Bill C-304 (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 and Aboriginal communities in order to establish a national housing strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

I am going to suspend at this time. It's 12 noon, and according to the orders of the day, the first hour was on Bill C-304, but we do have committee business. The first part of this committee business I would like to be in camera, so we will go in camera and deal with committee business, and then we'll continue with the orders of the day.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Chair, the very least we can say is that our Conservative colleagues have quite opposite positions. Mr. Komarnicki states that we should pass an amendment recognizing that right for all provinces, while Mr. Vellacott tells us that we want to impose the Quebec rationale on all provinces. Perhaps you should have a discussion between yourselves to decide on the argument you want to waste our time with.

If our colleagues opposite want to come up with specific provisions for specific provinces, why don't they have the courage of their convictions and introduce amendments to that effect? As Ms. Falco clearly described just now, this amendment is about a Quebec policy. It is about our principles; they have led to ways of doing things in Quebec, the means of our own we have developed.

If our colleagues tell us, for example, that they have a mandate from Alberta, from Saskatchewan or from Ontario authorizing them to secure a different provision for each of those provinces, let them say so and let them do it. But they must not hold us responsible for something they would like. Let them have the courage to go and get it. But they are not doing that.

We respect what the other provinces that want a Canada-wide strategy are doing. They are Canadian and they want to show it with a policy that they see as theirs, because their choices are the same. They have the right to do so and we respect that. Once again, we will vote with them so that is what they get.

We have already done so with clause 3. We say yes to a Canada-wide strategy, but that strategy must not get in the way of Quebec's initiatives in its policy on poverty and its strategy on developing social housing. Despite the fact that the Canadian government completely withdrew from funding social housing from 1991 to 2001, Quebec has continued to develop its policy. Of course, our means were more limited. During that time, the feds kept tax points that normally would have been allocated there. It used them for other purposes, as it also helped itself to employment insurance funds for other purposes.

That is the issue. We are saying yes to a Canada-wide policy, respecting and recognizing the rights and powers already established by the treaties that Canada itself has signed. That is what we are saying today.

Wanting to distort things gets us nowhere. It is of absolutely no help to people living in misery, people with substandard housing or none at all. The merit of Bill C-304 and of our amendment is that we must try to come up with initiatives we can all agree on to help people in substandard housing. That is the merit of this bill.

I invite our Conservative colleagues to get back to the basic intent of this bill and to stop destroying the nature of the amendment we have proposed this morning.

[The Chair (Ms. Candice Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)), Conservative, Candice Bergen]

Good morning, everyone. We will call our meeting to order, meeting number 42 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Before we begin the orders of the day, let me say that last week I was so anxious to get down to business that I failed to introduce our new clerk. I'd like to introduce Travis Ladouceur. Travis is the new clerk assigned to our committee. I think he did a fantastic job last week when he had a sort of baptism by fire, and he and the rest of the analysts did a fantastic job.

Welcome. We're very glad to have you here.

The orders of the day are to examine the order of the House recommitting Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. We have been directed to deal with just two specific clauses in that bill.

Everyone has the bill in front of them. We will begin by dealing with clause 3.

(On clause 3--National Housing Strategy to be established)

Shall clause 3 carry?

All in favour....

[The Chair, Conservative, Candice Bergen]

That's a good idea, Mr. Savage. Let's have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We're at the end of our meeting.

For our next meeting, we have Bill C-304 scheduled. We have been told that it would take only an hour, so we'll see. We may continue with committee business.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm inclined not to support Mr. Lessard's...whatever it is. Is it an amendment or a motion or a subamendment?

I think what we did was absolutely correct this morning when we supported Mr. Lessard's motion as we did. Then, in an effort to try to bring many voices around this table together, I suggested we should append the other studies, which I think makes sense. Very importantly to me, I think it reflects what Mr. Martin intended when he voted back in December or November to consider the other reports.

I'm sorry we are where we are. I'm sorry we can't just move beyond this and get this done, but my inclination at this point would be not to support Mr. Lessard's amendment. I'm hoping most of us around the table can support the idea of just appending the report, which I think makes sense. Hopefully we can get this done and move on to Bill C-304 and Madam Folco's bill and some other important work that's ahead of us.

National Housing Strategy

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present three petitions.

I, too, am presenting petitions on the need for a national housing strategy, signed by many people in lots of communities right across the country, from British Columbia to Ontario. Folks have been working very hard to bring forward the urgent and critical need for a national housing strategy and the adoption of Bill C-304, which would ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. I hope this bill will come forward very soon.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today, as I have on a number of occasions, to present petitions concerning my Bill C-304, which seeks to ensure a national housing strategy.

The petitions are signed by people from Toronto, as well as from Barrie, Orillia, Gravenhurst, Midland, and Utopia. They clearly demonstrate that people across the country are concerned about the housing crisis, the lack of affordable housing, and the lack of a national housing strategy in large centres such as Toronto, Vancouver, and Halifax, but also in smaller communities. We are receiving a lot of petitions from smaller communities.

I am delighted to present these petitions calling on Parliament to ensure swift passage of Bill C-304, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

The petitioners also want the government to note that we need to consult with first nations when it comes to housing. We need housing for the homeless and access to housing for individuals with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. In short, the petitioners are saying we need a national housing strategy.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

This is not a point of order, Madam Chair. It has to do with Mr. Martin's motion that we have before us. I am of the same view as Mr. Savage. I believe it would be better to postpone this discussion. When we asked the House of Commons to refer Bill C-304 to the committee, we had agreed to draft an amendment.

Housing

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is in support of the New Democrat's private member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

The petitioners support a national housing strategy that will, in consultation with first nations, harmonize the work of all levels of government to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians.

The petitioners are calling for an increased federal role in housing through investment in not for profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing that go beyond the one-time stimulus investment contained in this year's budget.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I wanted to raise this morning the reality that we have a direction from the House to revisit Bill C-304, Libby Davies' housing bill. I don't think it will take long. There's an amendment that needs to be made to keep it in order, and I don't think it would take long. I'm therefore suggesting that we schedule that before we rise for the Christmas break.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce another set of petitions signed by folks in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver and elsewhere in Canada who are supporting the need for a national housing strategy.

The petitioners want to see the government play an increased role in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure swift passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

The House resumed from November 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition from residents of Ottawa, Surrey, B.C., and Ladner, Langley, Abbotsford and Mission all throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia.

The petitioners are calling upon the House to support a national housing strategy and to ensure the passage of Bill C-304, which is my private member's bill for secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

The petitioners point out that we need an increased federal role in housing through investments in not for profit housing, housing for the homeless and access to housing for those with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in private members' hour.

Bill C-304 is currently being referred back to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 3 and 4 and to add new clauses with a view to clarifying the role of the provinces, specifically Quebec, within the jurisdiction of the bill. That is the mechanics of what is happening with the bill at the current moment.

There is an interesting history with regard to social housing in this country. From a Manitoba point of view, up until the NDP was elected under Premier Ed Schreyer in 1969, there was really very little, if any, social housing in the province or in the city of Winnipeg. The government of the day started an immediate program of building social housing.

I believe from 1969 on the housing was cost-shared 50:50 with the federal government. Pierre Trudeau was the prime minister at the time when the Liberals were in power. We certainly took advantage in a big way by developing social housing. In one of our provincial constituencies. which had, I believe, about 10,000 residents, land was fairly inexpensive in that area and I believe we were in the process or had already developed by 1973 perhaps a dozen senior citizens buildings in that particular area.

We followed that up with a number of multi-storey townhouse types of construction as well. Initially the buildings were pretty much all bachelor suits and they were very high, 10 to 12 storey buildings, which all stand today. However, it is interesting how, when the demand was satisfied by 1977, the NDP lost the election and the Conservatives, under Sterling Lyon, won and everything stopped. It was just night and day. There was not one development started under the four year Sterling Lyon government, which was, by the way, one of the reasons that his government only lasted four years, I believe he was the only premier in Manitoba history to survive only one term.

Interestingly enough, one of the last programs that the Schreyer government initiated, building projects, was at 5355 Stadacona in my riding. While we approved it before we left office in 1977, it was 1986 by the time we had our ribbon-cutting ceremony. I was there to cut the ribbon for the opening of that building. By that point in time, that was one of the first buildings to have one bedroom and some two bedroom suites. We were finding the demand shifting over to those types of suites. People wanted to move out of the downtown area where the buildings were all bachelor suites and move into the one bedroom apartments.

What we have had over the last 10 years or so are a number of the bachelor suites being taken up by people with addictions and newcomers to the country who need short term housing.

That is an example of what a government with commitment can actually do. The NDP government of Ed Schreyer took on the problem full force. The construction cranes were everywhere. It is true that the federal government was putting up half of the funds, but to us it seemed almost unlimited activity. This took care of a huge demand where people were moving into the city from farms and retiring. Seniors, who were living in substandard housing, were also looking for places

However, because the demand seemed to be satisfied, as we know, the federal government got out. Surprisingly, it was the Liberal government that got out of the funding in 1993, according to my chart. We have seen very little activity since.

Of the buildings that we built in 1970 to 1973, many are now deteriorating. They need renovations. Where it had been unheard of, we now have constant bed bug problems being documented in the housing. A lot of repair work has to be done.

The effect of the federal government getting into social housing is that it provides an even application across the country. That is why we have a country in the first place, to provide similar services across it. When the federal government takes itself out of a program like social housing, then it is basically the old laissez-faire system of survival of the fittest.

I hate to pick on my neighbours two doors over, but the province of Alberta has been known as a province that has money. My colleague says, “...used to have money”. One would say that social housing should not be a problem for Alberta because it is a very rich province and can build the buildings. However, a province that does not have the resources is pretty much stuck, not being able to do much to solve the problem. That is why fundamentally this country needs a national housing strategy.

Another reason we do not have and will not have a strategy as long as we have Conservatives running the government, and to a lesser extent the Liberals, is that they philosophically disagree with the whole idea. The approach of those parties is private sector. If there are bucks to be made for the private sector, that is the way we have to proceed. The real estate and construction industries have somehow convinced the successive governments to leave that market to the private sector.

In a number of years past there was a program where the government was going to provide subsidies to people. However once again, it was going to be private entrepreneurs who would be building the buildings and renting them out with a view to making money.

As long as we have that Conservative mentality that somehow free enterprise is going to solve all of our problems with the old trickle-down economic theories, we are never going to see the national housing strategy that we should have in this country.

Clearly, before that happens, we are going to have to see a major change in the political structure in this country with the removal of the Conservative government and the election of a more progressive government. Or, we may have a situation develop out of desperation, and in the need to continue its political longevity, we may see some deal as we did with the Martin Liberals where we were able to get a billion or two for social housing. However, that is a piecemeal approach for a long-term problem.

I have a lot more to say about this issue, but I guess I do not have time.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to speak to the bill, in particular because we are at third reading of it and it has been a long journey. I was very lucky to follow the bill throughout its journey as it winded its way through the House.

When the bill was introduced by the member for Vancouver East, a tireless housing advocate for not only her own community but also for people across Canada, I was lucky enough to be the NDP housing critic. I have been there from the beginning. I have watched it grow and change in order to get it passed through the House of Commons and get it to that other place.

It has been really exciting to work with so many civil society organizations that have a vested interest in seeing the bill make its way through the House. They have engaged with us right from the beginning. They talked about amendments to the bill so we could make it even stronger than when it first started out.

I would like to single out, in particular, the work of Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation, CERA. It was there from the beginning. It came up with great solutions to some of the legislative problems that we had with the bill. It really did such amazing work to make the bill so much stronger. I was very honoured to work with that organization.

A couple of other groups that I would like to single out are FRAPRU and the Evangelical Christian Fellowship. Both organizations did excellent work with us on the bill.

Therefore, we are at third reading in the second hour of debate. We are so close.

The support for the bill across Canada has been tremendous. Today the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was on the Hill meeting with parliamentarians today. I met with representatives of municipalities across Canada. The first thing they wanted was an update on Bill C-304. They wanted to know what they could do to help it get through the House. There is really strong support from FCM.

As well, I was welcomed to Mount Saint Vincent University to talk to the Sisters of Charity there. All it wanted to hear about was Bill C-304. That was the topic of conversation for the entire time. We had a great discussion about it. It was so relieved to hear that we were getting to third reading.

This weekend met with the Sisters of the Sacred Heart in Halifax. This bill as well as the bill introduced by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie on poverty elimination were the two things it wanted to talk about. It understands how important both these bills are to Canadians.

Everywhere I go in my riding people actually know the number of the bill. They know Bill C-304. They know there is a call for a national housing strategy. People want updates when I am in my riding.

As well, this summer I was lucky enough to travel across Canada, doing a health tour. Housing was right up there as the number one issue. The support is tremendous. People support it because they understand the impact that the bill will have. They understand that it is a solution to homelessness, that it is a solution to precarious housing, that it is part of the solution for so many other things, that housing is linked inextricably to health outcomes, that if we expect to have a healthy population, there must be housing for people.

A report from the HUMA committee, entitled “Federal Poverty Reduction Plan: Working in Partnership Towards Reducing Poverty in Canada”, was introduced in the House yesterday. This is an incredible report. It talks about housing. It talks about the need for us to act when it comes to housing if we are to deal with poverty. It is about poverty. It is about women. It is about people with disabilities and newcomers. It is about our communities. Therefore, it is important that we talk about this in the House and that we are able to move the bill forward.

Homelessness and precarious housing hurts our communities. I have a copy of the Halifax report card on homelessness 2010. This is put together by the Community Action on Homelessness organization in Halifax. If we look at this report card, it has a really interesting chart, looking at homelessness numbers when it comes to Halifax and my community.

The Rebecca Cohn Auditorium is an auditorium where someone comes to do a performance, where the ballet performs when it comes to town, where there is theatre and music. There are 1,075 seats in the auditorium. It seats a fair number of people. I have been there. People looking around are impressed by the number of people sitting there.

The total number of firefighters in HRM is 1,100. There was a fire in May 2009 in my riding and the total number of Haligonians forced from their homes by that fire and others in the area was 1,200. That is a lot of people. It had a huge impact.

The total number of physicians working Halifax is 1,284. That is a lot of physicians. There is a major constituency in my riding. I talk to physicians all the time about the health care needs facing my community.

The total number of students at Citadel High School, one of the two high schools in my riding, a pretty big school, is 1,392. What does this all mean? These are big numbers I am talking about, but the total number of homeless individuals who use shelters in my riding of Halifax is 1,718.

I look around the Rebecca Cohn Auditorium and it looks like a pretty big audience. I talk to doctors because they are a pretty big constituency. There are more people who have used shelters in my riding than the other numbers and those people are literally homeless and have to go into the shelter system.

Housing is about so much more than people who are on the streets. Housing is about people who might have housing but are precariously housed. As members probably know, CMHC has set a guideline of spending no more than 30% of one's income on shelter. People who spend more than 30% of their income on shelter are at risk of homelessness. They are spending too great a portion of their income on shelter to be able to pay for the other things they need in life.

Currently in Nova Scotia people making minimum wage and working 40 hours a week would have to use 43% of their salaries just to rent the average bachelor apartment. This is in Halifax. An average bachelor apartment in Halifax is $638, if anyone can believe it. A one-bedroom apartment is $710 and a two-bedroom is $877.

Community Action on Homelessness prepared a really interesting chart. It looked at other professions, took the average income that people would make in certain professions and applied that against the average cost of an apartment in Halifax to see whether people could actually afford their housing when they were working. This chart is really interesting.

A lot of people in high school think they would like to be hairstylists. They go to school and pay tuition to become hairstylists. If we look at the wage of hairstylists on the chart, they cannot afford a bachelor, one bedroom, two bedroom or three-bedroom apartments costing only 30% of their income. Hairstylists in Halifax are precariously housed. How can they possibly afford to raise their kids if they are precariously housed?

The Community Action on Homelessness looked at cooks and it is the same thing. They cannot afford a bachelor apartment, one bedroom or two bedroom. It is the same thing for light duty cleaners.

People may think they need a bit more education in order to earn a little more money. Social service workers with average incomes can live in bachelor apartments. That would be about 30% of their income. They could deal with a one-bedroom apartment, but if they have kids, they cannot afford a two-bedroom apartment, according to this. Nurses aides cannot afford it.

It is not just about people who are literally homeless. This is about people who are paying too much for their housing. We need a national housing strategy. We need it for the health and well-being of our communities. We need it for our constituents, neighbours, family and friends. That is who we are representing with this bill.

Therefore, I urge all of my colleagues in the House across party lines to support this private member's bill because this could change everything when it comes to homelessness and housing in Canada.