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]

On Monday we will be looking at Bill C-304. So this would fit in with that progress.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Chair.

You should have a copy of the notice of motion from Tony Martin. This is concerning Bill C-304, which we discussed before we adjourned. We actually got it through to the point that we were ready to report it back to the House. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened, so we're starting this over in committee. The motion is actually outlining the fact that we agree that witnesses have been heard.

I will read the motion:

That, the testimonies of all witnesses heard for Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians in the last session be deemed to have been heard in this session and, that the Committee start clause by clause consideration of the said Bill on Monday, March 22, 2010. That any amendment to the Bill be sent to the Clerk by Friday, March 19, 2010 no later than 2:00 p.m.

Housing

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third and fourth petitions have been signed by Victoria resident in support of Bill C-304 for a national housing strategy.

They feel that there is an important federal role to create adequate, affordable housing for every Canadian by investing in green, non-profit and accessible housing.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Yes. There is no question that the estimates are something of a priority, and the minister will certainly appear at the earliest, I would think, that can be arranged through her office.

I do know that of course there are private members' bills, but the one private member's bill that we dealt with was Bill C-304, I think, which is the housing bill proposed by the NDP, by Libby Davies. There were a number of amendments to that bill. My understanding is that those amendments may have to be either reintroduced or agreed to unanimously, so the subcommittee might discuss that. It would be good for us to know if there is agreement to bring the bill forward with the amendments, notwithstanding the prorogation. That's something the subcommittee may want to look at.

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

Thank you.

As you will know from discussion with your colleagues, we were well on our way to concluding a report on developing an anti-poverty strategy for Canada, which I think is a very important report. We need to prioritize that and get that done.

I also think that with the budget it would be very important to express our hope to the minister that she would appear before us on estimates as soon as possible and, as well, to have a separate meeting with officials. I would see the meeting with the minister at the earliest opportunity, and with the officials, and then the resuming of the poverty report.

Then, of course, we have Bill C-304, which I think was unfortunately the only bill that had gone through committee but wasn't reported to the House, and which we need to bring back at the earliest opportunity as well.

Those are just a few thoughts. I'm sure they're nothing radical, but that's how I see where we are.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also signed by residents in Vancouver who support the need for a national housing strategy that will harmonize the work of all levels of government to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians.

They ask that Parliament ensure swift passage of Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2009, we will commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-304, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible, and affordable housing for Canadians.

(On clause 5--Conference to be held)

I'll go back to where we were when we met on Tuesday. We were at clause 5, and we were looking at amendment LIB-16, which is on page 17.1.

You'll notice that the package you have before you today contains considerably less than what we started with on Tuesday. There's not a whole lot left to work on.

I'm going to turn the floor over to Mr. Kennedy. I believe he was talking about amendment LIB-16.

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

I'm going to answer Mr. Komarnicki's question and Mr. Jean's question. I think they are both very worthwhile questions that clearly reflect two opposing political options. For that reason, with all due respect, I will come back later with those two answers, but I will start with two statements made by Mr. Hiebert.

Mr. Hiebert started by telling us he is here as a visiting member. My impression is not that he is visiting the committee, but that he is visiting the House of Commons. He is missing a good session.

When the House refers a bill to a committee, it is so the committee can assess it and make amendments, and that is what we're doing. That is the first thing. This is not a cheap shot. It's what he said. He also told us he is visiting and finds this entertaining. I don't find the situation of homeless people at all entertaining. I don't take it lightly, here or anywhere.

Mr. Chair, I come to Mr. Komarnicki's question, because I think he asked a good question. He asked whether the other provinces could also have the right to opt out. However, the fact is that they have never requested it.

The House of Commons has recognized that we are a nation, with the attributes of a nation, let us hope. Those attributes are not always visible. Quebec, not the Bloc but all of the parties in the National Assembly, unanimously, have made the political choice that it will have full powers and full jurisdiction, as recognized in the Constitution, to take responsibility for social housing.

I have never heard Mr. Komarnicki or his colleagues say they wanted the same thing for Ontario or Manitoba or other provinces. That's up to you, you are entitled, it's your choice and we respect it. If there is anything we respect, it is your political choices. They may be described as right-wing, but we pass no judgment on those choices. It's up to you.

In our case, however, it is not our choice and that is not the recognition we have historically been given. As well, Quebec's historical request is not what appears in the bill.

However, I would not want to do to Bill C-304... I think the opposition considers it to be very important. It is not perfect. We want to give it the potential to be adopted, at least by the opposition. It is the basis for an amendment.

I find it unfortunate, however, that something as irresponsible as systematic obstruction of the work we are doing on Bill C-304 would be done here. I think it would be completely irresponsible, just as I would think it was irresponsible if we did it on Bill C-56.

The government asked us to expedite our work on Bill C-56. We did that and I think it is also important to expedite work on Bill C-304. If we are given substantive arguments, we will deal with them. But making arguments as frivolous as saying that it's entertaining is not acceptable. That kind of argument amounts to systematic obstruction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So before we go any further, as I said, Bill C-304 provides for the minister responsible for CMHC to consult with the provincial ministers to establish a national housing strategy. This amendment proposes to allow the Province of Quebec to opt out of the national strategy.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766,

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this opt-out provision is contrary to the principle of Bill C-304, and therefore is inadmissible.

If there's no more discussion on that, I'm going to move to subclause 3(1), BQ-2.

Go ahead, Ms. Leslie.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the standing order of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2009, we are studying Bill C-304, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible, and affordable housing for Canadians. We'll go to clause-by-clause consideration today.

I just want to state at the outset that we need to be a little bit patient here today. The bill, which has six clauses, somehow has 35 amendments. So we're going to actually have to take our time as we move through this and just be patient as we work with the legislative clerk to make sure that we follow through a sequential method here to make sure everything works. We'll try to do our best to explain the consequences, the actions of what is going on, and then we can just try to go through it clause by clause.

What I'm going to start off with right away is this. In clause 2, if the amendments are carried that are going to be suggested by the Liberals, that is going to affect what happens in clause 3. What I'm going to ask is that we stand down clause 2 first, we start with clause 3, and then we can come back to clause 2, if nothing gets amended or changed, and then we can go back to what we're doing. I can assure you that we're going to take every clause, clause by clause. We'll go through that.

I do need a majority from the group to be able to do that. If not, we will start on clause 2.

Mr. Lessard, I will turn the floor over to you, sir, and then we can go from there. Mr. Lessard, the floor is yours.

[Lindsey McBain, Communications co-ordinator, Right to Housing Coalition]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the committee.

The Right to Housing Coalition is a Winnipeg-based coalition of 120 individuals and 33 organizations working together to address the current housing crisis and the chronic need for social housing. We promote and lobby for safe, high-quality social housing in which rent is geared to income, and for housing policy solutions on a local, provincial, and national level as part of a comprehensive strategy to eliminate poverty. The Right to Housing Coalition maintains that adequate and affordable housing is a basic human right; yet over the past decade, the commitment by the federal government to put this right to housing into practice has been significantly eroded.

In 2006 the United Nations called housing and homelessness in Canada a national emergency, a finding confirmed by the UN special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing after his official fact-finding commission to Canada in 2007.

The key reason that the Right to Housing Coalition has decided it's important to present to this committee today is that we want to take this opportunity to reinforce, with the experience of our members, member organizations, and the people they work with, a message that I'm sure you're hearing across the country: that the provision of social housing is a key component to alleviating poverty in Canada and that it will take action by the federal government to address this housing crisis.

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association estimates that Manitoba requires 1,000 units per year for the next five years to reduce our deficit of social housing. The Province of Manitoba has now stepped up and committed to create 300 units of social housing each year over the next five years—that's a total of 1,500 units over five years—and now it is the turn of the federal government to do its share.

You, the members of this committee, have a tremendous opportunity before you to address the housing needs of Canadians. On December 8, Bill C-304 will come back to this committee to complete its clause-by-clause review before it is sent back to Parliament for its third and final reading. The Right to Housing Coalition urges you not to miss this opportunity to give it a speedy passage back to Parliament before Parliament is dissolved and the bill dies on the order paper.

So my message today is pretty simple: it's a strong encouragement to this committee to make sure this happens, because if we want to take steps to work on poverty in Canada, this is a fantastic opportunity.

Thank you very much.

[Shauna MacKinnon, Director, Manitoba, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives]

Thanks for the opportunity.

Just before I start, I want to say, following Gerald's presentation, that we're putting out a report on Wednesday entitled It Takes All Day To Be Poor. I think it captures a lot of the testimonials that you raised in your presentation.

Poverty and social exclusion continue to be universal problems, as we all know. Recognition of our failure as a society to address these challenges has led many governments in the developed world to adopt comprehensive strategies with timelines and targets aimed at reducing poverty and social exclusion. For example, as one of the previous presenters pointed out, in Britain the Social Exclusion Unit was established in 1998 to study issues such as school truancy, homelessness, housing, crime, and unemployment, from a national perspective.

In 2000, European Union countries established a social inclusion process with the aim of eradicating poverty by 2010. This was followed by the development of a framework for national strategy development, and policy coordination between EU nations based on five key challenges. As was noted, while some of these targets haven't been accomplished, there was some commitment that spread across the EU nations that we're seeing now, some significant strategies being developed that are making a difference.

Following that, the Australian government began a process in 2008 to address poverty and social exclusion at a national level. These things are happening at national levels, so there's really no excuse that we can't be doing it here in Canada in a significant way.

Unlike these national examples, Canada has failed to take a leadership role in tackling poverty and social exclusion in a comprehensive and systematic manner. We urge the federal government to learn from governments that are implementing comprehensive plans to tackle pervasive poverty and exclusion, which are, ultimately, deterrents to economic prosperity.

On a more positive note, as was previously mentioned, leadership at the provincial level is beginning to grow in our country. Quebec, of course, was first to show leadership with the introduction of the Act to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion in 2004. Newfoundland and Labrador introduced their plan in 2006. The Newfoundland government included some bold timelines and targets, and they have since made significant gains in reducing poverty. As a result, they've dropped from having the third highest child poverty rate in the country in 2005 to, I think, the eighth in 2009. In addition to other gains, they have met their target of a $10 minimum wage, so this, again, for us is an example of how we can set some targets and reach them.

Other provincial governments have also followed their lead and are beginning to develop plans. For example, Ontario now has a plan in place with some specific targets on child poverty, and Manitoba recently released a plan.

We believe it is imperative for governments to hear what the community has to say about what is needed in a plan, and I'm here today, like others, to provide a perspective from the community here in Manitoba.

This spring, CCPA Manitoba, in collaboration with Make Poverty History Manitoba, published a poverty reduction plan that was developed in consultation with hundreds of Manitobans and endorsed by more than 70 organizations. While our focus was on the provincial government, we continued to emphasize that poverty reduction will be most effective when all levels of government agree to implement timelines and targets and work collaboratively to meet them. We identified five common features that we believe are necessary to maximize effectiveness.

First, again, as has been mentioned several times this morning, we need a comprehensive and coordinated approach. The causes of poverty and social exclusion are complex and often very deeply rooted. Solutions are equally complex and require multiple policy and program interventions, which are the responsibility of various levels of government. These realities need to be reflected in a poverty reduction plan if it is going to be effective. A comprehensive approach would include an increase in income benefits, for example; an expansion of social housing; increased access to child care; increased access to recreation; increases in minimum wages towards a living wage; and establishing policies that provide education and training opportunities that lead to good jobs, rather than the precarious cycle of low-wage jobs, which is the reality for many.

A second key feature is that there needs to be a process that consults meaningfully with citizens, so we appreciate the opportunity to be here today. The social exclusion legislation adopted in Quebec, and the poverty reduction strategies established in Newfoundland and Ontario, and others in early stages, such as in Nova Scotia, have engaged NGOs and anti-poverty advocates in identifying key issues and targets. Citizens interested in building a more inclusive community, including anti-poverty advocates, community workers, progressive business and labour leaders, as well as individuals most affected by poverty, should be consulted and engaged in the process of establishing a poverty reduction strategy.

The third feature, which again was mentioned several times today, is the inclusion of targets and timelines. While we understand that economic circumstances beyond the control of governments can quickly throw a wrench into the best of plans, setting targets and timelines shows that governments are serious about poverty reduction. Governments that have taken this step provincially are to be commended for taking that risk. Targets and timelines make governments accountable and provide incentive to follow through with actions. Sid Frankel previously gave an excellent example of what's happened in the U.K. Without targets and timelines, strategies can become little more than a public relations exercise, and I think that's what has happened when we've done this in the past. However, we believe that setting realistic targets and timelines is essential.

The fourth feature that we believe is critical is communication and collaboration across departments in government and levels of government. Governments and their departments must communicate in order to coordinate government activities and ensure that all are working towards the achievement of common goals with respect to poverty reduction and inclusion—this is where setting targets and timelines is critical—to ensure that governments and departments are not working at cross purposes, which is often the case. There must be organizational structures put in place to ensure such collaboration. There are examples of this at provincial levels; I know Newfoundland has a unit that works across government.

Fifth, there needs to be an annual evaluation and progress report. For example, youth strategies are regularly evaluated by an independent evaluator to show where gains have been made and work is required, and to make recommendations when needed. Quebec legislation requires that departments evaluate progress annually, as well.

We believe that a poverty reduction plan can have multiple benefits. It can demonstrate that governments take the issue of poverty and social exclusion seriously and that they aim to make it a priority. It can also highlight existing initiatives, expose gaps, and provide direction for future action; provide a mechanism for governments to engage citizens in discussion about what might be incorporated into a comprehensive strategy; increase transparency and hold governments accountable to their commitment to poverty reduction; and act as an education tool to raise awareness of the complex nature of poverty and social exclusion and why prioritizing the elimination is important for the entire community, not just those who are poor.

The view from here: Manitobans call for a poverty reduction plan—and I've provided a copy for the committee—is a plan that we put forward from the community. It was endorsed by many organizations, and it includes timelines and targets that we believe to be realistic.

We are pleased that the Manitoba government has very recently released its poverty reduction plan, but we are dismayed that it failed to include a more detailed commitment that includes timelines and targets. However, I should note that one target and timeline it did include, which we're very pleased about, is the development of 1,500 new social housing units over five years. This is a target that came from the community, and we're very pleased the provincial government has agreed to move that forward. We will continue to press the province to include more comprehensive timelines and targets.

We emphasize that combatting poverty and social exclusion in a significant way will require the coordinated efforts of all levels of government, and in particular the leadership and financial commitment of the federal government. The key here is the financial commitment. As others have noted, this doesn't come free, but there are long-term benefits for all of us.

Unfortunately, in many of the areas we have identified as a priority, significant final investment is required. Provinces have been left with major challenges because the federal government has shirked much of its responsibility, and it continues to refuse to step up to the plate in a significant way to meet the growing challenges. Social housing, for example, which has also been mentioned several times, has long been identified by the community as a major issue. Housing is a foundation for stability, good health, and education attainment. To tackle it in a significant way, we require a national strategy that includes ongoing financial commitment from the federal government. Here I would like to emphasize the importance of Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. It cannot be overemphasized how important that is as a starting point.

To sum up, developing a well-funded national poverty reduction plan would send a message to provincial governments that poverty is a national priority. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it is the smart thing to do. Allowing Canadians to fall deeper into poverty will only create significant problems in the future that will be a drag on our national economy and a deterrent to social and economic prosperity.

[Tanya Tellier]

ECOHH represents more than 30 community organizations who work with people who have security related issues where they live. The vision of ECOHH is for Edmonton to become a city where there is affordable and appropriate housing for everybody since this is a fundamental right that should be guaranteed in a democratic society.

In the context of the work done at this time by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, ECOHH considers that housing security must be part of any strategy to eliminate poverty. A good housing policy is also a good economic policy. This clearly implies that, if we eliminate the dangers caused by extreme poverty, it will reduce some of our major expenses, like increasing health services costs.

When people cannot find decent and safe accomodations, several other negative impacts come into play that may have costly repercussions for a long time. Our member organizations face this issue every day. Here is an example. A young mother must stay in a violent environment with her children because she cannot afford to have her own apartment. Her health suffers, her children are taken by the youth services, and they lose contact with their mother. To forget the situation she's in, she turns to drugs.

When people have their own housing, an affordable accommodation corresponding to their circumstances, they are able to make decisions to better their live and to help avoid the negative effects of poverty. A national policy on housing is an essential component of an integrated action on housing safety. To eliminate poverty, the federal government will have to act in close cooperation with provinces and territories.

Immediate and focussed attention is required to finance more efficiently solutions to the issue of housing security. ECOHH is concerned by the fact that millions of dollars are spent right now to supply housing, but this money is not used for the purpose of having a direct impact on the elimination of poverty. Elimination of poverty depends in a major way on having access to safe housing. We need a national strategy on safe housing. We need immediate action to facilitate access to affordable accommodations, if we don't want to strengthen the link between poverty and housing problems.

A national housing policy is needed as a foundation for integrated action on housing security. This would be an important element of a national poverty elimination strategy.

Bill C-304, which is currently before the House of Commons, would be a good step in this direction. Poverty elimination will require the close cooperation of the federal government, the provinces, and territories.

This needs to be true of the development of the housing strategy, too. Large amounts of money are being spent by the federal government and provinces on various aspects of housing security, but in the absence of a comprehensive plan, it is difficult to measure the value of these investments or to ensure they are being targeted in the best ways and are not duplicating or leaving serious gaps.

When all that exists is a patchwork of short-term programs and funding there is an instability created that makes it difficult to build in a careful, steady way, using the results of one activity to move on to the next in efficient and effective ways. It is a ramshackle affair rather than a strong edifice. This instability is transferred to the lives of those needing assistance with housing matters in their lives.

It's vital to act on this now, because the recession is making things worse. Here in Alberta, we have seen a massive increase in welfare and employment insurance caseloads in a very short period of time. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, it is even more likely that costly band-aids will be created to try to respond to crises, but without the benefit of the overall context.

More careful and immediate attention is needed in order to fund issues related to housing security more effectively. Two and a half billion dollars will be invested in the home renovation tax credit program, which will enable those who already own their homes to make them nicer. That will have absolutely no value to the half a million or more people who are currently homeless.

Half a million dollars is going to affordable housing, but only for three categories of people: low-income seniors, persons with disabilities, and first nation communities. This is not based on any clear and accountable plan.

Small investments in renovating rundown social housing are entirely inadequate, so the quality and quantity of such housing will continue to disappear. The pressure with urban core redevelopment is for these properties to be more lucrative for owners to convert to condos for those with money, rather than continue to provide low-income affordable housing. This drives poor people with little transportation capacity further and further away from both the informal community they depend on and the actual formal services they need.

Attention to the dangers of ever-rising rents in the for-profit market is weak, so more and more people are competing for fewer and fewer units. These units are declining in quality since they are the only affordable ones.

One effective way to fix this would be to have measures that would raise the amount of income people have so that they could rent other places. At any time in Edmonton, there are a lot of units available for those who can afford $1,000 a month or more. It is those with no money who have to compete for the little bit of housing at the bottom. Improvements to employment insurance and child tax benefits are just two examples of ways that could put more dollars in the pockets of low-income people to use for better housing.

Once again, I would just like to emphasize three key points. Poverty elimination depends significantly on housing security. We need a national housing security strategy plan, and we need current action in relation to both supply and affordability in order to prevent the poverty/housing problems links from becoming even greater.

Thank you.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from people in the Lower Mainland who are working very hard and want to draw to our attention the need for a national housing strategy. They call for the swift passage of Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.