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.

[Michael Shapcott, Director, Affordable Housing and Social Innovation, Wellesley Institute]

Thank you for the opportunity to make these submissions.

The Wellesley Institute is an independent research and policy institute. Over the last decade we've funded more than 100 research and policy projects that look at the links between housing, income, and health. I'd very much like to take you on a guided tour through those 100 reports and their detailed recommendations, but of course we don't have time to do that.

I'll simply say that what our reports clearly demonstrate is that there are clear links among poor housing, homelessness, increased illness, and premature death. Our reports also show that a good home is a basic requirement for a healthy life and that good housing knits together communities and strengthens the local and national economy.

I know that some people in this building like to tell people outside of this building in the rest of the country what to do; they like to dictate rigid policies and say, “This is what you have to do”. Mr. Komarnicki, in his questioning in the earlier session as I overheard it, was getting at this point. As we read Bill C-304, it doesn't make that mistake.

What this bill does is direct the federal minister to go out and engage with the key partners to create a national housing strategy that will really work and that reflects the needs of local communities. We think that's a very important direction to take.

However, there are two groups that have inadvertently been left out, and I hope they'll be brought back in through the amendment process. These are, of course, the non-profit and the private sectors. They both have valuable expertise. They deserve to be at the table along with the various orders of government and aboriginal communities. We'd encourage the committee in its review to amend in particular subclauses 3(1), 4(1), 4(2), and 5(1) to include representatives of the non-profit and private housing sectors in those processes.

Canada, as noted in the preamble to Bill C-304, has ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which includes the right to adequate housing. In February, the United Nations Human Rights Council held its first Universal Periodic Review of Canada's compliance with its international obligations, including the right to adequate housing.

The federal government formally responded, in fact, on June 9, 2009, when it accepted the UN recommendation on housing and stated, in the formal federal response: “Canada acknowledges that there are challenges and the Government of Canada commits to continuing to explore ways to enhance efforts to address poverty and housing issues, in collaboration with provinces and territories”. As we read that, we see that the federal government is saying that it's keen to work with the provinces and territories on housing and poverty issues.

We know that the provinces and territories have been asking the federal government for at least four years to come to the table to develop a new national housing strategy. Of course, the federal government and all the provinces and territories did sign the Affordable Housing Framework Agreement in 2001. That was a five-year agreement.

By 2005 the provinces and territories said there needed to be a new national housing framework. All of the provinces, incidentally, have joined together on that. On September 22, 2005, all of the provinces and territorial housing ministers released a set of principles to guide a new national housing framework. They put that on the table, and since 2005 there hasn't been a meeting of the federal, provincial, and territorial housing ministers.

We have a willing federal government, we have willing provinces and territories who want to discuss these things, we've heard that we have willing municipalities, the private sector wants to come and talk about these things, and the non-profit sector wants to be at the table as well. What we don't have is a mechanism or process that gets everyone together. Bill C-304 gives us that process. It also puts a nice timeline on it of 180 days and creates a sense of urgency around what is an urgent national issue.

Without a national housing strategy, as set out in the goal of Bill C-304, Canadians won't know whether the $17.5 billion that the federal government is investing this year in various housing initiatives is being spent effectively. I repeat that: $17.5 billion that the federal government is reporting this year that it's investing in various housing initiatives. This was actually a bit of a surprise to us when we started to do the tally.

Earlier this year, the Auditor General for British Columbia released a comprehensive review of that province's housing and homelessness programs. Some of his comments I think are relevant to your deliberations today. He said: Clear goals and objectives for homelessness and adequate accountability for results remain outstanding...government has not yet established appropriate indicators of success....We found significant activity and resources being applied, but...no provincial [housing] and homelessness plan with clear goals and objectives...When there are no clear goals or performance targets, accountability for results is missing. How will we know we are successful if we have not identified success?

That would be the same for the federal government. If people want it, I'd be happy to give the full shopping list of what the federal government reports it's spending. It reports that it's spending $3.57 billion this fiscal year in direct spending on affordable housing.

Furthermore, the government says it's going to spend $13.9 billion on housing-related tax expenditures: the home renovation tax credit, capital gains exemptions, homebuyer tax subsidies, and so on. That's a lot of money. Are we getting value for results from that money? We don't know. We don't have a national plan against which to measure all the spending.

I'd say that we need a national housing strategy fundamentally to ensure that the nine million or more Canadians who are precariously housed will get the practical and pragmatic housing help that they require in their communities.

Even before the recession hit, the numbers were quite grim. I won't take the time to go through all the numbers, but the federal government says 300,000 Canadians are homeless, and we think that number is probably a bit shy of the real mark. About 3.3 million households live in substandard housing, three million households live in unaffordable housing, 1.5 million households are in core housing need, and 705,000 households are in overcrowded housing--and that was before the recession.

Since the start of the recession, half a million jobs have been lost and 150,000 households have been evicted from their homes because they couldn't afford to pay their rent. Canada's housing supply deficit, which is the gap between the number of new households formed on an annual basis and the amount of new housing that's created, is growing at an estimated rate of about 220,000 households annually.

I know the committee members will know that housing needs in Grimsby are different from what they are in Weyburn, and they're certainly different from Dartmouth, and different from Halifax, and different from Richelieu. A national housing strategy takes account of that, and it puts in place the tools and resources to ensure that the appropriate resources are available.

We have a willing federal government. Our federal government says it wants to; it told the United Nations it wants to work with the provinces and territories. The provinces and territories want to work with municipalities. The private and non-profit sectors and the aboriginal communities all want to work. We think Bill C-304 provides this mechanism to move forward, so we'd urge this committee to give swift consideration to this draft legislation so that we can move forward to the important work of debating the real details of a new national housing strategy, the kinds of things that Mr. Lyman raised. That's where we should be focusing our discussion. Are those the right kinds of tools? What other models should we be looking at?

Finally, I'd say that there's already been work at the provincial level. The provinces are not waiting for the federal government: Alberta has already made a billion-dollar down payment on its commitment to a 10-year housing plan to end chronic homelessness, and Ontario says it will have a comprehensive housing plan by midsummer of 2010. In the last decade or so, Canada's provinces, territories, and municipal governments have all significantly ramped up their affordable housing investments. They're all demonstrating that they want to be partners in housing progress.

We'd say that Bill C-304 will ensure that the federal government plays its vital role in creating this comprehensive new national housing plan.

Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.

[Joshua Bates, Policy Advisor, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Thanks to the committee for having us here today. I know you've heard from many witnesses already, so I'll try my best to keep my remarks brief.

First, we would like to recognize the support of all parties for a strong federal role in affordable housing and homelessness.

We'd also like to acknowledge the historic commitments recently made by the federal government towards affordable housing and homelessness initiatives. The Government of Canada has committed to renewing the affordable housing initiative, the residential rehabilitation assistance program, and the homelessness partnering strategy. These financial commitments amount to $1.9 billion over five years. In addition, the federal stimulus plan provides $2 billion for job creation through new investments in housing infrastructure.

The FCM welcomes these commitments, which underscore that a shared approach among all orders of government—federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and first nation—is key to a successful housing outcome; however, more needs to be done and more can be done. The next step is to put these funding commitments on a long-term footing within a national housing strategy.

This, of course, brings us to why we are here today. The purpose of Bill C-304 is to establish a national housing strategy, which is a long-standing FCM priority. 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.

This is why in January 2008 the FCM released its national action plan on housing and homelessness, which calls for a national housing plan led by the federal government. Today we have shared copies of this action plan with you, so I won't review the plan with you in great detail.

However, I will say that Bill C-304 is an essential component of our national action plan. In fact, in many ways, our plan goes even further than the legislation we are considering here today.

The goals in our plan are ambitious, but our action plan shows that they can be met if we commit to making housing a priority not just one year at a time, but for good. You will see that FCM's national action plan offers three alternative strategies to meet these targets. Our preferred course of action, which in fact is the mid-range option, would cost just over $3 billion annually. This is only a marginal increase over current spending. These costs would be shared by the federal government and provincial and territorial governments, with municipalities of course also playing an active role through local housing strategies.

Experience has shown that the short-term fixes that have often characterized much of housing policy in this country have delivered much-needed assistance, but they have not fixed the problem. This is why the FCM supports a national housing strategy in Canada to establish a housing and homelessness agenda that is comprehensive, integrated, and, perhaps most importantly, in place over the long term. The FCM and municipal governments stand ready to do their part.

Thank you.

[David Lyman, Representative, Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations]

Thank you.

It is my pleasure to be here before this committee. I thank you very much for the invitation.

The Canadian Federation of Apartment Associations, CFAA, is the national voice of Canada's private residential rental sector, advocating the interests of the industry to the Government of Canada. We represent the owners and managers of close to one million residential rental suites in Canada through 17 landlord associations across the country.

We believe that a healthy rental housing market contributes greatly to Canada's national well-being and economic prosperity. We believe that landlords, tenants, and taxpayers have a common interest in free rental markets, in fair taxation of residential rental property, in high industry standards for customer service, and in housing assistance that supports tenants' rights to choose their housing and to move when and if they please.

CFAA is in favour of the creation of a national housing strategy. Getting all interested parties, including the private housing sector, the non-profit community, and others around the table to develop a national housing strategy that helps to establish means to provide adequate housing to all Canadians would be a fine and, frankly, a necessary endeavour.

But CFAA would hope that those discussions would include how to make rental housing more affordable through tax policy changes, and more attractive through removing long-standing biases that favour home ownership over rental housing, to its detriment.

A national housing strategy must fit well as part of a broader poverty reduction strategy. In particular, the national housing strategy should include a universal entitlement to a portable housing allowance.

As proposed in the bill, CFAA supports providing financial assistance for those who are otherwise unable to afford rental housing so that they can choose the appropriate housing for themselves, whether that be in the private rental market, in the co-operative housing environment, or in a not-for-profit building.

That said, we note that CFAA is not in favour of a prescriptive housing strategy. We support making federal housing funding more flexible, not less. For instance, we believe that provinces ought to be permitted to use federal affordable housing money for portable housing allowance programs and others to address affordability issues. We believe that portable housing allowances best allow dignity and choice to low-income tenants and should be an option available for policy-makers across Canada. Better yet, portable housing allowances should be a federal-provincial program available across Canada.

Bill C-304, I suggest, appears to intend to place a particular vision for a housing strategy that may not be optimal for all communities throughout the country. I don't know what level of discussion on amendments has occurred, but for instance, there is, in paragraph 3(3)(a) a requirement that the housing strategy ensure the availability of housing that is “not-for-profit in the case of those who cannot otherwise afford it”. Whether the housing provider is for-profit or not-for-profit should not have any effect on the housing consumer.

I fear that the bill assumes that non-profit housing is a superior model to provide housing for low-income households. We disagree. For instance, portable housing allowances are often a far superior tool to assist those with low incomes.

As a further example, paragraph 3(3)(f) mandates that the strategy ensures the availability of housing that includes, among others, “mixed income not-for-profit housing cooperatives”. Now, while mixed income not-for-profit housing co-operatives may be an important component in some communities, passing a federal bill requiring and mandating that the national housing strategy ensure their presence in all communities is not optimal.

We support the provision of operating funding for housing for special needs that are not met by the private sector and of focusing government funding on building new housing for special needs. We believe that serving the needs of those with mental or physical disabilities is certainly the right thing to do, both morally and for the betterment of public policy, but CFAA is not in favour of imposing priorities throughout the country without discussion with the interested parties, such is set out in subclause 3(4).

That subsection mandates that the policy ensure priority be given to (a) those who have not had secure housing over an extended period; (b) those with special requirements specifically because of family status or size or mental or physical disability; and (c) those who have been denied housing as a result of discrimination. These are all worthy groups for some elements of priority, but the bill appears to preclude choice for other priorities: for refugee claimants, for women who may have suffered domestic abuse, or for the chronically ill who do not have a physical disability.

Again, it seems that we are putting the horse before the cart.

Finally, the CFAA questions the appropriateness of the definition of affordable housing as “housing available at a cost that does not compromise an individual's ability to meet other basic needs”; I would suggest that the definition ought to consider the ability of a “household” to meet its basic needs.

We also note and recommend that more appropriate and accurate measures of housing affordability be developed as part of a strategy. In particular, we suggest revision of the 30% standard for affordability to recognize that one- and two-person households can generally afford to pay somewhat more than 30% of income, while larger families may be able to afford less as a percentage, recognizing recent CMHC research which demonstrated that only one-third of households in core housing in a particular year remained in the core housing for the following two years—it may be transitional.

To wrap up, in our recommendations for a viable housing strategy, as others have brought forward, we recognize the respective roles of housing providers and social service agencies in meeting the needs of low-income or disadvantaged Canadians. That said, the obligation to address people's needs is properly on government, on voluntary charities, and on the community as a whole. It doesn't rest on landlords simply because we are providing the shelter. It's an all-encompassing element.

A viable housing strategy ought to include a universal entitlement to an affordable housing allowance, as I've mentioned, for households that cannot otherwise afford rental housing. Such a program could be delivered by the provinces in coordination, as with medicare plans, or could be delivered by the federal government for the provinces to have a choice. It's important that housing allowances be fully portable within and between provinces. In that way, labour mobility and the economic situation of beneficiaries can be improved.

Second, the strategy must recognize that drawing private capital into the rental market is a very positive attribute of public policy, and that what is needed to do that is a rebalancing of the tax system so the tax treatment of tenants in rental housing is improved, to come closer to the favourable tax treatment provided to owner-occupiers.

New construction subsidies on special needs housing should address accessibility needs, since such needs are a growing issue and it's expensive to retrofit existing housing to universal accessibility standards.

Finally, the strategy should recognize that existing social housing can address the greatest needs if much of it is gradually converted to supportive housing or special needs housing, since substantial supports can often best be delivered in a supportive housing environment, while the private market is less well suited to do so, but is in many ways better suited to deliver only shelter for that component.

My time is probably nearing an end, so I thank you.

[Julia Beazley]

In conclusion, the time has come for collaborative, coordinated action in Canada on affordable housing. The government has an opportunity, in Bill C-304, to show vision and leadership in initiating the development of a strategy. We encourage all parliamentarians to seize this opportunity.

The development of the strategies should be inclusive of stakeholders from the faith- and community-based agencies. They've already engaged in the creative thinking and learning by trial and error. They know what works and what doesn't. They understand that people should be moving from street to housing to home in community, that street to housing alone will fail in the long term, and that home and community cannot be mutually exclusive.

Thank you.

[Don Hutchinson]

Historically, affordable housing has received funding from all levels of government as well as the efforts of charitable and not-for-profit organizations, many of them faith-based. However, it has become clear that there is a greater need for the federal government to accept the responsibility for and show leadership on the issue of affordable housing, to set the tone and the direction for the nation in the approach to this issue, and to work in collaboration with the provinces and our aboriginal neighbours to develop strategies to address this growing crisis.

Only the Prime Minister and appropriate ministers of the government of Canada are in a position to initiate the first ministers meetings that can begin the process of establishing a clear, consistent strategy for the nation and encourage the necessary action from other levels of government.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada, led by Senator Kirby, was a good example of the federal government recognizing the importance of taking leadership and initiative on what is generally viewed as a provincial issue. Bill C-304 creates an opportunity for the current government to do something similar.

When the time comes to vote on this bill at third reading, it will be important for Canadians to know that the federal government and all parties are committed to creating a legacy of social justice for all Canadians. This commitment must be expressed not only in words, but also in plans, policies, budgets, and programs that demonstrate this commitment.

[Julia Beazley]

Providing Bill C-304 the study and consideration it merits is a strong step in the right direction. Canadians are waiting to hear a vision from our leaders for poverty reduction and a plan for housing in Canada.

We recognize and applaud measures taken by the federal government to direct funds towards a wide range of housing initiatives across the country. This investment is invaluable to the service providers and from those who benefit from their work, but it's time to move beyond a piecemeal approach, which is ultimately inefficient and insufficient. It's time for coordinated national action on affordable housing.

Housing is an issue that transcends jurisdictional issues. Housing and poverty affect all Canadians. There's a need, therefore, for a strategy that crosses provincial and territorial boundaries, that does not stop at the border of one city to the next, and that ensures a consistent standard of available housing from coast to coast to coast. It's unacceptable for the federal government to not take action on the grounds that housing isn't its jurisdiction.

[David Eddy, President, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to say that in my day job I'm executive director of the Vancouver Native Housing Society. We provide housing for urban aboriginals in Vancouver. We have about 600 units there. All of our projects, I'm proud to say, are in east Vancouver, in Libby's constituency. I've worked in the downtown east side, what's known as Canada's poorest postal code, for 25 years. We couldn't have a better champion for social and affordable housing than Libby, so it just makes the day a little more special for me to be here.

With respect to CHRA, today we proudly released a policy paper titled “An Affordable Housing Policy for Canada”. When we set out to develop this paper, we anticipated that on the day of its release we would call on Parliament to bring forward a bill like Bill C-304. We are more than pleased that instead we can focus on discussing the specific content of a bill to mandate the creation of a national housing strategy, and that the bill has passed through two of the three House votes required to send it to the Senate and eventually into law.

I'm going to turn this over to the acting executive director of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, Geoff Gillard, to speak on some of the specifics.

Thank you very much for allowing us to be here.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Chairperson of the committee.

To the members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me here today to speak about Bill C-304.

To the witnesses who are here today, I can tell you that at this end of the table we're actually kind of excited, because many of us feel that there's been a lot of work on this issue for many years in order to develop a national housing strategy, and we're hoping this bill will be the vehicle. Maybe there will be other vehicles as well, but this bill will be a key element for the federal government to undertake what we believe is a core responsibility to Canadians, and that is the right to housing affordability, safety, shelter, and human dignity.

I'm sure that members have had an opportunity to look at the bill. It did pass second reading in the House. It's based on the premise that unfortunately in this country we still have a housing crisis, a housing affordability crisis, certainly for people who live below the poverty line, but also for the working poor and for average people who are finding it harder and harder to find housing affordability.

I represent the riding of East Vancouver. It's one of the neighbourhood communities across the country that for many years now has been particularly hard hit with a housing crisis. When I was the housing critic for the NDP and did two national tours across the country, I learned that in many communities, both in large cities and in smaller communities, there are severe housing shortage issues and there's homelessness.

We have had various federal programs over the years. We've had homelessness programs and we've had emergency housing programs. Certainly in the last budget we had the infrastructure money that was provided for housing, but I would say that if you talk to anyone in Canada who knows about this issue, they will tell you it's been inadequate and it's been very piecemeal.

What's been lacking is an overall federal strategy in partnership with the provinces, territories, municipalities, first nations, and communities. That's what this bill is attempting to do. It's attempting to address the housing needs of millions of Canadians who don't have the resources or can't rely on the market for housing security.

Today a report released from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada said that four million Canadians, including 750,000 children, are living in core housing need. There are many other reports, and you'll hear about some of them today. Maybe the numbers are different sometimes, but we're talking in the millions in terms of the number of Canadians who are impacted.

I think some members are aware that in 2007 the UN rapporteur came to Canada, travelled across the country, looked at different housing situations in different communities, and came to the conclusion that “Canada should adopt a national strategy on affordable housing that engages all levels of government, including Aboriginal governments, Aboriginal people, civil society and the private sector”.

What's interesting to note, in terms of dealing with this bill, is that it doesn't come out of thin air. It identifies a need that many organizations, on their own, with their own research, have identified. I would like to hand out a list, in both languages, of the current endorsements of the bill, if someone could pass this around. We have endorsements from municipalities across the country, for example, Vancouver, Sudbury, municipalities in New Brunswick. We have major organizations endorsing it, including: the Alliance to End Homelessness; Amnesty International; Canada Without Poverty; the Wellesley Institute, which is here today; and the MultiFaith Alliance to End Homelessness, from Toronto. There's a whole list here that you can look at of these are groups that have endorsed the bill.

In addition, I want to make the point that many other organizations independently have come to the same conclusion that we must have a national housing strategy, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Salvation Army, and Campaign 2000. These are all well-known, credible organizations. I think they're identifying something that is very evident when you visit many local communities, which is that there are still so many people living in substandard housing, housing that's too expensive, or housing that's threatened. Or people are on the street or one paycheque away from homelessness.

What we're saying today with this bill is that the federal government has to get beyond the piecemeal approach. What was put in the last budget was certainly welcome, but it was very clearly part of economic stimulus. It wasn't an ongoing housing program. We need to develop a national strategy and the federal government needs to take leadership on that.

This bill sets out the framework, and it's a very basic framework, for accomplishing that. It's a framework based on partnership and on identifying housing needs and setting timetables and objectives. If that can be done, we believe there will be millions of Canadians who will have some hope for the future in terms of what they can expect for their own housing security.

I'm glad we're dealing with the bill today. I certainly invite members' comments and questions, and we'll obviously hear from the other witnesses who are experts on this matter.

Thank you, Chairperson.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, September 30, 2009, we are considering Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

We will commence right now. We're working under a very tight timeline today.

I want to thank all of the witnesses in advance for being here today. We are going to start with Ms. Davies, the sponsor of the bill.

I'm going to give each witness or group seven minutes. If you'd like, I can give you the two-minute sign just to keep you on track. Then we'll go through questions and answers.

I'm not going to waste any more time, Ms. Davies. Thank you for being here today. It's your bill. You have seven minutes. The floor is all yours.

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

Even though I get a little defensive about this, I do think there has to be some statement here that we didn't reach that goal. We didn't. Whether you say it's not noteworthy progress or significant progress, I think we have to do something that indicates that there was a failure here. I blame the parliamentarians from 1989.

I don't want us to just say, okay, it's the 20th anniversary, so let's punt the ball for the next generation. Something has to happen now. And that's suitable, because our committee is doing this work. I think that's important. It has to recognize this committee.

I'm wondering, since Tony is getting close to this, and it was his original motion.... We don't have to vote on this today. We have two committee hearings on Bill C-304. We should be able to squeeze 10 or 15 minutes out of one of those. Perhaps Tony could go away, communicate with us, and then come back with a motion. If he could try to get it to us by tomorrow, we could consider it in advance of the committee meeting on Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

I want to remind members that we're looking at Bill C-280 on Tuesday and Bill C-304 on Thursday. That's what we're doing next week.

The other thing I want to mention is that we have a number of witnesses, and I would like to suggest that members talk to the clerk about the witnesses they'd like to see while we're on the road. We're going to be in Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Whitehorse, and Yellowknife, and if there are witnesses you'd like to see in particular from the list you submitted before, this would be a great opportunity, in the next little while, to submit the names to Georges.

I want to thank everybody.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Michael Shapcott, Director, Affordable Housing and Social Innovation, Wellesley Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Michael Shapcott. I'm the director of affordable housing and social innovation at the Wellesley Institute. With me is my colleague Nimira Lalani, who is a research associate.

The Wellesley Institute is an independent research and policy institute dedicated to advancing urban health. In our written submission we made several specific recommendations in terms of the next federal budget. Today we want to focus on affordable housing and community innovation.

Mr. Chair, even before the current recession, hundreds of thousands of Canadians were experiencing homelessness and millions more were precariously housed. Our research shows that the toxic combination of insecure housing and inadequate incomes is causing increased illness and premature death.

Just recently we prepared a paper for the federal government's consultation on housing and homelessness in which we totalled up federal government spending on housing and homelessness. We found that the federal government is actually spending a substantial amount of money. In fact, the figures from the federal government show that it'll spend $17.5 billion this year on housing-related expenditures. That doesn't include the $64 billion that's been committed to the banks through the insured mortgage purchase program.

The problem isn't the level of spending, it's the fact that only a small fraction of those dollars are going to reach the households with the most urgent need. I'll give you two examples.

The federal government estimates that the home renovation tax credit will cost about $2 billion this year. Yet most of the 3.2 million households—and that's about nine million women, men, and children—who are living in substandard housing, according to Statistics Canada, won't be able to qualify for the home renovation tax credit. What's offered to them is another federal program called the residential rehabilitation assistance program, which is funded at $128 million annually--$128 million...$2 billion. What $128 million buys is assistance for about 20,000 homes a year for ownership and rental homes. If you do the math--20,000 homes, with 3.2 million households in need of repair--it'll take about 160 years at the current level of spending to meet the repair needs of those households.

Another issue we are concerned about is new supply. We continue to have new households that need new affordable housing, yet we're not generating enough new households. Only about 15% of the $3.5 billion the federal government spends on affordable housing will be devoted to new supply.

Members of the committee will remember that about two weeks ago you voted on Bill C-304, which is an act to ensure adequate accessible and affordable housing. That bill passed second reading and is going to another committee for review. We believe that Canada urgently needs a comprehensive national housing plan, and we commend that legislation.

However, in the meantime we'd like to urge this committee to make a recommendation for a substantial down payment towards a national housing plan. In particular, we want to offer three recommendations: first, an additional $700 million for new affordable housing supply; second, double the funding for the homeless partnering strategies with an additional $135 million; third, $128 million to double funding for the residential rehabilitation assistance program.

I know there's a concern in recommending new spending at this time. I want to say that it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to commit new revenues. The federal government should be starting to re-profile some of its existing housing investments to make sure it goes to the households that need it the most.

In addition, we want to recommend to this committee that the federal government should be reinvesting the estimated $1.353 billion surplus from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation this year. Some of that can be reinvested in affordable housing and homelessness initiatives.

Opposition Motion--Government Policies

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

It is not every day that we have a motion of confidence in the House, so it obviously is a very serious matter. It is a matter that New Democrats take very seriously. We have had serious debate not only within our caucus but with our constituents. To put forward a motion that the House has lost confidence in the government is something that needs to be looked at very carefully.

If we look at the record of what has happened since the Conservative government was elected in 2006, it will show very clearly that the NDP has been the toughest critics of the Conservative government and its policies, right from day one.

In fact, we never had confidence in the government. We have been very clear that the overall direction it has taken on the economy, social programs, its attacks on workers, women, pay equity and the billions it has given away in corporate tax cuts have been disastrous courses of action. We have been very tough on the government. I think many Canadians have seen the New Democrats as the official opposition, that we were the ones who took on the direction of the government and stated how wrong it was.

While being the toughest critics of the government, we have also always done our very best to make this minority Parliament work. Again, if we look at the record, it will show a number of bills have come forward that have passed the House, that have gained majority support and the actions that have taken place in committees and the studies that have been undertaken have come from New Democrats.

We have all the statistics to show the number of bills we have put forward, whether it is Bill C-311, the climate change accountability bill, or Bill C-304 for a national housing strategy, which historically passed second reading last night. It only took 12 years to get back from the disastrous course that the Liberals took in the 1990s when they trashed and eliminated the great housing programs that Canada had. Look at the EI bills, some of which are now in committee, or our motion that was passed on the need to protect our seniors.

We feel very good about our work and our record in being very tough critics of the government and the direction it has taken. At the same time, we make every effort, more than 100%, to make this Parliament work for Canadians, to get things done. That is what people sent us here to do.

That is a really important point to make today. For two years the official opposition propped up the Conservatives and gave a complete green light to their agenda, whether it was those billions in corporate tax cuts, or the attacks on pay equity and women, or the attacks on the unemployed and on workers' rights. We know there were 79 substantive confidence votes they let slide.

The big question today, which is left hanging in the air, is what did they get for that? We are here now at this point with a confidence motion. After all of that record, what did the Liberals get for supporting the measures of the direction of the government for two years? We have seen the report cards, the government was put on probation, but what did the official opposition actually get?

The Liberals claimed, over and over again, that EI was their top priority. How many times did we hear this in the House? We know that in the summer they walked away from that, and they got nothing for it. All of sudden, they have decided their first priority is an election.

Clearly the New Democrats are more interested in helping the unemployed than we are in provoking an early election that people do not want. That is a very important consideration.

We talk to our constituents. We go back and we find out what people think. We ask if they think this is the right time for an election. People have clearly said that this is not a good time for an election. We have had four elections in five years. People want to see this Parliament work.

I am very proud of the New Democrats. When we came back on September 14 and the Liberals had taken the disastrous course of saying that it would an election at any cost, that they would pull the plug, we saw that as an opportunity to tell the government if it did not want an election, it had to reach out and put something on the table to make it clear that it was willing to work with the opposition parties to produce the things that Canadians needed.

The NDP are pleased to see that, finally, the Conservative government put $1 billion on the table for the EI bill. That just passed second reading in the House and it has now gone to committee. It will be studied there and come back to the House, at which time we will have a final vote. We saw that as a positive first step.

The NDP leader has been very clear with the Conservative government that the NDP does not support its overall direction and we will continue to be the toughest critic on any anti-people measures it takes. If it slams workers or cuts programs, we will continue to be its critic. However, we are prepared to look at individual proposals it brings forward. In fact, we have been very transparent about what the priorities are.

There have been no back room negotiations or deals. It has been the NDP day after day in the House that has put forward political priorities, whether it is reforming the EI system, providing help for pensioners, ensuring that consumers have protection, asking the government to come clean with its record on the HST and stop trying to duck the issue or coming clean with the people of B.C. and tell us when the negotiations started. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are now trying to run for cover on that one.

We have been very clear that the government needs to be prepared to bring forward other initiatives around EI. The question I raised earlier today with the government was whether it was now prepared to help self-employed workers. This is a very critical question.

I do not know about other members, but when I talk to folks in Vancouver East, the biggest response is from self-employed people who are really hurting because they have no cushion on which to fall. They have no protection during this recession. It is very tough for people who are self-employed, who at one time were doing quite well but in the recession are finding they cannot get the consulting work or contracts. Small businesses are going under, as well as people who are self-employed in other ways. Again, is it prepared to bring forward further changes to the EI system that will help self-employed workers?

New Democrats believe this is a constructive course of action. This is where we need to focus attention instead of playing these political games, like the Liberals now saying it is their way or it is an election.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition state earlier today in his speech, “We use elections to bring people together”. I thought that was very ironic. An election is about accountability for sure, but it is also about ensuring that people do not become weary from dealing with elections and being concerned everyday with what is going on in a recession that it divides people and further turns people off the political system. This is what the leader of the official opposition is now doing.

This election is not about bringing people together. From the Liberal point of view, this election is about serving its own political agenda. We need to call it that and be very clear.

New Democrats are prepared to work in the House and to do it in a genuine way and in good faith. We will take on the government. We will be critical of its policies, but we also want to ensure nothing stands in the way of getting the $1 billion of assistance to people who need it. We think that is a key priority. We want to ensure other measures are brought forward that will help people. That is the priority right now in this recession.

I am glad we are having this debate because it brings everything into the open. New Democrats are very clear that the priority is trying to make Parliament work. As long as that measure exists, we will certainly support it.

We hope other proposals will put on the table by the government that will help the unemployed, seniors and consumers deal with the recession they are facing every day. That is what is really important to people.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-304, under private members' business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from September 17, consideration of the motion that Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.