Debates of May 5th, 1999

The Deaf And Hard Of Hearing

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on the subject of human rights signed by a number of Canadians including from my own riding of Mississauga South.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that human rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in countries such as Indonesia and Kosovo. They also acknowledge that Canada continues to be recognized as a champion of internationally recognized human rights.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to continue to speak out against human rights abuses and also to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuses.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present some petitions signed by people from the area of Penticton who are increasingly concerned about the future of the Penticton regional airport as negotiations have been ongoing for three years now and the negotiations are at an impasse.

The petitioners pray and request that parliament immediately appoint a mediator to assist in reaching an acceptable transfer agreement to all parties. I am presenting 98 of these petitions today and there will be thousands more to come.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and honour of tabling a petition by Canadians of Hellenic origin and other Canadians who are opposed to the bombing in Yugoslavia.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to present a petition today signed by hundreds of Canadians, a petition indicating Canadians remain very concerned about the government's commitment to our beloved system of medicare.

This petition is part of a much larger effort to send a message to the government. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Save Medicare Committee, particularly the work done by Russ Rak who is with the CAW local 222, retired workers chapter.

This petition calls upon the government to preserve and enforce the Canada Health Act and actually to go further and ensure that national standards of quality publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen are guaranteed as a right.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of 424 people in my riding. This is one of many petitions I have had on this subject.

These individuals pray that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that the possession of child pornography remains a serious crime and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing the law for the protection of our children.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am honoured to present a petition signed by residents of the Sarnia-Petrolia area who urge parliament to ban the gas additive MMT. They note that studies under way show adverse health effects especially on children and seniors.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition duly certified. It is signed by 275 people in southwestern Ontario. They ask this House to note that the Senate of Canada is an undemocratic institution, that it is costing taxpayers some $50 million a year, that it is redundant and that it undermines the role of members of parliament. They call upon parliament to undertake measures aimed at the abolition of the Senate.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured again to stand on behalf of many Canadians. There are 102 signatures on the petition I am presenting. It calls for the consideration of tax fairness to families who choose to have one of the parents stay home and look after their own children. This petition is one of many that are coming in on this topic.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of the motions in Group No. 3.

National Housing Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been rising at every opportunity to speak against Bill C-66 and I continue to do that today.

When I put this bill in the context of the larger agenda being pursued by the Liberal government, it is obvious why members on this side of the House, at least those in the New Democratic Party, are opposing Bill C-66. It is our view that this bill completes the circle for the Liberal government. It completes a process by which it totally and absolutely offloads its responsibility for housing to provincial and municipal governments as well as to individual citizens right across the country.

It is interesting that whenever I raise this broader agenda, members of the Liberal government sit there and shake their heads. It is absolutely important to put on the record exactly what the government has done. I am sure it will come as no surprise when I clarify for members opposite that Canada, particularly the province of Manitoba where I come from, has not really built any public or social housing since 1994.

Why did that happen? Not to put all the blame on the Liberal government, let us remind ourselves that the former Conservative government, the Mulroney government began the process of offloading in the area of public housing. It was really this government when it came to power in 1993 that put the final stake in the whole effort. Today Bill C-66 completes that circle.

We are trying to persuade members opposite. If they are truly concerned as they seem to pretend to be about meeting the needs of Canadians for adequate shelter regardless of where they may live, then surely they will consider these serious amendments we have put before the House. If not, then they should at least pull back the bill and reconsider their entire policy. We are talking about the importance of good public policy whether it is about shelter, about health, about safety or about quality of life.

It is absolutely clear from all analysts everywhere that quality public housing plays a direct role in terms of the health and well-being of Canadians. I remind members of that fact from a Manitoba perspective. Recently in some of our northern and remote communities there has been an unbelievable increase in the rate of tuberculosis. It would not take much analysis to realize that the rise in a disease which we thought we had stamped out forever is directly related to poor quality housing on reserves and in our northern and remote communities.

My colleagues in Manitoba have tried to make that point on many occasions. They have stated very clearly that the comeback of tuberculosis in Manitoba is further proof that many people living in overcrowded housing in remote communities face severe health risks.

That is but one example of how poor and inadequate housing can actually contribute to disease and ill health. It can actually cost all of us a great deal in the long run because we have not been prepared to act today. Good housing makes good health care policy.

It is absolutely clear when there is deteriorating housing, when many houses are boarded up and vacant, as in my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, it has an impact on the whole sense of security and safety for the neighbourhood and community. In my community because of government offloading and lack of political will to address this very serious issue, dozens and dozens of boarded up houses are just waiting for arsonists to set them alight. That affects the entire community and it costs us all dearly.

In response to this very serious state of affairs, and what some would call a state of emergency, community activists are trying to get a handle on the situation and do what they can to turn the situation around. In the case of Winnipeg North Centre, in the last year five neighbourhood patrols have been established to ensure some sense of safety in neighbourhoods.

I want to acknowledge the kind of work the community is prepared to do, the kind of initiative that is coming from residents. That should be but a way to urge this government to act; not to simply say that it is good the community is doing something, but to say that it is good that there is a real sense to take hold of our destiny. Now let us support those efforts and work with communities to improve the quality of housing and safety for all citizens.

As I said, in just one year five neighbourhood safety patrols have sprung up in my area. They include the Northend Patrol, the Manitoba Avenue Patrol, the Night Owls, the Flora Place Patrol. More are springing up and working with residents to ensure safety.

It is very important for this government to realize that when it invests in housing, as it is not doing now and as it will not be able to do with Bill C-66, it will have a far reaching influence on the quality of life in our communities.

In my riding, community groups are working very closely with community policing efforts. Everyone is doing their part. However, the time has come for action and there is such an urgent need. There is so much deterioration of housing stock because of the retreat from this public policy area by governments. It truly is a crisis. It truly is a state of emergency. It truly does require the government to act now and act as comprehensively as possible.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the debate at report stage of Bill C-66 on the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.

Even though it is considered to be a large sprawling rural constituency, my constituency is very much affected by this bill, the regulatory measures that are in this bill and which have preceded this bill.

In my constituency most of the single house dwellings are under contract with a local individual who is a one man contractor. Some 15 people from one area have come to me. If there are 15 people in one area, there are probably 30 people within my constituency who are young contractors who are very upset with the regulatory body. Think of how many of these small contractors are being affected across Canada.

What I am trying to point out is that the regulations that apply to this bill hurt the businesses with one or two people who build houses. It is not like the huge developments I saw last night while I was driving on the outskirts of Ottawa. Individuals who 10 years ago built houses in the rural areas, in the cities and in the towns of my constituency can no longer afford to meet the regulatory measures of this bill.

Anyone who wants to see the quality of work these contractors do can go to the city of Weyburn, or Estevan, or out to a rural area like Moosomin. There are a dozen show homes that have been lived in for 20 years. Ask those people what kind of quality went into those homes. It is top notch, the very best. There is no excuse whatsoever to deny these people the right to maintain a business within their community.

A one man contractor gets a contract to build three separate houses and what happens? Not only does he have local employment but he hires students during the summertime. They get a salary and they have on the job training. The large firms from the city do not do that. Let me also point out that when a local contractor is engaged to build a house it also benefits the immediate community. The subtrades stay within that city and community. Because of this bill these people can only build for those people who have the cash outlay.

The people in rural Canada, and not just in my constituency, are being denied the right to make a living, to live in that community, to buy in that community and to make that community prosper. And if there are 30 of these contractors in my constituency how many of these single contractors are throughout Canada?

They cannot at the present time meet all the CMHC regulations. In other words the government has regulated out of the business a whole new crop of top notch contractors. The key point is that they go out of business. In order to fill a contract, somebody has to come in from 100 miles away. They bring the subcontractors and their products with them and the local community suffers. If that is true in my constituency, it is true all across Canada.

There is another point I want to make. I have a letter presently in the hands of the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Industry. That letter contains a suggestion from one of these local contractors. If the ministers will just look at this and get their responses to me it will provide me and the government with an insight as to how to keep business within the small community and how to keep the economy from going underground. As well, the suggestion which the contractor has made will help to facilitate home repairs to houses throughout the winter months.

I beg of the government to not just think of the CMHC as being involved in massive housing developments around our large cities and to not just think of the number of huge construction sites that are being developed. And I am not against that portion of it. I am simply saying that this bill, with all its regulatory means, is knocking the single contractor completely out of business. Unless he can build for a person who has money in his or her back pocket he is simply out of business.

The economy where I live is down. I do not know of a single contractor who formerly built houses who even has a house to build, for the simple reason that the only way he will get money is to go through the CMHC and that contractor cannot meet all the regulatory demands of the CMHC just to get one house to build this summer.

I beg this government to not only examine the letters that are with the three government ministers, but also to consider rural Canada, to consider these people who are quality craftsmen. They are being put out of work simply because of the regulations of this bill.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and the Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

I wish to look at this bill and its intentions and implications in the context of the housing crisis which is plaguing our country, and specifically my community. When someone says “housing crisis” we often think of the problem of homelessness. We hear of 200,000 or more Canadians who are sleeping on hot air grates, in cars or in parks because they do not have addresses or roofs over their heads.

However, for millions of other Canadians the problem is not nearly that dramatic, although it is just as serious. I am speaking of the problem of finding decent, affordable housing. I am not suggesting that solving the problems of homelessness should be traded off against the problems of adequate and affordable housing. On the contrary, I would say the two are very interrelated. When the housing supply becomes less and less accessible or more and more decrepit we see more and more families and more children descending into homelessness.

There are some significant aspects of Bill C-66 that concern me, such as the fact that it will amend two pieces of legislation that deal with federal involvement in housing, the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, and it will also make a consequential amendment to another act. This legislation could potentially remove a number of measures specifically intended to provide housing for low income Canadians and it could allow the federal government to avoid any responsibility for housing.

Across the harbour from where I live in Halifax I see dozens of families who are homeless waiting in line for dinner at the Hope Cottage.

In Dartmouth there are thousands of people who I would say are the homeless in waiting. They are people who are living in substandard housing. It is clear to me that the primary factor which keeps people trapped in poverty is a lack of decent, affordable housing.

Neighbourhoods such as Highfield Park in my riding have thousands of families, many of which are headed by single mothers. There are many disabled Canadians and seniors who are living on public support. These people are paying over half of their meagre income for walk-up apartments in poor condition. They are living in poverty and they are constantly juggling the problems of food, clothing, medical care and shelter.

One woman wrote to me this week depicting her own dilemma, which I think sums up what we are talking about today. She is a mother, a survivor of cancer, and she is raising a child with a disability. She is doing all of this in low income, decrepit housing. She is trying to make ends meet. She states in her letter:

Ms. Lill:

I do not drink, smoke, go to bars, go to bingo or even go to a coffee shop in the evening. I try to maintain good eating habits for myself and my daughter, but I still never have enough money. I live in a semi-safe place.

That is how she identifies where she lives with her daughter. She continues by saying:

But I still have to delve into my grocery money. There are a number of vitamins and prescriptions which I am supposed to take to keep my immune system up. However, I am not able to do that and still pay the rent.

This is a woman who has to trade off her health to live in a semi-safe place with her disabled daughter. That is a disgrace as far as I am concerned.

As the hon. member for Vancouver East, the NDP housing critic described, our substandard housing crisis is an unnatural disaster. That is what this woman who I just referred to is dealing with every day of her life.

Families are having to make trade-offs about whether to feed themselves and their children or pay the phone bill. Do they let their hydro bill slide and risk a few days of darkness, or do they spend the money on their daughter's field trip? All of these things are being juggled in light of the fact that they are paying too much money for substandard housing. I do not believe people should ever have to make those kinds of trade-offs.

I remember speaking with a group of local boy scouts in my riding recently about the universal declaration of human rights. I asked them what human rights meant to them. One of them answered “Food to eat. We all have the right to eat”. Another one said “A dry, clean, warm place to live”. In fact these are included in the universal declaration of human rights; the whole idea that we have the right to a safe place to lay our heads at night.

These are rights that many residents in my community of Dartmouth are being deprived of, as are hundreds of thousands of people across this country. That is why we need a national housing program which will deal with these problems, not just one which tinkers around the edges and slowly erodes even further the housing program which we have. That is why Bill C-66 fails the test of good public policy. It simply tinkers with a system in crisis and it fails to deal with the real problems.

We need a housing program which sees community based, non-profit, mixed income housing as the best vehicle to deal with our national housing crisis, not private partnerships with the same landlords who are currently failing to provide maintenance. We need more housing which is accessible to all Canadians, including the four million who have disabilities in this country.

We need more seniors housing in Dartmouth, not more rhetoric coming out of Ottawa about partnerships and developers. We need the government to understand that investment in housing is no more of a frill than investment in health care. We need this government to understand that housing is related to health care. It is counterproductive for us to be spending more on hospitals without looking at alleviating the conditions which land people in hospitals. Poverty is caused by bad housing.

We need a national housing strategy. The federal government has a responsibility to develop a national housing plan and a housing supply program in co-operation with the provinces.

The New Democratic Party believes that the federal government should meet that goal of providing an additional 1% of the budget, approximately $2 billion, over five years, to meet the basic housing needs of Canadians. This 1% investment by all governments is a key recommendation of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee and must be supported.

I call on the government to reject the theme park approach to budget building and to adopt an approach which recognizes that investing in non-profit housing, investing in health and investing in children are ongoing requirements, not annual theme pronouncements which are based on extensive polling.

I call on the government to take back Bill C-66 and come forward with an anti-poverty agenda which will build quality, non-profit, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. member from Dartmouth. If everyone in this country was listening to every word she said they would know that she is absolutely right when it comes to an unnatural homelessness disaster in this country.

Unfortunately, Bill C-66 is again legislation that came from the south end of a northbound cow. It just does not make any sense that the government can tinker around and pretend to give the people of Canada the perception that it is going to do something about homelessness in this country.

One would assume that the citizens of this country have a right to accessible, affordable housing, to look after their families, to live in communities that are safe. The government does absolutely nothing for them. It downloads, it skirts the issues, it runs away, it hides. The government never tackles the serious issue of homelessness.

If people need an example of the crisis in this country they could look to Toronto, which is our largest city. It is a magnet for many tourists from around the world. When they come here they think “Canada is great. This is nice. We can walk on the streets”. I was in Toronto yesterday and in two downtown blocks we counted 42 people who were on the streets, begging, lying in sleeping bags and sitting on cardboard boxes. These people have no place to go because the federal government with its provincial counterpart in Ontario have completely ignored them and have concentrated on tax cuts for the rich.

In Ontario an election has been called. Is the provincial government pursuing the matter? Did Mr. Harris, the premier of Ontario, stand today with his colleagues in the Tory party to fight for homeless people? Will the election be based on poverty issues and environmental issues? No. The issue will be based on trouble with the sports franchises. They are going to try to keep millionaire businessmen and players in Canada. There was not one word in the provincial budget which addressed poverty and homelessness in our major city of Toronto. Toronto is a microcosm of what is happening right across the country.

As the hon. member for Dartmouth well knows, in Nova Scotia there are a lot of people who were seriously affected by the downturn of the fishery.

Mr. Speaker, let me state this quite simply so that everybody in the country understands. You and I, because of our incomes, live in a fairly comfortable home that we can pay for. A lot of these people live in mobile parks and mobile trailers. There is nothing wrong with living in those nice mini-homes. Unfortunately, if you or I lose our house, with our income we can afford to buy a mobile home which is traditionally of a lower value than a three bedroom duplex. The people in Canso, in Bonavista, Newfoundland and up in Arichat, Nova Scotia are losing their mobile homes. That is a crisis. Where do they go?

Mr. Speaker, you are an honourable gentleman, as everybody in the House is honourable, but what are we doing in the House of Commons as legislators if we cannot protect the most vulnerable of our society?

It is not that much to ask for 1% of the budget over the next few years totalling $2 billion to put back into social housing. We ignore the plight of some of the most vulnerable people in our society: our aboriginal first nations people, our seniors, our children, and those with mental and physical deficiencies. The province of Ontario and its Tory government and the federal Liberal government together concentrate on tax cuts for the rich and how we can make them richer.

In the recent federal budget announced by the Minister of Finance the average tax cut for the middle income earner was about $325, whereas the average tax cut for a person making $3 million to $4 million totals $38,000. If the government can put that much effort into looking after its corporate and wealthy friends, I ask it to put at least half that effort into looking after the most vulnerable in society.

Unfortunately the bill does not do that. It does not even come close. The New Democratic Party is asking the government to go over the bill again. If government members want to know how to do it, they should come to Vancouver East and sit down with the member of the New Democratic Party who represents that area. She will tell them exactly what they should do to prevent the unnatural disaster of homelessness.

That is all they have to do. They do not need more studies. They do not have to throw more money after reports. All they have to do for one hour is sit down with the member for Vancouver East and she will tell them exactly how to do it. With wonderful advice from her they will be able to solve the problem of homelessness from coast to coast to coast.

It is a shame that in 1999 we are standing in the House of Commons to discuss this very serious issue. In 1989 the leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Ed Broadbent, moved an all party resolution to end child poverty in the country. Now, 10 years later, child poverty has increased four times. It is absolutely unbelievable that the Tories and Liberals of that period ignored the very serious motion and recommendation brought forward by Mr. Ed Broadbent.

Now we are discussing the homelessness issue, an issue that is not discussed often enough in the House. If members of parliament want to know what it is like to be homeless, they should leave their credit cards and wallets at home and live on the streets of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Halifax in January. They should do it for a month if they have the guts to do it. That is what thousands of people go through every day.

I plead with the government, I beg the government, I deplore the government to pay serious attention to the plight of those people. It should look after social housing from coast to coast to coast. It should not download its responsibility on to the provinces again, which is exactly what it plans to do.

I beg the government to put 1% of future budgets totalling $2 billion back into social housing. That will also create jobs in communities which badly need them. As the member for Dartmouth said, it needs to be community based and non-profit. If these people are given the tools to work with, they will be able to look after themselves.

I hope my comments today have resonance with the Liberals, and I hope they make the right decision when final decisions are being made.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee; and of Group No. 3.

National Housing Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?