon. member for Vancouver East introduced Bill C-509 for the first time. This bill was a declaration of housing rights that would have protected the right to affordable, accessible and adequate housing. In 2006, this same bill was again introduced by the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Not willing to give up, in 2009, the hon. member for Vancouver East once again introduced an amended version of the bill.

With the support of the other opposition parties, the bill went to committee, where a clause was added that would have allowed Quebec to opt out of the legislation with full financial compensation. Unfortunately, the bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called in the spring of 2012. The bill had the support of all the opposition parties and even the support of one Conservative member. Canada was close to having its own national housing strategy. This time, I hope that the government will agree to adopt this strategy.

The situation is completely out of control. The economic crisis gave rise to a housing crisis that is affecting the entire country, not just big cities such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

Household debt has reached a critical point. Many international organizations are warning the government, but it does not seem to be listening. In 2008, the global economic downturn resulted in higher property prices. Those who were able to buy a home ended up with a mortgage that they could not afford to pay.

The Bank of Canada and the International Monetary Fund have warned Canada that the country's household debt is far too high, at 158%. That is unprecedented. Mortgages account for 68% of that debt. Those who cannot afford a mortgage are forced to turn to the rental market, which can no longer keep up with the demand. Vacancy rates in Canada have reached record lows. Once again, this is not exclusive to large urban centres. In 2010, the CMHC found vacancy rates under 2% in 10 Canadian cities: 0.9% in Winnipeg, 1% in the Quebec City region, 1.4% in St. John's and 1.8% here in Ottawa. There is a serious lack of rental housing in those cities.

Changing global economic conditions are reflected in the changing housing needs in Canada. These conditions have created a void in the construction and housing sectors. There is a housing shortage, and low-income families have very few housing options. Where are the solutions? This federal government certainly is not offering any. At the end of the day, on the one hand, we have renters who are inadequately housed and are paying too much, and on the other hand, we have fewer and fewer home owners with increasing debt levels.

What is not make clear in this equation? The only thing that is crystal clear is that this government has lost all control. It is time to adopt a national housing strategy. I know I am repeating myself, but there is nothing else to add. We need to act now. Other G8 countries realized this a long time ago. This government likes to compare itself to other G8 countries, and so it must know that those countries have known for quite some time that adequate housing guarantees long-term, sustainable economic growth.

In Belgium, for example, housing is under regional jurisdiction. Social housing represents 7% of the national rental housing stock, and every region has a regional social housing corporation. Social housing units are allocated based on a combination of income ceilings, household size and urgency of need. Monthly rents depend on tenants' incomes.

In addition, the right to housing is guaranteed by the constitution. Article 23 provides that every person is entitled to dignity, which includes the right to decent housing. These policies have resulted in a vacancy rate of 7.8%

Austria's housing policy focuses on two essential factors: government financial assistance and a competent and diligent limited-profit sector.

The government has established essential financing mechanisms and legislation to regulate security of tenure and rents. As a result of a long-standing government commitment, one in six Austrians lives in an apartment built or managed by a limited-profit housing association.

In the United Kingdom, the Minister of Communities and Local Governments works together with local authorities to manage housing in the country. The government has just adopted the Affordable Homes Programme 2011-2015, and that program is backed by a £4.5 billion investment to increase the supply of social housing in the country. It includes a special component for seniors and persons at risk. The result is that social housing serves more than four million households.

Investing in housing pays dividends. Safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing means Canadians who are well housed, more fit for work and in better financial health.

However, unlike the major industrial countries, Canada has not yet understood this.

Given the federal government's withdrawal from this sector, many Canadian municipalities have decided to adopt action plans, often with very few resources.

In Saskatoon, the city encourages the construction of rental properties by offering a $5,000 subsidy for every rental unit built, in addition to a progressive tax credit over five years.

In 2010, Quebec City adopted regulations to slow the conversion of rental apartments to condos. As a result, a rental property must be vacant for 10 years before it can be transformed into a condo property.

In 2010, in my riding, the Saint-Hyacinthe city council invested $2 million in social housing. That is a lot for a city of about 50,000 people.

Housing

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund warned Canada that the country's household debt has reached a critical level. Households are facing higher house prices and record debt levels, where residential mortgages represent 68% of household debt, and rent is higher than ever.

The Minister of Finance himself said that the global economy is fragile and that global economic turbulence has had and will continue to have a negative impact on Canada.

The government and the IMF recognize the potential problems, so when will the Conservatives act to prevent this potential crisis? We are offering them the solution on a silver platter. It is time to implement a national housing strategy. We are the only G8 country that does not have one. With a long-term strategy, we could coordinate our efforts to avoid a crisis and prevent debt from getting out of control.

The time has come for the Conservative government to listen to Canadians and support Bill C-400.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in exactly two weeks, we will have the first hour of debate on my Bill C-400 for a national housing strategy.

This bill does not specifically deal with gender equality. However, all of the reports point out that women are the hardest hit by the housing crisis affecting all of Canada, mainly because more women than men are renters—50% compared to 32%—but also because they are poorer. The average income of male tenants is $33,300 per year compared to $25,800 for women. In Ottawa, the median rent is more than $940 per month. With an income of $25,000 per year, there is not much left over for other basic needs. Moreover, many women are victims of discrimination because their jobs are more precarious or they are single parents. They are turned down or forced to pay rent that is much too high.

Therefore, I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-400 in order to improve the lot of women in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Income Inequality

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' motion raises some points that are worth discussing. It is true that recent changes to employment insurance have hurt low-income workers. It is also true that non-refundable tax credits for caregivers cannot even be used by many people because their income is too low to take advantage of the tax deductions. And it is quite true that income inequality is growing in Canada. In fact, the gap in Canada is greater than in the United States. The Conservatives are rather silent about this, perhaps because they dare not admit that it is true. However, the changes called for in the Liberal motion barely scratch the surface of the problem. It is a good start, but we need much more profound changes in our society, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

I could criticize the government for all its measures with which I disagree, but as a member of the NDP I want to do politics differently. As our friend Jack often said, we want to work together. Therefore, rather than blaming the Conservatives, I would like to suggest some things we could do to help the most disadvantaged, measures that are compassionate, but that would also benefit the country financially. That is something they should like.

The motion we are debating today talks about reducing income inequality between the richest and the poorest. Let us talk a little bit about the neediest of the needy, those who do not even have a roof over their heads.

A recent study by Stephen Gaetz entitled The real cost of homelessness asks an intriguing question: can we save money by doing the right thing? It seems that a number of studies in Canada and the United States show that investing in prevention costs less, in the end, than using a patchwork of emergency solutions. Furthermore, we would be acting very compassionately. For example, the homeless are more poorly nourished and more stressed, often are the victims of violence or accidents, and do not sleep as well. The homeless are three and a half times more likely to have asthma than an average person, four times more likely to have cancer and five times more likely to have heart disease. In addition, they are 20 times more likely to have epilepsy and 29 times more likely to contract hepatitis C.

According to Michael Shapcott, from the Wellesley Institute in Toronto, in 2007, the monthly cost of a hospital bed was $10,900. Comparatively, the cost of a shelter bed was $1,932. Even better, the cost of a social housing bed in Toronto, where rent is not the cheapest in Canada, was $199.92. You do not have to be good at math to see that the best solution is rather obvious, in both economic and human terms.

A homeless person is also at a higher risk of ending up in prison. In fact, according to a study by Kellen and others in 2010, approximately one in five inmates was homeless at the time of being incarcerated. According to Statistics Canada, in 2008-09, the average yearly cost of incarceration for a male was $106,583, and was $203,061 for a female. I highly doubt that subsidized housing for one of these people, even including support workers, would have cost the government as much.

So yes, I agree with Mr. Gaetz: we can save money while still doing good. Secure, affordable, adapted, adequate and safe housing helps prevent a lot of problems. It is an intelligent way to effect profound changes in society, not only for the homeless, but also for everyone. Everyone should have the right to adequate housing without having to destroy themselves financially.

Many families and individuals have a hard time making ends meet because they earn a pittance, because they are ill, because they are retired and living on a fixed income, because they are young and are having a hard time finding a first job, or because they are students.

It is mainly these people who see the gap between their incomes and those of the wealthy getting wider every year.

Yes, we must ensure that employment insurance is fair for everyone, including those who cannot find full-time work and who will lose out with the new clawback mechanism established by the Conservatives. By the way, the presumption that everyone can find full-time work is false.

At the museum where I worked for 19 years, there were only three guides who had full-time jobs because of the nature of the work. The other 17 worked part-time. Jobs are becoming increasingly precarious, particularly in seasonal industries such as tourism and education. Many workers in these industries are women or young people who have less chance of success from the outset.

Yes, we must also ensure that caregivers can benefit from tax credits, even and particularly those who do not make enough money during the year to be able to take advantage of tax deductions. Once again, many of the people in these circumstances are women. Nonetheless, I am going to say it again: we need to take things much further than this motion.

Why not make the housing renovation programs permanent rather than providing temporary programs that leave something to be desired? With doors and windows that do not leak, heating systems would use less energy, and people would have lower heating bills and more money to spend on other things. There would also be more jobs available in the area of renovation.

Why not renew the agreements between the CMHC and social housing projects for buildings that need to be renovated or for those that cannot continue to provide subsidized housing once their mortgage expires?

Why not allow housing co-operatives that are trying to find another source of funding to end their agreement with the CMHC before the set end date without extremely restrictive penalties? This would allow them to find the money they need to do major renovations that cannot wait and that they do not have the means to do given their existing agreement with the CMHC.

Why not invest a portion of the CMHC's profits in new social housing, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, of course? People wait years for social and community housing. In the meantime, all of the money they spend on rent, which costs them much more than 25% of their income, could be helping other sectors of the economy. That money could also help them avoid having to choose between buying food or paying the rent. In the end, it would be better for the government too.

Why not bring back the 19.5% tax rate for big corporations, a rate that is, after all, still lower than that in the United States and that would give the government the money it needs to offer services to those who need them most? That money could be reinvested in housing and the fight against poverty.

I should point out that the NDP has repeatedly asked the House to adopt a national anti-poverty strategy. Maybe it is time for that now. All of these suggestions would help reduce the gap that is widening at an alarming rate between rich and poor in Canada.

Yes, I will support the Liberal motion this evening, but the House should also support bills introduced by my NDP colleagues, such as Bill C-241 and Bill C-400, which would guarantee all Canadians the right to decent, affordable housing so that they do not have to do without other essentials.

I hope that the members of all parties will set aside partisanship and support these important bills when the time comes to vote on them in the House. Forward-thinking, human policies like these are the only way to tackle growing inequality in our society.

Housing

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the 44th National Congress on Housing organized by the Canadian Housing & Renewal Association was held from May 1 to 4 in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Representatives of 400 organizations, municipalities and businesses were there to examine the current state of housing in Canada. The consensus was that, despite some progress in the area of housing and homelessness, the housing crisis is nowhere near being resolved.

I had the honour of discussing Bill C-400, which I introduced last February, to establish a national housing strategy. Countless organizations support this bill. I cannot count the number of representatives from organizations located in Conservative ridings who asked me how they could convince their MPs to vote in favour of the bill.

While Canada is still the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy, while over 150,000 Canadians are living on the street and while about 1.5 million households do not have appropriate housing, what more will it take to convince the Conservatives that Canada needs a real housing strategy?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today in the House to speak on Motion M-331 moved by my colleague from Shefford. I would like to thank him sincerely for his work on this issue. I would also like to thank all my colleagues who support my colleague from Shefford.

The New Democrats have a clear position on affordable housing: it is absolutely essential to make affordable housing accessible for Canadian families. We are committed to implementing legislation to ensure that housing is adequate and accessible. This is what we are proposing today.

In Canada, the shortage of affordable housing is flagrant. In Quebec, for example, it is estimated that about 325,000 households have core housing needs. It is appalling that, at the present time, only 10% of all housing starts will provide rental housing. Given that housing is being lost at a greater rate than new housing is being built, the number of rental units offered by the private sector is shrinking every day.

Moreover, according to estimates by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there will be an additional 50,000 rental households every year over the next decade. The low supply of suitable accommodation is increasing pressure on rents and making it more difficult to find affordable housing.

Some of my colleagues will of course prefer statistics and figures. So here are some that clearly show that the shortage of housing in Canada is critical. Of the households that cannot afford housing, 750,000 have children under the age of 15, 26% are single-parent families, 15% are immigrant families and 20% are aboriginal households.

In addition, nearly 1.5 million households in Canada cannot afford decent housing, which is totally unacceptable. Of this 1.5 million, 25.7% are single-parent families, 18.2% are immigrant families and 20.4% are aboriginal households. The situation is disturbing and now is the time to act.

The shortage of affordable rental housing forces renters into deplorable situations. In the vast majority of cases, if housing is affordable, it is in poor condition. It is also sometimes the case that, given the lack of options available to renters, they are faced with owners who take advantage of their circumstances. This is the situation we are currently seeing in the Montreal area.

Some owners neglect to maintain their units. For example, damage goes unrepaired, pest infestations go unresolved, and problems with mould are left untreated. Residents have their backs against the wall and have no option but to live in these conditions.

Canadian families should not have to live like this. Families in Quebec and in Canada deserve much better.

In the past, the federal government played a major role in the construction of social housing, particularly between 1967 and 1993. Thanks to the funding that was available during that period, many co-operatives and all the low-income housing units were built. It was the Mulroney government that made devastating cuts to that funding.

FRAPRU estimates that, if that funding had continued after 1993, there would be an additional 60,000 social housing units in Quebec alone. There are currently 1,120 low-cost housing units in Laval, 93 of which are located in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. Only 12 of those 93 units are set aside for families and the rest are reserved for seniors.

There are clearly not enough units, and it has come to the point where every week my riding office receives requests from my constituents for help in finding social housing. People are desperate. Some, like Ms. Galipeau, have been waiting for a place in social housing for nine years. Nine years.

The lack of social housing was underlined by my predecessor, who tabled many petitions, including one signed by 135 tenants of social housing asking for funding merely to renovate the low-income units and another one signed by 2,813 residents in Laval asking that the old Saint-Vincent-de-Paul prison be converted into social housing.

There is an urgent need for the government to deal with the social housing it has built. Many low-income housing properties are coming to the end of their agreement with the federal government. Low-income housing was built in partnership with the municipalities and the federal government. Tenants spend 25% of their income on rent, and the federal subsidy pays the remaining operating costs only until the mortgages are repaid. As a result of the expiring agreements, 85% of the social housing stock is facing radical rent increases. In addition, as we all know, once the first mortgage is repaid, major work on the buildings is often necessary. However, the federal government does not appear to be interested.

What is even more alarming is that some families are being forced into homelessness as a result of the housing shortage. In recent years, homelessness has persisted and increased in Canada, and an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 Canadians are currently homeless.

Contrary to what some would think, homelessness is also a problem in the Laval region, as the program Les Francs-Tireurs showed last March. I suggest that anyone who did not see it go to the Les Francs-Tireurs website and watch the episode on the homelessness problem in Laval. It is extremely relevant to this issue.

However, there is very little in the way of resources to assist homeless Canadians, and funding still appears unstable. Needs are growing, whether it be in Montreal, Laval, Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax or any other city in the country, but funding under the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, has not been indexed since 1999. In fact, the program will be expiring in 2014, and this government, the one opposite, is refusing to be clear and specific about its plans after 2014. Will this government abandon Canadians? I wonder.

The last budget, which the government brought down in March, does not offer even a glimmer of hope to families looking for housing. In fact, it announces a $10.2 million cut to CMHC's budget by 2014-15. There is also no provision for affordable housing and absolutely nothing about renewing social housing operating agreements.

In reaction to that budget, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association indicated that a commitment to at least extend existing programs, such as the homelessness partnering strategy, would have been appropriate.

The right to housing is part of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for good reason, as a number of my colleagues have already said.

This is also an issue that overly affects people who are already marginalized such as women, aboriginal populations, newcomers, people with disabilities, seniors, and many others.

Access to decent, affordable housing is a health and safety issue in Canada. The report entitled “Housing and Population Health”, by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, indicates clearly that the type of housing affects health. Renters have average health or, at least, their health is not as good as that of homeowners. The poor conditions that exist in some housing are one reason for this disparity, but the percentage of income spent on housing also has an impact, since it influences the ability to spend on other needs such as food, suitable clothing, health services and so forth.

I want to reiterate that I subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that access to suitable housing is a fundamental right, not a privilege. I urge the government to take this declaration seriously. Canadian families have the right to have a roof over their heads for their safety, health and survival.

I want to thank my colleague who took the initiative to move this motion and my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who introduced Bill C-400 to ensure that Canadians have secure, adequate, accessible housing.

I invite the government to support this motion and our affordable housing initiatives because housing is a necessity, not a luxury. It is time to open a dialogue on this.

Act to Ensure Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing for Canadians

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, today it is my honour to introduce a bill to ensure that every single Canadian has secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

Access to decent affordable housing is not a privilege. It is a fundamental right.

I would like to thank my colleague from Vancouver East, who introduced this bill during the last Parliament, where it died on the order paper. I humbly ask the government and all parties in the House to join me in supporting this bill to improve people's living conditions so that we can make our country fairer and leave nobody out in the cold.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)