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 and territorial ministers of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs and housing and with representatives of municipalities, Aboriginal communities, non-profit and private sector housing providers and civil society organizations in order to establish a national housing strategy.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

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

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

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

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

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poverty

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have voted against them because tax credits are of absolutely no help to people who have no income. These are people who are living on the streets, who cannot work, who cannot find jobs.

I am sorry, but this plan does not work; just look at the 76,000 jobs that were lost in a month. They do not have a plan, but they do not want to admit it. The government's obsession with tax credits and reductions does nothing for low-income Canadians because these people do not pay taxes. The government's tax reduction program for big business has done nothing to reduce the unemployment rate or improve the quality of jobs. What is more, this government has not invested any new money in social housing to improve social and urban diversity and reduce the tax burden.

I am proud to be part of the NDP, which introduced real plans to fight poverty during the last Parliament, such as Bill C-545 and Bill C-304.

Opposition Motion--Seniors' Poverty

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

I begin by thanking the member for London—Fanshawe for introducing this very important motion for us to discuss in the House today. Contrary to what other members have said, New Democrats do have a plan for poverty reduction. That was Bill C-545, An Act to Eliminate Poverty in Canada introduced in June 2010. It laid out a detailed strategy for poverty elimination in the country, and I was pleased to reintroduce that bill today.

I again want to acknowledge the very good work that Tony Martin, the former member for Sault Ste. Marie, did.

As well, New Democrats have also had other plans around helping people living in poverty. One was the former Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians introduced by the member for Vancouver East.

Contrary to what we have heard in the House, New Democrats do have plans around poverty reduction.

I want to remind the House, because we have had a bit of a break, about what we are speaking about today. The New Democrat opposition day motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, ending seniors' poverty in Canada is fiscally feasible, and, therefore, the House calls on the government to take immediate steps to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement sufficiently to achieve that goal.

There has been much talk so far today about the 2011 budget. Contrary to what members of the government have said, I can assure members that many New Democrats have read that budget as have many members of the public.

I will quote a couple of things from a news release from Campaign 2000 dated June 6, 2011. This reflects in part why New Democrats do not want to support that budget.

Gerda Kaegi of the Canadian Pensioners Concerned said, “The one measure to address poverty among seniors' is paltry”. The release goes on to say:

The $50 monthly increase to the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors is only available to those on the very least income. This proposed change is about one-third of what is needed to bring single seniors – who are mostly women - out of poverty.

Further on in the news release it says:

This budget does little to bolster the tattered safety net that has left Canadians in economic insecurity. Aboriginal people, sole support mothers, recent immigrants, racialized groups, and people with disabilities face greater risks. At the same time, inequality between the rich and the poor in Canada has grown more than in any other OECD country (except Germany).

That comment was by Dennis Howlett of Make Poverty History.

I only have 10 minutes, so unfortunately I cannot go through all the reasons why New Democrats would not support the budget.

I want to turn briefly to a report “Federal Poverty Reduction Plan: Working in Partnership Towards Reducing Poverty in Canada ”from November 2010. This was an extensive piece of work that looked at the state of poverty reduction plans in the country and made numerous recommendations. I want to quote a couple of statistics out of this, and we are talking about seniors today.

It says:

The GIS is an ideal means of reducing poverty among seniors because it targets those with a low income, particularly seniors living alone. In 2007, seniors living alone represented 28% of all seniors, but 60% of GIS recipients and 82% of seniors living below the LICOs. A senior living alone with no income other than the maximum OAS and GIS benefits would receive combined benefits of about $14,033 (January 2010 rates), which is below the LICOs for 2008 (the latest available) for a person living alone in an urban centre with a population of 30,000 or more.

The people who are receiving GIS and OAS are the poorest of the poor of the seniors and often between OAS and GIS that is pretty much all they have for an income.

This article goes on.

The member for London—Fanshawe ably outlined all of the reasons why the House should unanimously support the New Democrat motion, but I want to raise another issue that has not been raised.

Again, in this report it says that other witnesses spoke about the lack of awareness of the GIS. I want to turn briefly to the National Advisory Council on Aging, “Aging in Poverty in Canada: Seniors on the Margins”. It pointed out a couple of serious problems.

First, we have a program that is inadequate, but what we actually know is that many seniors are not accessing this already inadequate program. It says in this report that as no reliable statistics existed on under-subscription or late renewals, the National Council on Aging had research carried out in the summer of 2004 to assess the situation.

This research yielded a clear picture of under-subscription to the OAS and the Canada pension plan, revealing that large numbers of elderly seniors have not applied for these programs.

For a variety of reasons, seniors simply do not apply for these programs. New Democrats have argued that they should just be incorporated into a system like the income tax system, so that seniors at the age of 65 would not have to apply. They would automatically be considered.

Under OAS, the NACA report says about 50,000 have not applied and under GIS about 300,000 have not applied. Under CPP retirement pension about 55,000 have not applied. There is no estimate available for those who have not applied for disability benefits or survivor benefits. Many New Democrats have done CPP, disability and survivor benefit workshops in their ridings because many Canadians are simply not aware that they are entitled to those benefits.

This article goes on to say:

The sums in question are considerable. For example, the 50,000 seniors who are eligible for OAS but do not apply sustain a total income loss of $250 million a year.

That is $250 million that is not going back into our communities. When seniors apply for these benefits, they spend the money on food, on shelter, and minimal living expenses, which is all money that comes back into our communities.

The article goes on to say:

It is more often women, particularly elderly women, who fail to apply for the GIS – a group that is most at risk of living in poverty. It is worth noting that seniors who are entitled to the GIS but who do not apply are deprived not only of their GIS income, but also of all the other benefits provided through provincial and territorial programs that use the GIS as an eligibility criterion.

Not only is it affecting their GIS, but it is affecting some of their other provincial benefits. That is why it is so important that we look at a system that makes it far easier for seniors to access these benefits.

I know we are talking about the GIS, but I want to talk briefly about CPP because there is another huge injustice built into this program.

Lateness in applying for CPP benefits causes serious prejudice. Currently, a person who is late applying for his or her pension under the CPP is only entitled to 11 months of retroactive benefits. The case of a woman named Isabel, age 90, is cited. She discovers that she has been entitled to the CPP survivor benefit for the past 15 years but did not know it. Her husband Jim died at the age of 83 without ever drawing a pension. Her late application means she is entitled to retroactive benefits for a mere 11 months, even though her husband contributed to the plan while he was working and the money was his due and hers. That is a very sad statement. This is another case of late renewal.

In July year after year GIS and allowance recipients must renew their application for benefits by filling out an income tax declaration or a renewal form. Every year close to 100,000 seniors fail to renew their application on time. At present, they are sent a reminder with an enclosed renewal application form. If they fail to respond, they are temporarily excluded from the program and do not receive their benefits for July or the following month until the application for renewal is completed.

The report goes on to talk about 105,000 seniors who did not receive their GIS cheque and more than 9,000 who did not receive their allowance benefits because they had not completed their renewal on time. For many seniors this is an issue of low literacy, little or no knowledge of the programs, language barriers, and sometimes there are mental health issues. We need to make it as easy as possible for seniors.

I will just make a little note on this. A person receiving GIS benefits can lose up to $561 each month. So it is a significant amount of money for people who are living in poverty.

It is unfortunate that my time is up because I wanted to talk about hunger count and the food banks, and the fact that we are seeing an increasing number of seniors using food banks. The 2010 report indicated that the number of seniors helped by food banks grew this year from 5.5% of adults in 2008-09 to 7.2% in 2010. In some provinces, like Ontario, it was 12% and in Manitoba it was 15%. We are seeing some serious problems in our country. Seniors are being forced into using food banks just to keep food on their tables.

I would urge all members of the House to support the motion put forward by the member for London—Fanshawe. This is a small step in the right direction to help lift seniors out of poverty.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has to do with Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to play an increased federal role in housing and to create a federal housing program.

I note today that the bill was tabled in the House. There have been many petitions on this issue right across the country calling on Parliament to move on this bill swiftly because it is an urgently needed matter to provide accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians.

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

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th and 12th reports of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, and Bill C-481, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code (mandatory retirement age). The committee has studied both bills and has decided to report each bill back to the House with an amendment.

I wish to thank all of the committee members for their work and collaboration in the course of this process.

Older Workers

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate concerning Motion No. 515 which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should continue to recognize the vital role of older workers in the Canadian economy and ensure its labour market programs and policies encourage older workers to contribute their skills and experience in the Canadian workforce.

This is a pretty innocuous motion. Of course, I support it. Anybody would be foolish not to, I think. However, I am left with the question, what will this motion do?

I know that for private members' bills and motions, in order for one to be effected by government, they cannot trigger a royal recommendation, so they cannot be money bills so to speak. Private members' bills and motions are somewhat constrained in how they are drafted, but there is still a lot of room to draft motions and bills that actually have substance. We are sent here to be legislators, after all.

Recognizing and supporting older workers is not only laudable, it is actually essential. The problem is that the rhetoric of the motion does not even take a baby step toward that goal. My colleague from Hamilton Mountain spoke to this motion earlier in the debate. She said, “It is as inoffensive as it is ineffective”.

I would like to use my time in the House to move beyond the empty words in this motion and actually address what needs to happen if we want to do more than talk the talk, if we want to actually walk the walk. I want to use my time to discuss the real issues facing older workers in Canada.

Older workers will not be workers forever, obviously, and we need to consider life after work. A new survey confirms what the NDP has been saying for a long time that improving the Canada pension plan is the best way to secure a comfortable retirement for all Canadians. The survey found a whopping 76% of Canadians want the government to increase CPP benefits. However, that flies in the face of the Prime Minister's recent decision to ignore the CPP in favour of a private sector retirement plan.

The survey also reinforces the New Democrat retirement security plan. Our plan proposes a phased-in doubling of CPP benefits to $1,868 a month. A full 93% of Canadians are already members of the CPP. It is low cost, secure, and inflation protected. That really makes it the best retirement option out there. Canadians know it, the New Democrats know it, but the Conservative government still does not have a clue.

Canada is facing a retirement crisis. The recession exposed deep flaws in the way we prepare for retirement. Families have lost their savings and they simply do not have enough to support themselves. That is why the NDP wants to take a lead on pension reform. In addition to raising CPP, we want to protect workplace pensions from corporate creditors and raise the GIS to lift seniors out of poverty. While the Prime Minister is ignoring the crisis, we are taking leadership and actually proposing practical solutions to make Canadians' lives better.

As I said, the recession revealed deep cracks in Canada's retirement security plan because years of savings suddenly vanished, leaving millions of Canadians unprepared for the future. We did take the lead on calling for comprehensive reform to the Canada pension plan, like proposing doubling of the maximum monthly payout over time to ensure that all Canadians could retire comfortably.

The Conservative government seemed on board, hinting for nearly a year that it would improve the CPP. Then, the Conservatives abruptly changed their mind. In December, the finance minister announced that the government would ignore the CPP, choosing instead to introduce a private sector plan administered by financial institutions.

Pension advocates and most provincial leaders, including the provincial leader and the minister of finance in Nova Scotia, expressed shock and disappointment. They asked, why would the government abandon the CPP, which is secure, portable, and low cost? Why would they turn over retirement savings to the very financial institutions whose outrageous management fees could wipe out up to 50% of a person's pension contributions over a lifetime?

The Conservative government's plan just does not make sense for older workers and when older workers move into retirement.

Canada is in a pension crisis and that is why the NDP will continue to push for practical reforms to CPP; ones that benefit Canadians and not the big banks.

Older workers are disproportionately represented among the long-term unemployed. This is true across Canada, but it is especially true across the industrial heartland of our country.

These companies were institutions in our communities. They were unionized workplaces where seniority mattered and where companies had the benefit of the skills, experience, and expertise of their long-tenured workers. A senior workforce also means that when a plant closes or downsizes, 60% to 70% of the newly unemployed are older workers.

One would think that successive governments might have assumed some responsibility for addressing the unique issues confronting older workers in Canada. Despite often lauding our incredibly skilled older workforce, they did nothing to ensure that these workers would remain a vital force in our economy.

To this day we do not have a manufacturing sector strategy for our economy. To this day we do not have an auto sector strategy. To this day we do not have a green industry strategy and we also do not have an industrial strategy. Instead, we allow foreign companies like U.S. Steel, Xstrata and Vale to buy up Canadian companies without an ounce of a guarantee that they will protect Canadian jobs. It is absolutely disgraceful.

Compounding the problem is the fact that this is the very government that did nothing to protect these jobs in the first place. It is the same government that is doing nothing to protect displaced older workers.

These unemployed Canadians need to keep working. They need a few more years of income before they can retire. They cannot cash in their retirement savings because that would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Surely, we cannot expect them to sell their homes or take out a new mortgage. These older Canadians have worked hard all their lives. They played by the rules and now, through no fault of their own, they have become incapable of building a secure future for themselves and for their families.

It is time for the government to step up to the plate and offer real assistance to these displaced workers. Unfortunately, instead of setting up effective programs for worker adjustment, the Conservatives have been setting up barriers to re-employment instead.

In the time I have left, I would like to talk about the health of older workers.

To support our senior workers, we need to support their health and the health of their families. In addition to protecting seniors financial security through our pension proposals and increasing GIS, we need to look seriously and critically at the issue of health for older workers and retirees.

First and foremost, we need to tackle the issue of social determinants of health. People cannot be healthy unless they have a home to live in. We need an affordable housing strategy for this country. I am very proud that Bill C-304, our bill for a national housing strategy, is actually at committee and hopefully coming back for third reading soon.

We need something like a pharmacare strategy to ensure that older workers, their families, and all Canadians have access to the prescription medications they need to stay healthy. We hear time and time again from pharmacists who tell us that every single day at least one person, often more, will come to the counter, put in their order for prescription medication, but when they get the package and look at the bill, they walk away and leave it behind. That happens every day.

In my old job as a community legal worker, I had clients who would often cut their pills in half or take their pills every second day. They simply could not afford the cost of the prescription to take their medication as prescribed.

A universal pharmacare plan for all Canadians to access the drugs they need to stay healthy would be a definite support to older workers and their families. We can do it if we work with the provinces and territories to establish a Canada-wide prescription drug program.

Further, once older workers have finished working, we need to look at a system of home care and long-term care. It is much less expensive than acute care in a hospital and it makes good financial sense for supporting retired workers.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

The first petition is signed by residents in the metro Vancouver area. They are calling on the federal government and Parliament to work with all levels of government to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians. They are also asking that new moneys go beyond the 2009 budget and that Parliament ensure the swift passage of my private member's bill, Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the second petition that I would like to submit today is in regard to Bill C-304, which has to do with a national housing strategy.

These citizens are extremely concerned that it is long overdue for us to have more not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, and access to housing for those with special needs such as seniors, persons with disabilities, et cetera, and especially and additionally, sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for housing.

The petitioners are people from the communities of Thunder Bay, Murillo, Kaministiquia and Armstrong, in the riding of Thunder Bay--Superior North.

Opposition Motion—Federal Spending Power

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

Madam Speaker, it is not a problem. You never make me nervous. I am entirely comfortable with you in the chair.

My colleague from Cape Breton—Canso said you cut me short, as the provinces were cut by the current federal government. I think that is a good point. Wise wisdom, as they say, from Cape Breton.

Madam Speaker, that was a bit of history, but I want to talk about another area and I hope my colleagues will indulge me.

This motion today speaks to all the provinces and not just the province of Quebec. In Atlantic Canada, where I come from, we love to complain about lots of different things, but we know that the federal government has a very positive role to play in the development of Atlantic Canada.

One of the very positive things that has happened in Atlantic Canada over the years is the development of ACOA. As people know, in Quebec there is the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. However, Atlantic Canada's I think was the first regional development agency, ACOA, in 1987. It was brought in by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and followed up by Liberal governments after that.

It made a big difference in Atlantic Canada, this understanding that there is a unique nature regionally. It may be specific to a region, but it is important to the overall building of a country like Canada, and ACOA was a very important step.

I recall back in the early 2000s, right on the cusp of this century, ACOA developed a program called the Atlantic innovation fund, which came about after the report “Catching Tomorrow's Wave”. People like Senator Willie Moore from the other place and the current member for Charlottetown, who is going to be retiring soon to the misfortune of this House, were involved in coming forward with this plan.

This plan recognized that in Atlantic Canada there were specific projects that needed government help. We do not have a lot of venture capital. We do not have a lot of commercialization. The Atlantic innovation fund came forward and has been very successful in helping to build companies. It is not propping up companies that cannot make it on their own, but it allows them to take something to the next level.

In fact, a number of those companies are in my own riding. One specifically is an organization called the Acadian Seaplants Limited, which harvests sea plants. Years ago people thought that Mr. Louis Deveau, who has been one of the great entrepreneurs in Nova Scotia in the last half century, was crazy. He talked about bringing in seaweed and value-adding it here in Nova Scotia and sending it to places. He has developed a market and I think now has more than 500 employees in three or four different parts of Atlantic Canada.

Organizations like Acadian Seaplants Limited probably could not exist, certainly could not employ the number of people they have, without the support of the federal government.

Ocean Nutrition, which some people will know about, developed a process for micro-encapsulating omega-3 fatty acids for use in foods to provide healthier foods. It also employs Canadians and develops and spurs innovation in our universities, labs and private enterprises. Those are the kinds of organizations that have benefited from the federal government.

So the federal government has a role to play, and we want to respect the jurisdiction of the federal government and the provinces on issues, for example, of poverty, housing, child care and post secondary education. We think there is a role, following the jurisdictional dictates of Canada, for the federal government to play in those things.

On poverty, for example, the Senate released a report just before Christmas called “In From the Margins”, which is a call upon the federal government to be involved in the fight against poverty. Members of the Bloc are in support; for example the member for Chambly—Borduas has been a very strong supporter of that work. There are some issues around jurisdiction there, but we will work those out. This report will be tabled in the House of Commons sometime in the next couple of months. Since it is in draft form at this point in time, I will not read from it.

This government does have a way of using jurisdiction when it is to its advantage. The example I would use is the United Nations periodic review of 2009, which called upon the federal government to institute a national anti-poverty plan. The federal government chose to say it was not its jurisdiction. Yet if we look at some of the key pieces of social infrastructure, whether it is employment insurance, pensions and things like that, the federal government clearly does have a role to play.

There are six provinces and one territory, one of the provinces being Quebec, that have a national anti-poverty plan that they can be very proud of.

Child care we have talked about, but there is a need for a national housing strategy.

The member for Vancouver East has brought forward Bill C-304. We debated it again last night. I know the Bloc supports that. We are trying to find a way that we can ensure we can all support that bill and be respective of the jurisdictions involved.

Another project that I know my colleague from Chambly—Borduas is very keen on is the Canada summer jobs program, paid for by the federal government, an initiative of the late 1990s of the Liberal government that puts to work 37,000 or 38,000 students every year. At a point in time when there are more than 100,000 fewer student jobs than in 2008, we could double that program, possibly even triple it. That would be a possible way to go, to make a difference.

Employment insurance is a federal area, absolutely. We just had the grudging and, I would say, only partial extension of the pilot projects, like the best 14 weeks, like working while on claim, brought in by Lucienne Robillard back in 2004-2005. The government finally and grudgingly extended them, but has basically signalled the end of these, but if we look at the areas that are benefiting, we see this goes to help areas of high unemployment. It directs payments to people in areas of high unemployment. There are 21 areas, including Central Quebec, Chicoutimi, Jonquière, Gaspésie, Isle de la Madeleine, Lower St. Lawrence and North Shore, Northwestern Quebec and Trois-Rivières, so 6 of the 21 programs benefit specifically the province of Quebec.

I said earlier that this country was born out of compromise, not out of war, that the Fathers of Confederation chose ballots over bullets, and in doing so, laid the groundwork for a Canada that for many people is the envy of the world. Ours is not a perfect country; it is a work in progress, but our history is full of examples where Canadians came together and fashioned bonds of equality and common purpose. It is that desire to seek and work toward common purpose that I think enhances our sense of citizenship. I want a country that sees itself more than just as a collection of taxpayers.

Today we are hearing about tax points and transfers and debt and deficits. Those are not really the things that bind us together as a country. In some ways it prevents us from looking beyond ourselves. It creates division and prevents us from seeking the common purpose that allows us to tackle enormous challenges, like the demographic challenge facing Canada today.

Because of that I cannot vote for this motion today. I believe the provinces need to be respected. I believe their jurisdiction needs to be acknowledged. They need to be at the table, but the federal government needs to be at the table as well, a robust partner in building Canada and allowing us to work together to achieve the great potential of this country.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents in Saskatchewan and Hamilton. There are a number of pages of signatures in support of a national housing strategy, particularly Bill C-304, which is currently before the House.

The petitioners are calling upon Parliament for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless and access to housing. I am very pleased to present that petition today.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions regarding Bill C-304, an act for affordable housing in Canada.

The petitioners, some from Nova Scotia and some from Newfoundland and Labrador, are calling for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not for profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for people with different needs and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards.

The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.

Affordable Housing

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition here concerning a national housing strategy.

The petitioners from Nova Scotia are asking for swift passage of a private member's bill, Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. The petitioners and I look forward to the minister's answers.

On to Ottawa Trek

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the 75th anniversary of the historic “On to Ottawa Trek”, I am proud to welcome eight modern day homelessness trekkers from my riding of Vancouver East, who are here in Ottawa.

Am Johal, Diana Hart, Al Mitchell, Georges Maltais, Shawn Millar, David Murray, John Richardson and Garvin Snider left Vancouver on June 6 to re-enact the 1935 workers' protest against poor wages and abysmal working conditions in government camps during the Great Depression.

This wonderful group is also marking the end of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay, which I was honoured to participate in.

These groups and over 50 major Canadian organizations are calling on the government to support a national housing strategy and to vote yes to Bill C-304.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions.

I have presented many petitions on this subject. It is signed by many residents in East Vancouver and other parts of Vancouver who are in support of a national housing strategy. The petitioners are calling for an increased federal role in housing, not for profit housing, housing for the homeless and access to housing for those with different needs. They are calling for the support of Bill C-304.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition to the House of Commons signed by 475 Gatineau residents urging the Prime Minister to support Bill C-304. This bill would ensure access to safe, adequate, available and affordable housing for all Quebeckers and Canadians. It is extremely important for our society to make that happen for people.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I thank my colleagues in the NDP caucus for speaking out so forcefully and consistently on Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill.

I wish I could say that we are joined by other members of the House as this debate continues, but it looks like we are pretty well alone, which is very unfortunate. I think of the speech that was made by the member for Toronto—Danforth a couple of days ago on Bill C-9 when he appealed to the official opposition and other members to speak out against the bill because it was a travesty. It is an almost 900 page bill. The process of what is unfolding is something, as parliamentarians, we should all be saying that we do not agree with and we are going to ensure that the bill does not go through.

We have seen the government use the 2010 budget to bring in a budget implementation bill. Under that bill, we are calling it the Trojan horse. It rams through all kinds of other significant public policy measures to do with the environment, with taxes, with privatization. The government is using the cover of a budget bill hoping no one will notice. The NDP wants everyone to notice what is taking place because this is an affront to democratic process.

On the bill itself, as many other NDP members have pointed out, we are completely opposed to many of the provisions in the bill. For example, we are opposed to the 50% increase in airline taxes for security. We are also opposed to the fact that the budget bill contains an enormous public policy issue of the divestiture of AECL, which allows for the sale of all or any part of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. It is a major issue that should be before the House in a separate bill and debated. Yet it is being rammed through as part of a budget bill. Once it is gone, it is gone and nothing can be done about it. We should all be up in arms and incredibly concerned about this.

There are other provisions in the bill. Probably one of the most significant ones for us is the tax shift from corporations on to ordinary Canadians.

Today I met with representatives of Food Banks Canada. It is so important to get that sense of reality of what is going on in local communities and what is happening to people across the country. They told me that every month 800,000 Canadians relied on food banks. The percentage of people relying on food banks increased 18% from 2008 to 2009. From 2009 to 2010, it is another 11% increase. They know that about 20% of people who use food banks either work or recently worked.

I bring this forward because it is relevant to this massive shift in taxation from corporations on to ordinary people. Because of the program that the Liberal government started, and now escalated by the Conservative government, we have a massive erosion of corporate taxes.

We believe in fair and progressive taxation. We believe everyone should pay their fair share. However, with this tax shift, by 2014, we will see a loss of $60 billion in revenue. It does not take anyone with a math degree to figure out that the loss of this amount of money will impact the kinds of services that can be provided, whether it is for health care, social programs, EI or whatever it is for the kinds of things we need to do to help unemployed workers. We see people having to rely more and more on food banks, and that is what is at the core of the budget. That is what is so wrong about it.

We also know that over the next four years the Conservative government will take in more than $19 billion than it needs to deal with EI. We know the employment insurance program is not paid for by the government. It is paid for by employers and employees. The government takes the money through the premiums. What is the government going to do? It is going to rake in billions more than is needed and then use it to pay for the corporate tax cuts. This is an outrage and we strenuously object to it.

There are also provisions in the budget bill that relate to the HST. As someone from British Columbia, there is a sense of outrage about the HST and the way it has been foisted upon the people there. The Conservative government and the Liberal government in British Columbia are working hand in glove with each other to put this on the people of B.C. The response from people has been absolutely incredible.

We have seen the most historic grassroots initiative take place, where people are signing petitions. They are saying, no, that the governments are not going to do this, that they are not going to run roughshod over democratic practice, negotiate a deal a few days after an election, not tell people about it and think they can get away with it.

This part of the budget bill as well as the tax shift is very much related to what is going on in my province. People are so angry over the Liberal and Conservative members of Parliament from B.C. who did absolutely nothing to stand up for their constituents and say that the HST was a bad tax and that it would come at the wrong time.

There are two other issues with which I want to deal. One is on the environment front.

One of the enormous issues in Bill C-9 is the budget is overwhelmingly negative on the environmental front. There are no provisions to fight climate change. There is no plan to create green jobs, something we have advocated for very strongly in our caucus. We have laid out detailed plans about how we need to move to a greener economy. Instead this budget focuses on facilitating and accelerating the extraction of oil and gas.

In a very dramatic move, it guts environmental protection by taking environmental assessments for energy projects away from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and giving that responsibility to the National Energy Board or the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Both bodies, particularly the National Energy Board, as we just heard from my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, are very pro-industry. They are loaded with people who have a vested interest in seeing greater extraction of oil and gas.

It is quite shocking to see that this significant policy change on the environment, on regulations, on environmental assessment is in the budget implementation bill. The consequences of that will be felt for years and decades to come. This is one reason for the amendments before us today. We are at report stage of the bill and the proposed amendments would delete all those aspects from it. We think they have no place in a budget bill.

They should be debated separately. Members of the House should be able to look at those provisions in terms of natural resources and energy and how those assessments are done. If the government wants to change and weaken the procedures in place, then let it have the guts and the courage to do it as a separate legislation. Let it be willing to stand the test of putting that legislation before the House and then seeing whether it has the support to get it through. To do it through a budget bill is unconscionable.

I will focus briefly on the issue of housing. I, along with other members, have worked very hard for in my community for this. One thing that disturbs me very deeply is we rally saw no provisions for an ongoing housing program in the budget.

Over four million Canadians are living in housing insecurity. Up to 300,000 people are homeless in communities across the country. We would think this would be a major priority. It certainly takes us back to the statistics that I read from Food Banks Canada. Yet there is nothing in the budget that addresses this fundamental human right in our society, the right to safe, appropriate, affordable and accessible housing. I have a bill before the House, Bill C-304, that would compel the government to initiate and develop a national housing strategy.

A core requirement of a budget is to ensure people have adequate housing and incomes, whether it is through increasing the Canada pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement or OAS. Those are the fundamentals. Yet everything in the budget is getting away from that and giving greater breaks to corporations. We find that unacceptable and will vote against it.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the same old announcements of the same old dollars will not solve Canada's housing crisis.

The minister knows full well that the Conservative government is ready to cut $500 million a year in federal support for existing affordable housing units. The FCM and over 50 major organizations across the country have endorsed Bill C-304 for safe and affordable housing.

Will the government support the bill and sit down with all levels of government to implement a national housing strategy?

Bill C-304—Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 1, 2010, by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons regarding the admissibility of an amendment adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in its consideration of Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. The bill containing the amendment in question was reported to the House on March 24.

I wish to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for having raised this issue as well as the hon. members for Joliette and Vancouver East for presenting their views on the matter.

The parliamentary secretary explained to the House that during the consideration of Bill C-304, the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities overturned a decision of the chair concerning an amendment to Bill C-304 that had been ruled inadmissible. The committee then proceeded to adopt the amendment.

He pointed out that the purpose of Bill C-304 is to create a national housing strategy and, more specifically, that clause 3 of the bill provides for the minister to consult with the provincial and territorial ministers in order to establish that strategy. The parliamentary secretary stated that the amendment, which allows the province of Quebec to opt out with full compensation, is inconsistent with the purpose of the bill. He also argued that since there was no mention of a potential provincial exemption in the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, the amendment alters the purpose and goes beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The parliamentary secretary made reference to a committee chairman's ruling on the admissibility of a similar amendment during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French), by the Standing Committee on Official Languages on October 20, 2005. An amendment to exclude one province from the application of that bill was moved and ruled inadmissible by the committee chair since it was contrary to the principle of the bill.

In his intervention, the member for Joliette stated that, in his view, the amendment in question is admissible since the right of Quebec to be exempted is consistent with the principle of the bill. He also provided many examples of Canada-wide programs or strategies from which the province of Quebec is exempted.

In her intervention, the member for Vancouver East made reference to a Speaker's ruling of January 29, 2008 defining the principle and the scope of the bill. She explained that the principle of Bill C-304 is to develop a housing strategy and that the scope, which encompasses the mechanisms by which the principle is attained, includes the consultations leading to the establishment of the strategy. Furthermore, she claimed that the amendment in question is permissive, not mandatory, and that it merely seeks to clarify the scope of the bill.

As the House knows, the Speaker does not ordinarily intervene on committee matters unless a report has been presented in the House. With respect to legislation, the Speaker has been called upon to deal with such matters after the bill in question has been reported to the House.

The Chair believes that it would be useful to have a look at the amendment in question. It is a new clause added after clause 3 and reads as follows:

The Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and may, if it chooses to do so, receive an unconditional payment equal to the total of the amounts that would otherwise be paid within its territory under this Act.

In the Chair's view, there are two elements to this new clause. The first is the Government of Quebec's right to opt out of the strategy, and the second relates to the right to receive financial compensation if it chooses to do so.

With regard to the first element of the amendment, the members for Joliette and Vancouver East both have given examples of Canada-wide programs and policies of which the province of Quebec is exempted. The Chair is in no way questioning that such arrangements exist in current programs or could exist in future programs within specific legislative frameworks. However, the Chair has to determine if such an arrangement as defined by the amendment in question goes against the principle or broadens the scope of this bill as adopted by the House at second reading.

The Chair refers members to clause 3 of the bill which provides elements that should be part of a housing strategy, elements that are, in fact, defining the scope of the bill. The Chair views the nature of those elements as being very different from that proposed by the amendment in question and finds that an opting out provision is a new concept which exceeds the scope as defined in clause 3.

As for the second element, that of payments to provinces, the Chair has studied the bill very closely and finds no reference to payments that could be made to a province under this Act. Payments to provincial governments are not provided for in Bill C-304, and, therefore, it is clear that this element of the amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill.

The Chair also considered a number of precedents. In addition to the example of Bill S-3 cited by the parliamentary secretary, the Chair has found an example of similar amendments submitted at report stage. In fact, when Bill C-20, an Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, was considered at report stage, amendments seeking the exemption of the province of Quebec were submitted and were found to be inadmissible.

The Speaker then explained in his ruling of March 13, 2000 at Debates page 4375 that:

“...from a strictly procedural perspective…I remain convinced that those amendments the hon. member referred to do in fact go beyond the scope and alter the principle of the bill as already agreed to by the House.”

While the Chair appreciates the efforts to improve proposed legislation made by committees in the course of clause-by-clause consideration, the fact remains that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. In my view, by adopting an amendment that goes against the principle of the bill and that introduces a notion broadening its scope, a committee ventures beyond the role that the House has assigned to it.

Consequently, I must order that the amendment creating clause 3.1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.

In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-304 be published with all possible haste for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.

I thank the House for its attention.

Affordable Housing

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, last August, the Conservative government asked Ascentum to organize consultations, write a report and develop a national strategy to address the problem of homelessness.

Now—surprise, surprise—this agency's main suggestions are the same as the solutions the NDP has identified in our Bill C-304.

Will the government follow the advice in the report it commissioned?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, a strategy is action. It would force the minister to develop a strategy and to act on it.

I would note that regarding the stakeholders that the government has put forward as being supportive of the stimulus spending, of course they are supportive of it. It was the first time we had seen money for housing for quite some time, but those same stakeholders actually testified at the hearings on Bill C-304. They have come out strongly in support of a national housing strategy.

They have come out strongly in support of Bill C-304. They have called upon Canada to honour its obligation when it signed, in 1976, onto the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, saying out loud to the world that there is a right to housing in this country. Yet, we have seen no action on it. These same stakeholders are calling on us to honour our international obligations.

A national housing strategy would provide for a more productive and healthier workforce. It would provide stability for countless adults and children. It would cement housing as a right.

Why does the government continue to resist our housing strategy?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start this question to the government with a story. When I was a law student, I did a placement at Dalhousie Legal Aid Service doing poverty law work, and I worked with a lawyer on a case involving a young man who was involved in the criminal justice system.

Nova Scotia has an excellent restorative justice program for youth and this young man was diverted from court to a restorative justice contract where he had to fulfill certain obligations like going to school or doing volunteer work. This young man missed many of his restorative justice appointments. He was hardly ever at school. He did not even come close to completing his contract. He actually missed a court appearance and an arrest warrant was issued.

When we finally tracked him down, he did not have much to offer by way of why he could not complete his contract and he seemed resigned to the fact that he would go to jail. However, this was not the kid who we knew. This was not the kid who had made a mistake, had owned up to it and who was eager to learn from his mistake.

Eventually it came out that he and his mom had been kicked out of their apartment and they were homeless. They were couch surfing from friend's house to friend's house until she could scrape enough money together to put a down payment on a new apartment.

I think a lot about this young man, even now, years later. How was he supposed to go to school and concentrate on it when he did not have a home? How was he supposed to follow his bail conditions when he did not have a home? How was he supposed to concentrate on righting his wrongs when he did not have a home? How was he supposed to contribute positively to his community when he did not have a home?

This story is all too common. We know from a recent report of the Conference Board of Canada that 20% of Canadian households are not able to afford their housing. This means people are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. We know some Canadians spend 100% of their income on housing, forcing them to access food banks and soup kitchens in order to eat and to heat their homes with their ovens because they cannot afford heating. Heat is not a luxury, especially in a country like Canada; it is a necessity. Housing is not a luxury.

Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are on the brink of losing their homes. We need action. During this parliamentary session, we have the opportunity to set up a national framework that would ensure Canadians are housed. This is Bill C-304, which has been reported back to the House and awaits third reading.

This bill, introduced by my colleague from Vancouver East, would create a national housing strategy and would bring together all levels of government in order to set standards for housing across the country and ensure secure, accessible, affordable and sustainable housing for all Canadians.

The Conservatives claim they have already done enough. They cite stimulus money spent on housing as a sign that they are truly engaged in the issue. Every time we talk about housing in this place, they come back to the stimulus budget, but that is not a strategy. It is a piecemeal approach. It is visionless and it is not coordinated.

Two weeks ago we learned that only 300 housing units were promised to Inuit communities when we know the need was 1,000 units. We know what the solution is, so why should there be a shortage at all?

Time and time again the Conservatives defend their appalling record on housing. Despite having the opportunity to bring Canada in line with all other G8 countries, all those countries that have national housing strategies, they resist. They remain silent on their reasoning and they obfuscate on nothing more than ideological grounds, not based on social policy, on research, but on cementing an us versus them approach to Canadian politics.

Canadians want answers and they want solutions. They do not want their members of Parliament to refuse to see the woods for the trees. When will the government support our national housing strategy?

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

The first is many pages of petitions concerning a national housing strategy. I would like to thank the staff and students at Windermere Secondary School in Vancouver, particularly Donna Lee, who collected signatures. The petitions have also come in from Victoria, Vancouver, Saskatoon, Langley, Burnaby, Kingston, Ontario, Salmon Arm, B.C., Prince Rupert, Powell River, North Vancouver, Barrie, Ontario, right across the country.

The petitioners call for a national housing strategy that will ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians and for the passage of Bill C-304.

National Housing Strategy

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the honour to participate in the 2010 homelessness hunger strike relay to raise awareness about this crisis in Canada.

The relay will conclude in June with a delegation to Ottawa by train to mark the 75th anniversary of the On to Ottawa Trek, when thousands of unemployed men rode the trains to demand fair work and wages.

I collected pages and pages of messages from people who know only too well the reality of homelessness. One person wrote, “Homelessness exists because society allows it to”. Another wrote, “No homes, no life”.

Bill C-304 for a national housing strategy is currently before Parliament and is finding strong support across Canada. In Vancouver we are on the verge of losing hundreds of shelter beds because of lack of funding and lack of federal leadership. The need for a national strategy could not be more apparent.

Many MPs have heard from their constituents on this bill, and I hope those voices will be reflected with all-party support for a national housing strategy when it comes to a vote.

Jobs and Economic Growth Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-9, the budget implementation bill. I want to begin my remarks by commenting on the enormity of this bill. It is 872 pages long and has 24 different parts.

When one goes through the bill, whether one goes through the summary or starts looking at the bill in its totality, one can see immediately that the Conservative government has decided to use this bill as a cover for all kinds of very negative and bad public policy initiatives. We are certainly aware of that and this is one of the reasons it is very important that debate take place on Bill C-9.

I would add to the comments made by my colleagues that it is very ironic that Conservative members are choosing not to debate this bill, because it is simply enormous when one considers what is covered in it. We did hear the budget speech and we had the budget itself, but this budget implementation bill goes far beyond what was contained in the budget. It is using itself as a cover for all kinds of draconian measures. I will mention a couple.

Environmental assessment is a very important issue in terms of ensuring that the public interest is represented in dealing with environmental issues. Why is it in a budget implementation bill that the minister will now have all kinds of discretion to dictate the scope of environmental assessments of any of the projects to be reviewed? Why would it be that federally funded infrastructure projects can now be exempted from environmental assessment?

These are very serious questions which in and of themselves should be debated separately through legislation in a debate in the House, yet they have been slipped into Bill C-9, the budget implementation act. We are very concerned about that. We are very disturbed that the government is yet again using these kinds of means to try and slip important matters through the House.

The Conservatives did it a few years ago with Bill C-50, when they brought in all kinds of very substantive changes to the Citizenship and Immigration Act. They used a budget bill to do that. We see the same in this bill with Canada Post. We know that the Conservatives have tried to move a bill through the House which in effect would privatize aspects of Canada Post and affect the jobs and services that are provided by that crown corporation and federal agency.

We have held up that bill. We prevented it from coming forward. What is the response? Yet again, the Conservatives are trying to slip it through in the budget implementation bill. I am actually surprised that they did not try to include the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement and sneak that one through, too, because we have been holding that one up.

I want to reserve the rest of my comments for issues pertaining to what I think are very serious in my community and how this budget implementation bill does not deal with them.

I represent the riding of Vancouver East. It is a wonderful riding, full of activists and great neighbourhoods, and yet right now in the city of Vancouver there is a crisis taking place. The seven Vancouver homeless emergency action team shelters are slated to close by April 30.

Those shelters have been providing a safe, warm, appropriate place for people to go where there is a laundry facility, food, good management and care for about 600 people a night. There was a lot of suspicion that these shelters were put up just for the Olympics. Hundreds of thousands of people were in our city for the Olympics. We were all aware that we had a serious homelessness and housing affordability crisis in our city. These shelters were opened and they have provided support to people. That has been very important. Now they are going to close.

In fact, there has been a very public conflict going on between the province of B.C. and the city of Vancouver as to what will happen with these shelters. What is remarkable to me is that the federal government has not said one word. There is nothing about the federal homelessness partnering strategy and that maybe it could provide some assistance with these shelters now slated to be closed and the fact that there will be hundreds of people out on the street. It is just so staggering to understand what is taking place.

We are dealing with issues in my community that are deeply systemic. This housing crisis has gone on for two decades. It started with the former Liberal government that eliminated all of the housing programs. My Bill C-304 would try to get the federal government back into housing by working with the provinces, municipalities, first nations and civil society.

This crisis is incredible to me. People are out on the street in our city right now and more people will be out on the street because these shelters are going to close down.

The annual homeless count that was done on March 23 showed that the number of homeless people in Vancouver had increased 12% from 2008 from 1,576 people to 1,762 people. Those are numbers but we also need to think about this in terms of individual people. We need to think about the impact on people's lives when they do not know where they will go each night, do not have access to proper food, do not have a decent income, do not have proper shelter assistance to keep out of the cold and wet weather and do not have access to laundry facilities. These figures are staggering.

The only good news, if there is any good news, is that 1,300 of those 1,700 homeless people were in shelters. In fact, the number of people in shelters has increased, which is good, but, as I said before, these shelters will be closing.

I have to question the government with this budget implementation bill that is nearly 900 pages long as to why there is nothing in the budget that will help the City of Vancouver deal with this crisis as it tries to cope with the costs. It costs the city about $7 million to keep these shelters open when the federal government could be doing that.

The City of Vancouver, like other municipalities, relies on the property tax base. It does the best it can in stretching every single dollar. It has gone more than its distance and more than its responsibility in ensuring that these shelters are operating. It did get some assistance from the provincial government but most of that is now coming to an end.

This raises a very stark contrast. On the one hand, we see a budget that continues with outrageous tax breaks to corporations in the billions of dollars, robbing the public purse of desperately needed revenue, and on the other hand, we see communities, like the Downtown Eastside and other communities across the country, where people are destitute on the street and do not know where they will go each night.

A budget is about disclosing the real priorities and the real objectives of a government. We have had so much emphasis and focus on crime bills and little boutique bills. We have had so much overemphasis on law enforcement and tough on crime measures that will solve every problem we have, but we have deeply systemic and complex social issues in the urban environment, whether it is a lack of funds for public transit, lack of funds for housing or lack of funds for child care. People are literally struggling each month to get by.

The plight of homeless people is quite shocking but it affects a broader segment of society too. I know lots of working folks where both parents are working and making minimum wage or maybe a bit more and they are struggling to keep up with exorbitant child care costs, even if they can get into child care.

In addressing Bill C-9, the budget implementation act, I want to put it right out there that this is an outrage and a shame in terms of what the government has not done to address some of these ongoing and deeply systemic issues in our country. The gap is growing between wealth and poverty. More Canadians are falling into an environment where they cannot make ends meet.

We saw a wonder film the other night Poor no More that was premiered here on Parliament Hill hosted by Mary Walsh that showed so well in a very articulate way what is taking place for the working poor. These are people who are working, many of whom are getting a minimum wage. It showed how people are struggling and are actually living below the poverty line.

This is a bad budget implementation bill because it does not deal with what needs to be dealt with in my community and other communities. I hope that we can convince other members of the House not to support it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on behalf of the constituents of Vancouver Kingsway and to offer their feedback and views on Bill C-9, the budget presented by the Conservative government.

Prior to the budget being presented in the House, I spent several months meeting with my constituents in my office and in my community in every kind of context one can imagine. I visited owners of small businesses. I went to community centres. I went door-knocking from house to house. I visited my constituents on the streets, in the markets, in the businesses and in the cultural and recreational venues of Vancouver Kingsway.

I asked them about their lives. I asked them about the federal government and about the priorities they would like to see presented in the budget. This is a particularly cogent question. As we all know, over December, January and February of 2009 and 2010, many people, including the people of Vancouver Kingsway, had to deal with a challenging economic environment. Many people, from children to seniors to working men and women, to single mothers to owners of small businesses have been struggling.

These are the priorities that my constituents overwhelmingly and repeatedly mentioned they would like to see in this budget.

They wanted to see a budget that focused on creating jobs and not just jobs as a number on a page, but good, well-paying jobs upon which someone could raise a family. They wanted to see the federal government get back into developing affordable housing in the country. They wanted to see the provision of federal funds to create a national, universal, affordable and accessible child care system.

My constituents told me they wanted to see the federal government increase its transfers to the provinces in every aspect of education, from preschool to elementary and secondary public education to universities, trade schools and community colleges of every type. They told me they wanted to see the federal government increase spending on public transit. They wanted to see the government make a clear stand, both in policy terms and in financial backup to protect our environment.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway told me they wanted to see help for seniors, whether that was providing medical, dental and transportation support. They wanted to ensure that every senior in British Columbia and across Canada could have a decent, comfortable, safe and secure place to live.

They told me they wanted to support for small businesses. They told me they wanted to see fair taxation returned to the country. On that score, the people of Vancouver Kingsway, unlike the people on the other side of the House, believe in government and believe that if we pool our resources together, we can collectively build the kind of country that will provide strong public services for every person from coast to coast to coast.

Last, the people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see action taken on pensions. As the baby boomers age, as the demographics in the country move us closer to retirement in ever-increasing numbers, people across Canada, including those in Vancouver Kingsway, are starting to be concerned that they will not have enough money to live decent and dignified lives when they retire at the age of 60, 65 or 70.

I submitted these submissions to the Minister of Finance and I submitted them well in advance of the budget. I am also proud to say that I submitted a number of specific requests that also emanated from direct requests from the people of Vancouver Kingsway.

They wanted us to build a mid-sized performing arts theatre in Vancouver Kingsway. They wanted to see federal help to build a Filipino cultural centre and a Vietnamese cultural centre. They wanted to see investments in affordable housing at the Little Mountain site and at the RCMP headquarters site, which will soon be vacated. They wanted to see senior stand-alone housing, public housing projects and affordable renting housing developments backstopped by the federal government.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see the federal government make a clear stand for the children and youth of our communities and the recreational needs of our citizens by helping contribute funds to the Mount Pleasant outdoor pool, to help fund the programs and capital requirements of Cedar Cottage, Little Mountain and Collingwood Neighbourhood House

They wanted the federal government to help make sure that our community centres, such as Renfrew Park, Douglas Park, Trout Lake and Riley Park, have adequate space and enough funding for their programs.

They wanted to see increased services for new Canadians, the funding of more language training programs and more settlement and counselling services which are critically important to ensure that new Canadians can get settled and prosper in their new country of choice.

The people of Vancouver Kingsway specifically wanted to see more investment in community crime prevention programs and increased community policing in the riding. They wanted very practical environmental solutions right in the riding, things like bicycle paths and greenways in Vancouver Kingsway. They wanted to see increased tax credits and government grants to encourage the green retrofitting of residential and commercial buildings. They wanted to see the federal government lead the way in encouraging urban food production by investing in community gardens and other community food safety and security programs.

Most importantly, the people of Vancouver Kingsway wanted to see investments in our children. They wanted to see federal contributions to help us seismically upgrade our elementary and secondary schools. As we all know, Vancouver is in a seismically active area, and schools are the first places that people will go to in the case of an earthquake. We have seen earthquakes devastate so many countries in the world. I can say that the schools in Vancouver Kingsway and Vancouver are seismically unsafe.

They wanted to see capital and operating funds for elementary and secondary schools in Vancouver Kingsway, and operating funds for new and existing child care providers, because nothing is more important to the people of this country than their children.

Last, as I said, they wanted to invest in public transit to increase service levels on overcrowded bus routes, expand rapid transit in Vancouver and keep transit fares affordable.

This is what the people of my riding told me they wanted to see. But what did they see? Did they see the Conservative government deliver those priorities? Absolutely not.

We see very little new in this budget. It shows a government that has no clear vision for the economy. Even worse, it is repeating the failed policies of the past instead, policies that are based on the flawed assumption that increasing corporate tax cuts and deregulation are the way to fuel the economy of the future.

We see a budget that provided a missed opportunity to create jobs, help the vulnerable and contribute to building the strong kind of economy that will be needed in the years ahead. The truth is that none of the priorities expressed by the people of Vancouver Kingsway are reflected in the budget.

I heard it expressed recently that a budget represents the soul of the government. When we read the budget's priorities, we can see deeply into the very soul of the people who make up the government. We can tell what they think is important. In this respect we have a very clear picture of the type of soul on that side of the House, which is one that favours corporations, ignores the vulnerable and needy and does not fundamentally believe in building a strong, public system and delivery of services to all Canadians.

The budget should have included a national industrial strategy that focuses on investing in green jobs and the green economy. We would have liked to see a budget that provided high-paying jobs that are based on fostering innovation in green technology and green energy and, at the same time, adopting provisions that save families money on energy costs and that make sure that we have clean air, clean water and protect the environment for future generations.

We wanted to see a budget that was an opportunity to deliver on child care. Canadians need help getting back to work. Nothing is more important to them than their children, so what better way to invest and support working families than by making sure that when they drop their children off in the morning, they are in safe, secure, stimulating environments. Having a lack of child care disproportionately impacts women and low income families of all types. It is time we had a national child care program. Canadian families are waiting.

The budget was an opportunity to launch an affordable housing strategy. In Vancouver, housing is incredibly unaffordable, and the lack of affordable housing is a huge issue for many families. Too many Canadians have no adequate housing at all. Shamefully, in this country there are many people who are homeless.

Many people who are struggling to maintain housing, would like to purchase housing, or rent clean and affordable housing cannot do so. It is time that we had a federal government that came back into the housing file instead of leaving it to the provinces and cities. Without federal government participation we simply cannot provide acceptable affordable housing for everyone.

My colleague from Vancouver East has Bill C-304 before the House right now and it is time that we all got together and supported it.

I could go on, but I will conclude by saying that the budget needs to be rejected by members in the House. We need to replace it with a budget that works for everyday Canadians based on the priorities that have been identified by my constituents.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, here we are having returned to the House. We have had a throne speech. We have had a budget announcement, and now we are discussing the budget implementation bill. Like other budgets before it, I was hopeful about this budget. I was hopeful that it would be bold and visionary and that it would actually steer Canada toward a position of strength, but unfortunately, like other budgets, I was left disappointed.

The piece I am maybe the most disappointed with is the disconnect between the throne speech and the budget. In the throne speech, we actually saw some pretty interesting language about an innovation and productivity agenda. That really caught my eye. I was pretty excited about that language, but to even take that language at face value, we would have to ignore recent history.

If we just think about the Nortel experience very recently, the government essentially allowed Nortel to collapse before our very eyes. That company did the bulk of private sector research and development. It made Canada a leader in telecommunications. We just stood by and watched it fold and watched all of that research, all of that knowledge, all of that innovation get bought up by other countries.

That knowledge was our knowledge. That knowledge is our knowledge and now it is gone. If we add to that the fact that the government has utterly failed at least to try to protect the pensions of those knowledge-based workers, it does not bode well for any future innovation and productivity agenda the government purports to have.

Despite that recent example, in thinking about the future I was still optimistic about this productivity and innovation agenda. If we think about how best to accomplish that agenda, the moment was the stimulus budget and it was another lost opportunity. Innovation requires basic infrastructure such as broadband Internet access and investments in energy infrastructure. Last year's stimulus budget was the perfect time to invest in those infrastructure basics. It would have created jobs. It would have laid the groundwork for a real innovation and productivity agenda, but the government did not act then and this budget actually makes things worse.

The government's strategy is not to build infrastructure but actually to deregulate. Deregulation has proven to stifle innovation, whereas investment has proven to boost it.

We are on the wrong track. Members might wonder why. What I see is that the government has its head stuck in the tar sands and is unable to look beyond a tar sands growth strategy. This is what is going to impede any innovation agenda no matter how strong it is.

Canada has a history of resource dependency which has led to a tendency toward lower rates of productivity and innovation. Canada has done fairly well as a hewer of wood, drawer of water and pumper of oil, but we have paid the price with a less productive economy. This is an economic history that is catching up to Canada.

We have an ageing population. Add to that the growing importance of innovation to participate in a world economy, as well as the ecological cost of a resource-dependent economy, and we find ourselves in a very difficult position when considering the future. It is one that demands vision and bold action, but sadly, the government's economic strategy thus far has been to get rich off the tar sands.

We still offer subsidies to these companies, making the Canadian dollar a petrocurrency that fluctuates. These fluctuations make long-term value-added investments very difficult. That does not sound like very much of an innovation strategy to me.

We have been told the problem is that Canada's business class was lazy and that reducing the tariffs through free trade would whip them into shape. Free trade, corporate tax cuts and deregulation were supposed to solve our productivity problem, but they have not. What they have done is reinforced our nation's dependence on resource exports. It has hampered the government's ability to facilitate real innovation strategy.

Innovation almost by definition means doing something different. It means experimenting. It means promoting diversification of our economy. A laissez-faire approach will actually do the opposite. Giving tax cuts will increase profits to sectors that are not a part of the cutting edge, but they are actually a part of Canada's resource track.

A real strategy would provide direct support to entrepreneurs in the communities they are a part of. It would nurture them in early experimentation. It would help them network with other sectors and industries to facilitate knowledge exchange. It would give them basic infrastructure, and this does include social infrastructure, such as access to family security and strategies to gain community support for their endeavours.

An innovation strategy for Canada needs to include social infrastructure that will support communities and support hubs of knowledge sharing and innovation. This basic infrastructure must include housing. We are a country in desperate need of a national housing strategy. We are the only G8 country not to have this strategy.

My colleague from Vancouver East has introduced Bill C-304. This would create a national housing strategy for this country, a strategy that would also incorporate the very latest environmental and energy efficiency standards into this framework. We could transform communities across Canada, by providing not just stable and affordable housing, but sustainable and energy efficient housing as well. A stable community, a housed community, a community that has the means to survive: this is a productive community and yet the overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs do not support our housing bill.

While the U.K. is committing to retrofit all homes by 2030 with firm interim targets, our government just announced that it is going to cancel the very successful eco-energy home retrofit program. According to Green Communities Canada, which was actually the first organization to deliver the national home energy efficiency program, this program has stimulated hundreds of millions of dollars in energy savings for Canadians. A program like this generates huge savings. It also creates green jobs and improves our competitiveness, yet the program is being cancelled.

We are fed the line that the answer is to cut taxes, that if we cut taxes, we will instantly become productive and competitive. I recently attended a showing of Poor No More, a Canadian documentary. It was shown here on the Hill. It did a great job of dispelling this myth. It took a look at Ireland.

Ireland is often held up as being an example of a country that cut all of its corporate taxes and then succeeded economically, providing a model to follow. However, the example of Ireland is much more complex and nuanced than that. One piece of the puzzle is that Ireland has free post-secondary education. Ireland is committed to educating its citizens, inspiring them and creating a strong competitive and knowledgeable workforce that is the perfect breeding ground for innovation and productivity.

We need to take that kind of bold action in Canada. We need to ensure that every generation of Canadians has access to training and education in order to maximize the nation's productivity and responsiveness to new trends in research. We need to remove barriers to post-secondary education and stop the year-to-year increases in debt that graduates are laden with.

As the NDP critic for first nations, Inuit and Métis affairs focusing on urban aboriginal issues, it is of particular interest to me that aboriginal friendship centres have again been left out of this budget. Friendship centres need increased funding to provide services, to renovate their crumbling buildings and to better their technological capabilities. They are the heart of the urban aboriginal community. We have learned that about half of our first nations people live in urban centres. The friendship centres are vital to Canadian urban centres. They are a hub of activity and culturally appropriate programming and community collaboration. They deserve a fair shake. They are an economically sound investment.

If we invest in social infrastructure and add to that investment in other infrastructures that will specifically support innovation, we can start to piece together an innovation strategy for Canada. Imagine that. It can be done.

We know historically that certain technologies have created waves of innovation and that nations can position themselves strategically within these dynamics to achieve economic performance. In the last century we saw growth position around oil, and automobile and mass production, as well as a move toward an economy based on information and communications technologies.

Last year we found ourselves in a recession. Well, this was an opportunity because typically recessions are periods of change, when new periods of technology break through. This is why the Conservatives' scattershot stimulus spending was so short-sighted. They have run up a deficit, with nothing to show for it, and they failed to position Canada for the next wave of innovation, and the next wave is very likely to be one based on ecologically friendly technologies, and it needs to be if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change. This is where Canada should be building new knowledge and expertise and encouraging entrepreneurship.

The NDP has already fostered successful co-operation with our green car industrial strategy. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are pushing against this wave, as we have seen in their attempts to--

Bill C-304—An Act to ensure adequate, accessible and affordable housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some of the points raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons relating to an amendment made in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I will refer to a ruling that you made on January 29, 2008, referring to a committee amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act then before the House. In that ruling, you said:

In essence, what we are dealing with is the distinction between the principle of the bill and its scope. The principle refers to the purpose or objective of a bill, while the scope refers to its legislative scheme or the mechanisms that will give effect to the principle, purpose or objective of a bill.

In Bill C-304, the parliamentary secretary himself stated in his argument on April 1 that the purpose of this bill was to “require the development of a national housing strategy” by having the minister “consult all provincial and territorial ministers on the development of such a strategy”. He then said that the rules explain that amendments cannot be outside the scope or principle of the bill as passed at second reading, a rule with which we are all familiar.

I would submit that while the parliamentary secretary did give an accurate description of the principle and the scope of this bill, the principle is to develop a strategy and the scope or the mechanism is to do that through consultations. The key to the government's argument seems to prejudge what the results of these consultations will be.

The amendment in question is a permissive, not mandatory, amendment. It would give the minister an ability to achieve the principle of the bill, a national housing strategy, by refining the scope in terms of consultation to include an option that has been in place in other social policy strategies throughout Canadian history. Therefore, I would submit that the amendment does not change the scope or purpose of the bill but rather seeks to clarify it.

I believe that the committee chair's opinion on the principle of this bill may have been well-intentioned but the committee members were also correct when they decided that the amendment to allow the minister an option to respond to consultations, up to and including an opt-out for Quebec, was within the scope of possible consultations that are required to allow the minister to meet the principle of the bill, which is to develop a national housing strategy.

This option provided in the amendment is a reasonable one and one which is as old as Canada, the option to treat different parts of our country as different and unique.

The House recently passed a motion to define Quebec as a nation within our nation. We have the Canada pension plan and the national child benefit, two well-functioning national programs that Quebec has chosen not to participate in but instead to provide similar services. Quebec has opted out of the Canada student loans program since 1964 and recently received its transfer of approximately $125 million from the federal government in support of student financial assistance programs for the most recent academic year.

To go back further, the Liberal government's 2004 action plan on health exempted Quebec from the criteria and accountability set up for all other provinces and territories while guaranteeing full health transfer payments.

A further example is Canada's Social Union Framework Agreement of 2002, which was a pan-Canadian approach to the reform of Canada's health and social policy systems to which all provinces were signatories except Quebec. The Canada-Quebec accord on immigration allows Quebec to establish its own immigration requirements, distinct from the rest of Canada.

Governments for years, as former prime minister Paul Martin noted, have recognized “Quebec's unique place within the Federation”. It is reasonable that members of Parliament understand that any national strategy must reflect Quebec's right to protect its unique nature through the delivery of certain programs.

The amendment in question today does not alter the nature of the bill but clarifies this right. The government argued that, because an amendment to exclude Quebec from Bill S-3 was inadmissible, this amendment on Bill C-304 should also be inadmissible.

However, these two bills are not comparable. Providing the option for Quebec to opt out of a consultation process as outlined in Bill C-304 does not have the same effect on the act as the exclusion of Quebec does from Bill S-3, which was an act affecting the duties of every federal institution in Canada by enhancing the enforceability of the Government of Canada's obligations and of part 7 of the Official Languages Act.

It is also relevant that the 2005 ruling was not challenged by the majority of the committee members as necessary to the bill, as was the case of the amendment to Bill C-304. The aim of Bill C-304 is to ensure the delivery of the right to adequate housing.

Quebec is in the unique circumstance of having ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, recognizing the right to adequate housing, and currently meets many of the objectives outlined in Bill C-304.

Therefore, as this House stated when it defined Quebec as a nation within a nation, the principle of this bill being a national housing strategy should naturally reflect Parliament's definition of our nation, which is that it can include an asymmetrical form of federalism without changing the principle of being a united Canada.

Quebec has an existing agreement in place with the federal government giving Quebec jurisdiction over the development and delivery of its housing programs, clarifying that Quebec may participate in the process of establishing a national housing strategy, as was the case before the adoption of the amendment. It will only serve to enhance Quebec's potential willingness to participate in the process set out in Bill C-304.

Therefore in closing, I submit that the amendment made in committee is permissive and not mandatory. It only clarifies in nature an acknowledgement of our understanding of a nation within the scope and consistent with the principle of Bill C-304.

I further submit that this is a rare case when the chair's decision on the scope is misplaced and the members of the committee were correct in allowing this amendment to stand.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will take this into consideration and support the committee members who agree that this amendment does have its rightful place in Bill C-304.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had understood that you were going to consider the question and I rose on my point of order a little too quickly. As you know, in the Bloc Québécois, we are quick off the mark.

As I was saying, on April 1 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a point of order to have an amendment moved by the member for Chambly—Borduas to Bill C-304 ruled inadmissible. That bill was introduced by an NDP member with the goal of creating a national housing strategy. In fact, we should call it a Canada-wide housing strategy. Since the Quebec nation has been recognized by this House, there are at least two nations in the Canadian political space, if not more, counting the first nations and the Acadian nation.

The amendment proposed by my colleague would allow the government of Quebec to opt out of the Canada-wide strategy and to receive an unconditional payment equal to the total amount that would have been paid within its territory under that strategy. That is a very familiar principle: the right to withdraw unconditionally and with full compensation.

In his submission, the parliamentary secretary to the minister asserted that the national housing strategy has to be developed in collaboration with all provincial and territorial ministers, and that any amendment to exempt a province would be inconsistent with the purpose of the bill. Obviously, I do not share that view, since there are already many examples of so-called national strategies that are in fact Canada-wide strategies, in which Quebec does not participate, and this is not something new.

In the early 1960s, for example, Quebec had already established its own pension plan. In 1976 and 1977, if I recall correctly, there was an agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal government concerning the selection of immigrants. There is also a child care program. If that Canada-wide program had been adopted, as proposed by former Prime Minister Paul Martin, then, because Quebec already had its own system, it would be exempt from the other. I also recall, and I think it was in about 1998, that the government of Quebec and the federal government, after 30 years of negotiations, also agreed to exempt training measures so that Quebec could have its own structure with a commission of partners and local employment centres that deliver those services, which had formerly been offered by the Canadian government. Again, there are several examples of so-called national strategies that are in fact Canada-wide, where Quebec has the right to withdraw unconditionally and with full compensation.

In addition, the purpose of Bill C-304 is to establish a housing strategy, and the amendment would allow Quebec to opt out of the strategy in an area that is already under its jurisdiction: housing and social housing. It is therefore particularly understandable why my colleague from Chambly—Borduas introduced that amendment.

We certainly do not want the fact that Quebec is opting out to keep the other provinces, along with the federal government, from implementing a pan-Canadian strategy.

The committee that studied the bill felt that the Bloc's amendment was very much in keeping with the spirit of the legislation. On October 26, 2006, you rendered a decision—we do read your words, Mr. Speaker—on the admissibility of an amendment accepted by a standing committee, and you spoke about the general principles that guide your evaluation of decisions made in committee:

As all hon. members know, the Chair has always been extremely reluctant to be drawn into procedural arguments over committee proceedings since to do so would reopen matters which are properly left to committees themselves to resolve. Perhaps more significantly, such a practice would also undoubtedly tie up the time of the House in reviews of committee decisions defeating the very purpose of committees.

As I mentioned, the amendment presented by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas was accepted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Your comments from 2006, Mr. Speaker, were wise and I see no reason, in this case, to stray from these words of wisdom.

I would therefore ask that you consider the amendment presented my colleague from Chambly—Borduas to be admissible, given that it was accepted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Usurpation of the Title of Member of Parliament

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose on a point of order to state that an amendment was inadmissible, the amendment proposed by my colleague from Chambly—Borduas to Bill C-304, introduced by an NDP member to—

Housing

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition from Victoria is in support of Bill C-304, calling for a national housing strategy, for secure, adequate, accessible, affordable housing for all of us.

Bill C-304--Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the admissibility of an amendment to Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, which was adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on December 8, 2009.

On Monday, March 22, 2010, the committee agreed to re-adopt its report on Bill C-304 that was agreed to in the previous session on December 10, 2009. On March 24, 2010, the committee's report on Bill C-304 was tabled in the House.

The amendment appears as clause 3.1 in Bill C-304 which states:

The Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this Act and may, if it chooses to do so, receive an unconditional payment equal to the total of the amounts that would otherwise be paid within its territory under this Act.

During the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-304, the chair ruled that this amendment was inadmissible on the grounds that it was beyond the scope and principle of the bill agreed to at second reading. The chair stated:

...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.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-304 would require the development of a national housing strategy. Clause 3 of the bill would require the responsible minister to consult all provincial and territorial ministers on the development of such a strategy. Amending clause 3 to allow a province to opt out of a national housing strategy is inconsistent with the purpose of the bill and with clause 3 in particular.

There is no suggestion in the bill as adopted at second reading to support the addition of a provincial exemption from the national strategy. Obviously, such a change would fundamentally alter the purpose of the bill.

I regret that opposition members on the committee overturned the chair's ruling and the amendment now appears as clause 3.1 in Bill C-304, as reported to the House.

I would note that the chair's ruling on Bill C-304 is similar to the October 20, 2005 ruling of the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on an amendment to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Official Languages Act. That ruling stated:

I'm informed that amendment BQ-1...is inadmissible. That may be explained by the fact that Bill S-3 reinforces the binding nature of the government's obligations across Canada whereas this amendment is contrary to that spirit. Instead of reinforcing it, it instead provides for different treatment for Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Bill C-304 is beyond the scope and principle of the bill agreed to at second reading. Therefore, clause 3.1 of Bill C-304 should be ruled out of order.

Housing

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a petition in support of a national housing strategy. These petitioners are calling for an increased federal role in housing, through investments in not for profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, and sustainable and environmentally sound design, but investments that actually go beyond the one time stimulus investment in budget 2009 and 2010.

The petitioners are asking for swift passage of Bill C-304; a very timely request since this bill is soon to be reported to the House and receive third reading. So, the petitioners and I look forward very much to the minister's response.

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

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank all of the members of the committee for their hard work and collaboration.

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

For the second time in a year, the Conservatives shut down the work of Parliament. We know they did it to avoid the very important issues of Afghanistan and what happened to detainees.

I was very proud to attend the anti-prorogation rally that took place in Vancouver on January 23. It was wonderful to see the young people who came out to the rally. Some people had not been to a political protest before, but they came because they absolutely did not buy the very flimsy and transparent reasons the Prime Minister gave for proroguing the House.

Yesterday we debated the NDP motion to place limits on prorogation and prevent the abuses we have seen take place under the Conservative government. The NDP motion basically stated that if the House was to be prorogued for more than seven days, there had to be a resolution and vote in Parliament on the reasons for prorogation. I am very pleased the motion passed.

The reason the House was prorogued for five weeks was the government was supposedly recalibrating its agenda and setting a new agenda, with promises to listen to Canadians. When we heard the Speech from the Throne and the budget, there was no other conclusion but to say that it did not come up with anything new.

The things people in my community of Vancouver East need and have called for, whether it is child care reform, an end to homelessness, the need for affordable housing, protection for seniors or an end to the HST, none of those are included in the Speech from the Throne or the budget.

Several major organizations in Vancouver, child care groups like First Call: BC Child and Youth Advocacy Coalition, when asked in the prebudget consultations, made it very clear to “Give priority to federal tax and program spending that will increase Canada’s investment in early childhood development”. They pointed out that for every dollar invested in child care, we put something like $2.30 back into the economy. That is an important economic and social investment, which helps women in the labour force and families overall.

When we compare the economic investment and the positive results, consider that the OECD and UNICEF rank Canada dead last in the provision of early learning and child care. We should be ashamed of that.

What did the Speech from the Throne and the budget produce in that regard? In terms of the Speech from the Throne, child care was mentioned exactly twice. Housing was only mentioned once compared to the crime agenda, which was mentioned 12 times. We begin to get a bit of a comparison of where the emphasis is by the government.

The only changes made in terms of anything to do with child care was a measly increase of $3.35 per week for the universal child care benefit. That will not create a single day care space, not in my riding, not anywhere else across the country. In fact, the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC called this measure one of the greatest failures, saying that the taxable $100 a month baby bonus “is NOT a child care program”.

This is a huge issue for working families. After housing in British Columbia, child care is the second highest cost facing B.C. families. That is astounding. I am going to speak about this in a couple of minutes. Housing is bad enough, but the second highest cost facing families is the cost of child care. In fact, $1,200 per month is the average cost of care for a child under three years.

In 2010 a metro Vancouver family with a four-year-old and a two-year-old in full-time child care will pay $23,700 annually in fees. That is astounding. For the average working family, that digs a big hole in its pockets and monthly income. Even for the child care spaces that are available, there are huge waiting lists.

Right across from my constituency office in Kingsway in Vancouver, the brand new Mount Pleasant Community Centre 3 Corners Child Care Centre was forced to shut down its waiting list. Why? It has over 400 names on the waiting list and it decided it did not want to give parents a false hope about getting their child into care when the list was already so long.

That is a pretty dismal record. It really disturbs me that this daily reality that the average family faces around child care and housing was not even addressed in the throne speech or the budget.

I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the housing issue. In my community of east Vancouver and the downtown eastside and in Vancouver generally, a crisis is taking place. I participated in some of the events during the Olympic period in Vancouver. For example, the Red Tent Campaign, which was organized by the Pivot Legal Society, had 500 emergency red tents established. A tent village was set up in a vacant lot on East Hastings Street that was to be used for parking for Vanoc vehicles because people were so desperate for housing.

We and other groups appealed to BC Housing to help find people shelter so they could move out of the tents into appropriate space. About 70 people did secure housing, but there is still a number of tents sitting in that vacant lot, on the mud, waiting for a proper housing solution to come forward. It is so outrageous, in a country as wealthy was Canada, that the Conservative government cannot give housing a priority.

I have a housing bill, Bill C-304, which calls for a national housing strategy and for the participation of all levels of government. It has huge support across the country, from municipalities, from first nations, from housing organizations, from faith groups. I hope when the bill comes back to the House for report stage and third reading, it will go through.

I could not believe there was nothing in the budget for housing. People in the downtown eastside, students, seniors, even families making modest incomes cannot afford affordable housing, whether it is in Vancouver or metro Vancouver generally. This was a huge failure in the Speech from the Throne.

It has been same with pensions. Our pension critic, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, has done a tremendous job in bringing forward the issue of pensions and the fact that people are getting ripped off in their private pension plans and that the public pension plan itself is not doing justice to people. Many seniors are living below the poverty line.

We know a modest investment of $700 million toward guaranteed income supplement payments would close the gap of poverty among seniors. It would be such a dignified and important thing to do. Did we see it? No. What did we see? Instead we saw the mad race to the bottom by the government giving away another $6 billion in corporate tax cuts that are scheduled for this year. It is the hypocrisy and contradictions. The people who actually need the help, who should be the priority in our country, are somehow left out on the margins in the cold. Yet these wealthy corporations are doing very well. We know the banks have doubled their profits, for example, but they still get these big corporate tax breaks. I just find it very shameful.

As the member for Elmwood—Transcona pointed out a few moments ago, how can the Conservatives live in good conscience with this kind of massive tax shift that is taking place?

Another point is the Aboriginal Healing Foundation is coming to an end March 31. This is so important in my community. Groups like Healing our Spirit BC Aboriginal HIV/AIDS Society and the Indian Residential School Survivors Society have used this money to help with the healing process. Every day I see the impact of residential schools on survivors and what it means to people in my community. Why is this program coming to an end? Why was it not included in the budget for a further commitment? It is so essential to the respect and dignity of aboriginal people.

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.

[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, 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.

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.

National Housing Strategy

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by petitioners in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The petitioners are calling for a national housing strategy that will ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians. In particular, they are looking for an increased federal role through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing that go beyond the one-time stimulus investment contained in Budget 2009.

They are asking for Parliament to ensure swift passage of private member's Bill C-304.

Second Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-395, the proposed changes to the Employment Insurance Act with respect to labour disputes.

This legislation addresses what I think is a bit of a gap in the EI system right now and in the Employment Insurance Act. The question is: what should be done if the qualifying period for somebody who has lost his or her job includes work lost because of a labour disruption? This bill is a reasonable attempt to address the gap. At the very least, it is worthy of further study at committee, so we can identify whether or not there is more that needs to be done. Also, to some extent, we could perhaps address the issue of what the cost might be. I see that the Speaker has ruled that a royal recommendation will be required.

Let me speak to the issue this bill addresses and how it proposes to solve it. Right now, somebody's qualification for employment insurance is determined by the qualifying period that precedes the loss of employment, and that is 52 weeks. There are allowances for certain instances such as sickness, but not for work time lost due to a labour disruption.

During a labour dispute, employees cannot draw EI. They can, in some cases, receive strike pay. Or they could, conceivably, go out and get another job, although it is a very difficult circumstance in which to look for a job when one is hoping to go back to a job that one currently holds. If one gets strike pay, of course, it is different from having insurable earnings for EI.

It is always difficult to determine costs when we are looking at employment insurance. It involves very complex calculations. This year, we had the issue of what it actually costs in another area of qualification, the 360-hour national qualifying standard. Just over a year ago, last spring, because of a request from the committee looking at a private member's bill, the HRSDC department had estimated that cost at somewhere around $600 million or $700 million. The exact figure does not come to me, but it was in that range.

Other people have estimated it will cost $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year. That would make sense, because there are more people unemployed now than there were last spring, and there has been a slight escalation in cost. As a result of a request from the employment insurance working group established by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, we had the outrageous guesstimate, we might call it, of over $4 billion. They came back and said this would cost over $4 billion.

That did not make any sense. Everybody knew that was nuts. In fact, the government itself came back a little bit later and said the cost was actually about $2.5 billion. We asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer and he came in with a cost of about $1.1 billion, which notionally makes sense and obviously was statistically backed up. But that is why we have issues with costs when we start looking at employment insurance.

We have the same thing when we look at two-week waiting periods. What is the cost of a two-week waiting period? It is not really a waiting period; it is an out-of-luck period for a person who loses his or her job. What is the cost of that? The estimates have varied a bit on that, as is the case with this bill.

This bill does indicate that if a job is lost following a labour disruption, allowances can be made. It is very difficult for people and families who are already suffering from being unemployed because of a labour disruption when, all of a sudden, they come back and within a short period of time they are laid off completely and find out that their qualification for EI has been affected.

In essence, this bill will simply extend the qualifying period by the length of time of the labour dispute. As I have indicated before, qualifying is a huge problem in this country. It has been identified as the number one problem with the EI system. Many solutions have been proposed over the last number of years, and specifically in the last year.

We have had private member's Bill C-269 and private member's Bill C-265 from the member for Acadie—Bathurst and the member for Chambly—Borduas. In this session, we have looked at Bill C-241, Bill C-280 and Bill C-304. These are serious attempts to have a look at what the gaps are in the EI system, particularly at a time of economic difficulty.

We are still in this; we are still seeing job losses. We saw the numbers that came out the other day. There are still people in Canada who are losing their jobs. The economy needs a little bit of help. Everybody talks about stimulus. From any reports I have seen, the best stimulus is to invest in people who have lost their jobs or are in economic difficulty, because they will in fact put the money back into the economy, which is what stimulus is supposed to be all about.

We have heard from many people, including all the premiers from Ontario to the west, who normally have not spoken out much on employment insurance. All of the premiers of varying political stripes have said that we need to look at the issue of accessibility. We need to have a look at these variable entrance requirements, particularly at a time of economic difficulty, to see if they still make sense, because they are hurting the provinces. We heard that from the Minister of Finance's wife, when she was running for the leadership of her party in Ontario. We heard it from Premier Stelmach and Premier Campbell, and every premier, including Premier Brad Wall in Saskatchewan.

We have heard it from social policy groups. We have heard it from economists. We have even heard it from organizations that one might not normally think would call for such a thing. TD Economics has called for it. The Chamber of Commerce urged that we have a look at a couple of things in its prebudget submission this year, including entrance rates, but also at the two-week waiting period. These are all things that can be done to improve the system right away.

We have to have a look at what has the government done for employment insurance, recognizing finally that we are in a period of economic distress. As the House will recall, last November when the United States was already looking at proposals to assist people who were unemployed, we had an economic update that offered nothing.

In January, when we came back after Parliament was prorogued, EI was addressed in a specific way by adding five weeks of eligibility, which was a step forward in my view. If we look at the private members' bills that we have seen in the House over the past few years, the extra five weeks was always a small piece of it.

Of course, there was nothing on the two-week waiting period, nothing on accessibility, and nothing on increasing the rate of payment from 55% to 60%, which is called for a lot. But the five weeks were helpful and they were particularly helpful because they affected all Canadian workers; they did not pick winners and losers.

That is why the five weeks was a good piece of public policy at the time, but they are nowhere near to being enough and did not address the issue of accessibility that the 360-hour national standard would address. But the five weeks were something for all workers in Canada.

This fall we had a couple of pieces of legislation, one of them being Bill C-50, which would extend benefits from 5 to 20 weeks, but only for a select few, the fortunate few, in this country.

In the spring the government was saying that it was going to offer extra benefits to everyone, and then in the fall it said it was going to go back to a small percentage of the unemployed. One may qualify for between 5 and 20 weeks, but if one has drawn on EI before, too bad. If one happened to be a seasonal worker in northern New Brunswick, or in the fishing industry or the tourism industry, or others like that, one did not qualify for the extra 5 weeks.

That kind of discriminatory approach flies in the face of what the government was proposing to do at the beginning of the year, which was to provide equality in the employment insurance system, at least on the extension of benefits, if not in actually going to the number one source of irritation for Canadians, for workers, public sector unions, social policy groups, economists, think tanks, premiers and the wife of the finance minister. They were all saying that the system is not fair and that we have to fix it.

The reason it is not fair is that accessibility requirements range too much. At a time of economic difficulty, we need to do something to assist all Canadians and we need to make sure that people who lose their jobs do not feel like the government has forgotten them.

I would remind members that earlier this year the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development was quoted as saying she did not want to make EI too lucrative. I remind the House and the millions who are watching at home that average employment insurance benefits are somewhere in the range of $330 a week. There are not that many people in the House who would want to work for $330 a week, or would feel very excited about losing their job so they could get $330 a week. I think the maximum is $440 a week.

EI is far from being a lucrative proposal for anyone. We have to keep in mind as well that people cannot draw EI in Canada if they voluntarily quit their jobs. If they quit their jobs, they do not get EI. They are told that they do not qualify. They can appeal it and they might be able to make their case, but they cannot quit their jobs and get EI.

Therefore, for an individual to suggest that EI is lucrative and that anyone would deliberately try to qualify for it, the individual would have to suggest that the person find a way to lose his or her job without quitting it. That person would have to get the employer to let him or her go so he or she could make 55% of his or her previous earnings.

Bill C-395 is worthy of consideration. I congratulate my colleague who brought it forward. We think it addresses a gap in the system. We think that at a time of economic difficulty, this is when we need to invest in employment insurance, because employment insurance assists Canadians when they need it the most, through no fault of their own from a work stoppage. It should not be made harder because of a labour disruption in the previous qualifying period.

Economic Recovery Act (stimulus)

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to report stage of Bill C-51, which, ironically, is called the economic recovery act (stimulus).

The NDP has been supporting the bill because it does contain some significant measures that were in the budget that we approved last spring but were never actually implemented. They are now included in this bill, and I will go into that later. I did want to reflect on the fact that this is called the economic recovery act and, as we heard today, there was not good news for Canadians, in terms of the number of people who are unemployed.

We know that over the last year we have had a net loss of about 400,000 jobs in Canada. That is very significant. However, the numbers today show us that there has been a further increase of 43,000 to 44,000 people who are unemployed and the heaviest losses were in B.C. and Alberta, being 13,000 and 15,000, respectively.

I raised this today in question period because I guess the one thing that really bothers us is that we have seen the so-called economic action plan and the stimulus program from the current government and yet, we continue to see these heavy losses and erosion of jobs. From the numbers that we saw released today, it is particularly difficult for women and young people. Many of the jobs that were lost were part-time jobs. That means that they were people who were already having a really hard time dealing with this economic crisis. They may be people who will not qualify for EI.

The NDP has spent a lot of time in this House bringing forward very substantive proposals. In fact, we have 12 bills concerning reform of the EI. That just shows how bad the program is. This is a program that was designed to help unemployed people and yet, we have 12 different bills on different aspects of the program because we think it so badly needs to be fixed.

So, for those unemployed folks who, over the last month, lost their jobs, just think about the impact that would mean. They might have had a part-time job in the first place or maybe they were a young person, or a woman contributing to the family's income, or a lone parent, and they have to face the fact that they cannot even rely on employment insurance.

I think it is a very serious and dire situation for so many Canadians. Juxtapose that against all of the rhetoric that we hear from the government side. We are told that the worst of the recession is over. We are told that its economic stimulus plan is working. We are told not to worry about it, that the government is going to take care of things. Yet, these jobless numbers keep rising and the impact on our local communities keep mounting. I think that we are facing a very serious situation.

I know that yesterday in question period my colleague from Winnipeg Centre had one of the doorknocker propaganda pieces that the government has been distributing, we understand, to 3.5 million households, concerning the home renovation tax credit.

That is one of the measures that is contained in this bill and is actually one of the reasons we are supporting this bill. It was a measure announced in the last budget, but it was not actually in the budget implementation bill. For some strange reason, it was left behind and then had to be introduced later through a ways and means motion, and now it is in this bill. There is no doubt that it is a very popular program. We see it advertised on TV by home improvement centres and there is probably very good awareness about that program.

There are two things here to note.

First, why is it that the Conservative government would then spend, presumably, millions of dollars on further propaganda messaging and advertising about the program when it is already very well known? In fact, people can receive information at building improvement and home improvement centres.

There has been so much emphasis on the politicization of the economic stimulus program, whether it is the oversized cheques that had the Conservative logo or individual MPs signing these cheques. These things are pretty outrageous and I think people feel pretty cynical about it.

The question from the member for Winnipeg Centre really highlighted that the government will leave no stone unturned when it comes to promoting itself and its political message, but when it comes to really, truly helping people, really digging in and finding out what is wrong or what needs to be done, the government kind of shuffles it along and says it is doing a good job.

On the home renovation tax credit, we do support it. As far as it goes, we do support it and there is no doubt that there has been a lot of pickup on the program, but we ask the question, why does it not go further? Why was it not linked to a broader green energy retrofit program, particularly for low income Canadians? There are many Canadians right across the country who live in housing that is substandard. Their heating systems are very poor. They are not energy efficient.

These are the people who need help. These are the people who would have welcomed a broader program that would have helped them maybe with some other kinds of incentives beyond a tax credit. The fact is that many people cannot take advantage of this program because they may not have the money to actually spend on that home renovation.

I know, for example, that there was some money in the economic stimulus program to help housing co-operatives. Many co-ops that were built in the seventies and eighties are facing envelope failures. Some of them were not well constructed. They are certainly not energy efficient, and although there was some money earmarked in that budget to assist those co-ops, we do know that the demand and the applications that have gone in have far exceeded what is actually available. There is a very good example of where this home renovation tax credit program actually could have been part of a much broader program that would really tackle this major question of energy efficiency and housing affordability in this country.

Yesterday at the HRSD committee, I appeared as a witness before that committee in support of my bill, Bill C-304, which calls for a national housing strategy, something that we do not have in Canada, which is really quite unbelievable. We are the only industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy.

In putting forward this idea for a framework and a strategy for housing and leadership from the federal government, we come back again to this question of needing to have a coordinated and comprehensive approach to housing in this country. There are something like four million Canadians who are in housing insecurity. They are either paying too much for their housing, living in very substandard housing, facing eviction or one paycheque away from being on the street, or it might be all of the above. They might be in housing that is overcrowded and very inappropriate for a family situation. Certainly, that is a huge issue for remote aboriginal communities on reserve, where we have seen the most appalling conditions for aboriginal people in this country.

There is no question that we need a national housing strategy, that we need leadership from the federal government, but it is not only a question of good public policy. It is also a question of very sound economic policy, and in my mind, if we had a really good housing supply program in this country, something that we have talked about for years and that we have suffered from because we do not have it, it would be a huge economic stimulus. Generally, building housing creates good jobs for carpenters, electricians, plumbers, drywallers, architects, landscapers, and the list goes on.

The question of housing affordability and generating the comprehensive program with leadership from the federal government would be something that would be a really significant economic and social investment in the future of our country. We would actually be helping people. There is no question that having housing security and knowing that one's housing is affordable, accessible, safe and appropriate is one of the most basic things in our lives. If we do not have that, we know how hard it is to do anything else such as going to school, going to work, raising kids, and knowing what is going to happen at the end of the month.

That is one of the reasons I wanted to focus on that. It really bugs the hell out of me that there is this very small home renovation tax program that is popular and yet so much more could have been done, if we only had a government that was seriously focused on a substantive economic stimulus program that would actually help people.

There are other provisions in Bill C-51 that we are supportive of. The home renovation tax credit is one. The first-time home buyers' tax credit is another. The revenue sharing agreement with Nova Scotia is another one. Members have already raised the issue of drought relief for livestock owners.

There are also some provisions around pensions and some fairly minor adjustments in terms of pension changes. I want to spend a few minutes on this. This has been the other key substantive proposal advanced by the NDP.

We are very worried about what is happening to seniors in Canada. There are seniors who are living below the poverty line. They depend on old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. Even those seniors are still living below the poverty line, particularly if they live in urban areas where they do not have good housing. One can see how it relates back to affordable housing again.

I am very proud of the fact that the NDP has made very substantive proposals to reform the pension program just as we have done for EI. We see these as the basic foundations of what quality of life is about in Canada, and what human dignity means in this country. As Canadians, we tell ourselves that we live in a fair-minded country; we live in a country where there is equal opportunity, where there is no discrimination and where everybody has the right to use their own human potential, yet, we have seen so much over the last couple of decades.

We have seen a growing gap between wealth and poverty. We have seen the incomes of CEOs rise and rise, sometimes in an utterly obscene way. Just look at the pension investment board and the millions of dollars in bonuses that are being paid out. It is unbelievable. I am sure that those people are doing their jobs, although one could argue that the pension programs have not been well managed. They get these massive bonuses and yet, on the other side, there are people who are really hurting and are having a tough time getting by every month.

The pension system itself is something that I think more and more people are understanding is in serious trouble, whether it is a private pension program, or whether it is a senior who is dependent on OAS and GIS. We have seen the situation with Nortel here in Ottawa and what has happened to those people who paid in good faith into their pension plan only to now be terribly worried about whether or not they will ever be able to collect their pension or, if they were on long-term disability, only to find out that their support for that may be in jeopardy.

The proposals we have put forward are very substantive in terms of significant increases to the guaranteed income supplement and say up front that no senior in this country should be living in poverty. When one has worked for decades, whether it is in paid work or unpaid work, when people have contributed to this country, they should at least be assured that they have enough money in their retirement years to live in a decent way. Nobody here is talking about luxury or affluence. We are talking about the basic necessities of life.

The NDP did have a motion that was approved in the House last June. We did a lot of research on the proposals that we have advanced. Our member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek travelled across the country, talked to seniors and got tons of feedback. He heard and did wonderful things.

It is unfortunate that this so-called economic recovery act that we are debating today is so minuscule. It does not do the job in terms of where people need to get that support from programs, services and investment in our economy. There are other provisions in the bill. One of the provisions concerns the CBC.

How many times have there been questions, at least from our side, on the future of the CBC? This is an iconic institution in this country. It was fighting for its life in terms of financing and asking for bridge financing. We raised that issue over and over again in the House. The reply from the heritage minister was more of a brush off. We are glad to see in the bill some recognition of the financial situation facing CBC and that it will be able to have some of that bridge financing, which we called for and which it was seeking. It is obviously something that is very important to the financial stability of the institution.

I would like to speak about what the Conservative government is doing with respect to economic recovery. I am from British Columbia. I represent the riding of Vancouver East, which by and large is a low income riding. People really do struggle. They do not actually ask for a lot.

I am always amazed when I go out in the community. I hold travelling community offices. People come forward to tell me what is going on in their lives. I am always amazed at how resourceful people are. People are struggling to survive with very few resources, whether it is their housing situation, a work situation, trying to find affordable child care, or a student going to post-secondary education who is struggling with student loans and tuition fees. I am really amazed at how people get it together and keep going, but we can see how hard it is and how stressful it makes people's lives.

It has been pretty rough in B.C. We have seen the re-election of the Liberal government under Gordon Campbell who promised so many things but all he has done is attack workers, rip up collective agreements, allow privatization of health care and has not done anything to support a better child care program. Then kind of the worst happened. After the election, we suddenly learned that B.C. was going to be hit with the HST. The firestorm that has created in my province has just been unbelievable. It has crossed the political spectrum. Former premiers, such as Bill Vander Zalm, business people, small business people, the restaurant association, the labour movement, certainly the provincial NDP and hundreds of thousands of regular folks in B.C. are signing petitions.

Some of the polls that have been done show there is 80% opposition to the imposition of the HST. It is not just the HST itself, which is really a tax shift, but it is a shift from what corporations have paid on to consumers. I do not have the full list of things that it covers in front of me, but I know it includes newspapers, magazines, movie theatre tickets, haircuts, funerals, vitamins, baby diapers, food and clothing. The restaurant association has estimated that for restaurant meals alone the extra cost will be $694 million in B.C.

One issue is the tax itself. It is a regressive tax. It is a shift from corporations on to individual consumers. It is also the manner in which it was done. People are really outraged that during the provincial election there was no discussion of it. In fact, people were told there would be no more tax increases. Yet somehow after the election this issue suddenly started to appear.

We have been asking questions every day. We have been trying to find out when the negotiations took place and what negotiations took place between the federal and provincial governments. We are still trying to find that out. I think people in B.C. would be very interested to know when it was that those negotiations began to take place.

It is sort of ironic that on the one hand we have this bill before us today that promises economic recovery and yet on the other hand we have a Conservative government that is slapping people in B.C. with the HST. In fact, the Conservatives are running from it. They are trying to claim that it is not their problem, that the decision is up to B.C.

We know it originated with the Conservative government. We know it was in the federal budget. We know that the finance minister has actually been campaigning and advocating for this. We know that the Liberal members have been lining up with it as well. It feels like a slap in the face to people in B.C. who are going to feel the impact of this increased tax on the everyday items that they need to purchase.

It is the most terrible timing to think about bringing in this tax during an economic recession. The NDP has been saying loud and clear that this HST proposal must stop. My guess is that the opposition to it will continue to grow in B.C.

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.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say thank you to my colleagues in the House who today spoke in support of Bill C-304 and also thank you to the Speaker for his ruling on whether or not this bill required a royal recommendation.

It was written very carefully to avoid a royal recommendation and I appreciate the ruling from the Speaker today which will allow the bill to, hopefully, pass second reading, go to committee and then come back to the House for a final vote.

I have to say that as a signatory to the United Nations International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Canada has an obligation to provide adequate housing for all its citizens. However, we have to note that in the past decade, as my colleagues have pointed out, we have fallen perilously behind on our commitments, leaving about three million Canadian households in housing insecurity and with thousands of others who are homeless.

The bill I believe is a much needed pan-Canadian framework from which to address homelessness and invest in social, cooperative and other non-profit housing solutions.

I want to affirm again to my colleagues in the Bloc that I understand their concerns with the bill, and I wish to commit again that it is the intent and the commitment of the NDP that should the bill go through second reading and into committee, we will ensure that there is an amendment along the lines of recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of Quebec with regard to social housing in Quebec, and, notwithstanding any other provision of the act, that the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of the bill, and that should there be a transfer of funds that it may choose to be exempted but shall receive in full any transfer payment arising from the implementation of the strategy. I give that commitment that we will seek that in the committee, and I know that the Bloc members will support that.

It is very disappointing to hear again that the Conservatives reject the bill and characterize it as a liability. How could the provision of housing be a liability for goodness' sake? However, I did want to let the members across the way know that since the first hour of debate, the bill has had tremendous support across the country.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Halifax, the NDP housing critic, who has done tremendous work on the bill. We have presented hundreds of petitions with thousands and thousands of signatures in the House, from right across the country in support of the bill. We have organizations like the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada; StreetLevel: The National Round Table on Poverty and Homelessness here in Ottawa, which are supporting this bill and urging their members across the country to support it; the MultiFaith Alliance to End Homelessness in Toronto; The Homelessness and Housing Umbrella Group in Kitchener. We have mayors across the country, from Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson; Victoria; Sudbury Mayor John Rodriguez; Tracadie-Sheila; Maisonnette Sainte-Marie-Saint-Raphael; Petit Rocher. The list of municipalities that at the end of the day deal with this crisis in their own backyard is staggering. That is why they are supporting the bill.

Organizations like the Canadian AIDS Society and the Wellesley Institute, which my colleague mentioned earlier, have done very fine work on bringing forward the research and the issues around the crisis of housing in Canada.

We have other organizations such as the Salvation Army, which has called for a national housing strategy in its report. It states that poverty should not be a life sentence.

We have Campaign 2000. We have the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay. The organizations are growing and growing in terms of supporting the bill.

It is just outrageous that the Conservatives are somehow still saying that they see the bill as a liability and as something they will not support.

I hope very much as we approach the vote, when we return from our constituency week that a majority of members of this place will have heard the message from their own constituents that this is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed in our country. The right to housing, the right to adequate, safe, secure, affordable housing is a fundamental human right. We are committed to working on this until we actually get that achieved in this country.

The bill is one step in that process and I very much look forward to the support from the members of the House so that we can get this bill through. We want to get it into committee so that we can look at appropriate amendments. I would even hope that some of the Conservative members will finally see the light of day and look at the organizations that are supporting the bill and recognize that it is in the interests and needs of their constituents too, those who need this bill, who need a national housing strategy to finally be developed in this country.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-304, the secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing bill. It was introduced by my colleague from Vancouver East, and I thank her for again keeping this issue of the need for a national housing program before the House and before Canadians. She has done great work on this issue, especially since she was first elected in 1997. One of the first things she undertook was a cross-country tour and survey. She had meetings with community groups and community leaders to determine the exact housing needs of Canadians, which were very serious back in 1997 and have not improved significantly since that time.

One of the things that came out of her work was her first housing bill of rights. That was a very detailed piece of legislation that had been debated in the House on other occasions. It was not successful, but we kept reintroducing it, hoping to convince members from all corners of the House of the importance of this kind of legislation.

The housing bill of rights would have established the right to safe, adequate, secure housing as a basic human right in Canada, in law in Canada. It was excellent legislation, and I hope the day comes when we have a government that is willing to implement a housing program, which ensures housing for all Canadians as a basic human right.

Sadly, that bill has had to undergo some readjustment, given the requirements of royal recommendations. I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you ruled earlier that this latest version of the bill does not require a royal recommendation, that it does not require significant new spending and that it is merely a call to the government to implement and to develop a national housing program. It offers advice about how that can be accomplished.

It is not the bill that I know the member for Vancouver East had envisioned. It is in fact not the bill she prepared. It is not the bill that we in the NDP would ultimately like to see, but it is an important step, given the restrictions that apply to private members' legislation in our parliamentary system.

The bill would require the government to convene a national conference of provinces, aboriginal communities, municipalities and other interested parties to develop a national housing strategy that would provide secure, adequate, affordable, accessible and not-for-profit housing for Canadians, which is a very important step. It is a good process. It is a process that also recognizes the interests of Quebec. It also recognizes the interests of aboriginal and first nations communities and communities of the Inuit as well. It sets out a process that will help us develop the kind of program we need nationally in Canada.

When United Nations officials and officials from other countries come to Canada to look at the housing situation, they are absolutely appalled by what they see, and that is a great embarrassment. A couple of years ago the UN Special Rapporteur said that he saw our housing as a national crisis. He could not understand how a country as wealthy as Canada could have a housing situation as dismal as it was. It is not an appropriate situation and it does require our attention. We did not get that from the previous Liberal government and we do not have it from the Conservative government.

The previous Conservative speaker tried to make a case for what the Conservative government was doing. The reality is if the Conservatives had not come in to government when they did and been able to spend the money that the New Democrats fought for from the previous Liberal government, they would have precious little to show in terms of new acts and in terms of housing. The Conservatives take credit for housing money, money for a national housing program that the New Democrats fought for in the 38th Parliament. It was a one-off. It was not an ongoing program, but that was the money the Conservatives were able to spend and put into a housing program. Now they claim they have done something. I do not think it would have been their inclination to go down that road if the way had not already been established by the action of New Democrats in that previous Parliament.

The economic stimulus budget does have some money for housing projects, which is an important engine for economic development and would help us get out of the recession, but it is a one-off kind of thing. It is not an ongoing national housing program attached to a national housing strategy, and that is what we need. We are still falling short. We are still failing to meet the requirements of a national housing program.

If people were to come to my riding of Burnaby--Douglas and talk to people who work on the issue of homelessness and housing in my local community, they would hear that one of the things that is absolutely necessary to address the housing needs of Canadians is a national housing program and the involvement of the federal government in solving this crisis.

In fact, if people were to go into any community across Canada and talk to the people who work on this issue, who work with people who are under-housed, who live in deteriorating housing, who live in overcrowded conditions and who do not have homes, they would hear that one of the key things to solving the problem is the involvement of the federal government.

In the last Parliament, when I held the position of NDP spokesperson on housing for a short time, I accumulated a stack of new reports from every corner of this country. The initial recommendation in all of those reports was the need for a national housing program and the involvement of the Government of Canada to solve the housing and homelessness problems in Canada. Every report from every community from coast to coast to coast made clear the importance of that.

I know the people on the Burnaby task force on homelessness appreciate the importance of the federal government's involvement in solving the problem of housing and homelessness in Canada. They have been impressed with the work of the member for Vancouver East in putting forward solutions and tangible ways of going about ensuring that the program exists and goes some way to addressing the ongoing need for housing in Canada. As I mentioned earlier, report after report from international observers have said the same thing. The UN rapporteur called it a national crisis in Canada.

The other important feature of this bill is that not only would it require the federal government to produce a national housing strategy but it would require the federal government to do that in consultation with other levels of government in Canada.

The sad reality is that the Conservative government has refused to participate in any provincial housing meetings since it came to power. The federal government refused to attend the national housing summit with the provinces and territories just this last August. In fact, it has not attended a national housing summit since September 2005. That is unacceptable. We need to ensure our federal government is involved in those discussions and this legislation would make that a requirement.

The Wellesley Institute, which has done great work on housing and homelessness in Canada, is about to release its 2009 state of the nation's housing report. It will draw our attention yet again to the needs of Canadians for housing. That report will draw our attention to a number of statistical situations that exist here in Canada. It notes that Statistics Canada has shown that 705,000 households in Canada live in overcrowded conditions where too many people share a small space. It estimates that attached to that, two million women, men and children now live below the national occupancy standards.

We know that is an important factor in the H1N1 situation. Overcrowded housing makes it possible for the virus to flourish in those kinds of conditions. That is a good example of why we need to pay attention to housing.

More than three million Canadians are paying too much for housing and live in situations of needing housing, and that needs to be addressed as well.

The bottom line is that a national housing program in Canada needs to be ongoing and it needs to be a program that actually builds homes. That is the need and that is what has been missing. That was what was missing with the Liberal government and what is missing with the Conservative government. That is what New Democrats would do instead.

People across the country who work on this issue know that we need a long-term national housing program that would actually build homes for Canadians.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I am not opposed to a national strategy on housing, I am opposed to the way this bill is written.

I think people come to this House and after a time they think that because they say something it is true.

I want to comment on my friend from the Liberal Party's comment, who said the Liberals were just getting ready to put in a strategy after 13 years, that they were so close, and that this government scuttled that and it did not happen.

Once again, just because members stand in the House and say something, that does not make it so.

I look at my friends across the way from the NDP. We were talking about free trade with Colombia yesterday and they were talking about numbers that were totally fictitious. They were talking about things that happened before the president actually came into power in Colombia.

But we are not here to talk about free trade with Colombia today; we are here to talk about this housing strategy bill.

I certainly want to thank the member for Vancouver East for raising this issue. This is an important issue. At the human resources committee right now we are working on looking at a poverty study, and housing is an important element of that. It is something that does inspire a great deal of passion, and I can see why. Canada's housing industry is a powerful engine for economic growth and job creation in this country. Having a safe, affordable place to call home is vital to the health and well-being of each and every Canadian family in the communities we live in.

However, in the face of all the heat that inspires this issue, I think it is important that we create some light. While I thank the hon. member, for Vancouver East for raising this issue, I cannot support this legislation, for the simple reason that the government is already deeply engaged in delivering most of the items mentioned in this bill. Additionally, this government is already providing housing options in a way that respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories while reflecting the unique needs of local communities.

I would like to use my time today to address two of the key issues the hon. member has chosen not to address in this bill.

The first is the underlying assumption that Canada is not carrying out many of the items that are identified. That is simply wrong.

The fact is that our government already has a multi-pronged approach that provides housing. Our government is providing housing for Canadians from all walks of life and in all parts of the country. We already have an extensive framework of legislation policy and programs in place at each of the national, provincial, territorial and municipal levels. We already have established a clear federal-provincial-territorial consultation process, with rotating co-chairs and a strong working relationship. We are already working closely with the provinces and the territories, municipalities, first nation groups and housing organizations across the country to address each of the needs identified in the bill. This action-based multi-pronged approach has allowed for the housing needs of 80% of Canadian households to be met in the marketplace while offering targeted assistance to those whose needs are being met privately.

Unlike the strategy advocated by this bill, this approach respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and territories to administer their housing programs in ways that work best for individual Canadians and communities.

Bill C-304 does not recognize this jurisdiction, nor does it recognize the differences in local needs that require solutions. Instead, Bill C-304 would provide the federal minister with a free rein to implement a national housing strategy in any way the minister saw fit, irrespective of the needs of our provincial and territorial partners.

How should the provinces and territories interpret proposed subclause 4(2) of the bill, giving the federal minister the power to take any measures the minister considers appropriate to implement the proposed legislation? The attitude implicit in this clause is naive at best, and it aims for a one-size-fits-all strategy when in fact one size fits none.

The second area I would like to focus on is the litany of errors and inconsistencies made in the House in April by my hon. colleague and other members of the opposition who rose in support of this bill.

The member for Vancouver East stated that about three million Canadian households live in housing insecurity. That statement is simply inaccurate. However, Bill C-304 does not even go so far as to define what that means. By housing insecurity, we must surmise that the hon. member is referring to the accepted definition of “core housing need”. If this is indeed the case, the latest figures show roughly half the numbers suggested by my hon. colleague are indeed in core housing need.

My hon. colleague also stated that Canada has fallen behind other countries in the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in developing a national housing strategy, and that is wrong. Canada's approach is actually very similar to that of the vast majority of G8 and OECD countries, including the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

The hon. member also suggests that our government has never recognized the need for a homelessness strategy. While this may play to the NDP caucus, the facts inconveniently get in the way of the hon. member's story. In 2007, the national homelessness partnering strategy was launched under this Conservative government. In 2008, our government approved five year funding of nearly $2 billion for housing and homelessness programs.

Last, the member thanked those organizations she says are supporting this bill, but she failed to take into account the long list of organizations that are opposed to this unnecessary bureaucratic legislation. This includes the Canada West Foundation, in the member's own backyard, which has advocated for a decentralized approach.

Clearly this is a more sensible approach whereby the provinces and territories, supported by federal funds, are responsible for affordable housing and homelessness. This is precisely the opposite of the rigid and arbitrary national approach advocated by this bill.

The member for Brampton West also spoke in favour of this bill, claiming the federal government cut $200 million from affordable housing in budget 2006. However, the facts show that in budget 2006, we included an investment of $1.4 billion in affordable housing trusts to the provinces and territories.

The hon. member went on to accuse this government of cancelling the supporting communities partnership initiative in 2006, but again ignored the national homelessness partnership that we announced shortly thereafter.

Our government is already making significant investments in housing in the areas mentioned in Bill C-304. This bill provides nothing new beyond a promise of endless discussion, additional bureaucracy and ideological pandering. This government prefers timely actions with defined and measurable goals.

In partnership with provinces and territories, first nations and other stakeholders, our Conservative government is taking meaningful action across the entire range of housing requirements and needs.

Mortgage loan insurance through CMHC helps provide mortgage financing to Canadians, wherever they live, at the best possible terms and conditions. Our mortgage securitization activities also help to ensure there is an ample supply of low-cost funding for housing. Access to homeownership is supported through the home buyers' plan and the GST rebate to reduce the cost of a new home.

The $300 million first nations market housing fund is helping to create home ownership opportunities on reserve. The fund was launched in May 2008 by our government. For low to moderate income households, the federal government provides $1.7 billion in subsidies annually to some 625,000 existing social housing units.

Furthermore, in 2006 this government made a strategic investment of $1.4 billion to help Canadians find safe, sound and affordable housing and increase the supply of transitional and supportive housing in all provinces and territories.

CMHC's renovation programs help low-income households, landlords, people with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians bring their homes up to acceptable health and safety standards.

Building on these concrete initiatives, in September 2008 the government committed more than $1.9 billion over the next five years to improve and build new affordable housing and help the homeless.

In addition, Canada's economic action plan commits another $2 billion over two years to build new social housing, repair and retrofit existing social housing and help create stronger communities.

Should Bill C-304 become law, the federal government would be exposed to a risk of undetermined, significant long-term spending in addition to the extensive investments we have already made.

The provision of credit without discrimination to all Canadians would, for example, make the government liable for subprime loans. In terms of housing subsidies, the annual cost is estimated to be over $3.5 billion.

I, for one, cannot support this private member's bill the way it is, first and foremost for the reason that the Government of Canada is already deeply engaged in the precise activities the bill proposes be addressed.

We heard today during question period the concern of what Canada is doing in terms of poverty. I find it interesting, once again, that when we look at what the conference board says on Canada's failing grade on poverty, it relates back to what happened in previous governments.

This government is not talking about doing things; this government is actually getting things done.

For these and many other reasons, I urge the House to reject the bill.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of Bill C-304, an important piece of legislation brought forward by my NDP colleague, the member for Vancouver East.

Truthfully, at first I had not really fought my way on to the speakers list for this bill, not because I did not think it was absolutely vital for communities like my home town of Hamilton but, rather, because I could not see any way that this bill would not be passed unanimously by the House.

The bill simply calls for the development of a national housing strategy. It is a crucial first step in redressing the current piecemeal and inadequate system that has been in place since the Liberals cancelled the then existing national housing strategy in 1995.

The bill does not bind the government to specific measures. It does not outline an immediate spending plan. Private members' bills simply cannot do that. The bill just suggests that it is unacceptable for Canada to be the only major country in the world without a national housing strategy and that the need to develop one is immediate and urgent. Housing advocates, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and now even the UN are all calling on Canada to act.

Yet, as I listened to the debate on this bill before Easter, it became clear that the Conservatives are not even prepared to enter into the conversation. Speaking on behalf of the minister and therefore articulating the government line, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain said unequivocally, “I will not be supporting Bill C-304”. He went on to say that the bill would only serve to “severely restrict the ability of the government to adapt and continue to meet the housing needs of Canadians”.

Continue to meet? Is he kidding me? The government is clearly not meeting the housing needs of Canadians. Let me give the government a snapshot of what is happening in my home town of Hamilton.

As members will know, the threshold for affordability is paying no more than 30% of gross income for housing. That is the standard set out by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If people pay more than that, they are in what is called core housing need.

In Hamilton, 90% of households with incomes of less than $10,000 exceed that threshold, 85% of households with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000 exceed the threshold, and in households with incomes between $20,000 and $30,000 75% still exceed it. Across Canada, that kind of housing insecurity is being experienced by three million households. These statistics clearly put a lie to the government's contention that it is meeting the housing needs of our country.

However, there are other data that support the urgent need for a national housing strategy. In Hamilton alone, the waiting list for social housing had 4,693 applicants this spring and it is growing. Of particular concern is the increase in the number of priority applicants, which includes women fleeing violence and applicants who are homeless. When the city of Hamilton issued its last report on homelessness, it noted that nearly 4,000 individuals stayed in homeless shelters in 2006.

Lest anyone in the House believes that this is a Hamilton problem rather than a national issue that must be addressed by the government, let me remind members of the words that Miloon Kothari, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, used to describe the housing situation in Canada. “Very disturbing”, “devastating impact” and “national crisis” were just some of the phrases he used when he presented his preliminary report.

That report confirmed that Canada desperately needs a national housing strategy. Canada needs to once again embark on a large scale building of social housing units across the country and, as the Special Rapporteur also noted, as part of that comprehensive national housing strategy particular funding must be directed to groups that have been forced to the margins, including women, seniors, youth, members of racialized communities, immigrants and groups with special needs.

That report should have been a call to action. Instead, it was just another in a long series of embarrassments for Canada on the international stage. Canada is the only major country in the industrialized world without a national housing strategy.

However, it is not too late to act. In fact, we are blessed by having housing advocates in this country who would be only too pleased to lend their expertise to such efforts. In Hamilton, I am thinking of people like Jeff Wingard from the Social Planning and Research Council and Tom Cooper from the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction. In Toronto, the Wellesley Institute and Michael Shapcott have also done incredible work on housing over the years. Expertise exists from coast to coast to coast and their help is just a phone call away.

Let us strike while the iron is hot. That is exactly what the bill before us is designed to do. It seeks to realign the government's approach to dealing with housing issues by mandating a national strategy for a national problem. It takes our current patchwork of programs and strengthens them, setting national standards, and calling for investment in not for profit housing, housing for the homeless, housing for those with special needs, and sustainable and green homes. It is about rights and dignity, and it is about time that we act.

For those who are not swayed by the argument that housing is a human right, let me take a minute to make the economic argument as well. Part of it is ably articulated by the Conservative Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. In speaking about the need to bring Canada out of the devastating recession in which we find ourselves, he said:

Step one...is to create jobs and to create them now. Because of the economic downturn, many people in the construction industry are out of work. Building and renovating homes is a powerful way to get the economy moving again because it puts those people to work quickly and because most of the materials and supplies that are involved in home construction are made right here in Canada.

Of course, he is absolutely right. However, rhetoric does not build residences, dollars do. Instead of investing in a comprehensive housing strategy, the Conservatives have cut their support for the few programs that still remained. In budget 2006, the Conservatives cut $200 million of the $1.5 billion that the NDP had secured in its amendment to the last Liberal budget through Bill C-48.

In May 2006, the Conservatives cut a further $770 million from the energuide program, which helped home owners retrofit their homes to save both money and the environment. In September 2006, the Conservatives cut $45 million in administration of CMHC programs. In December 2006, the Conservatives then took the axe to SCPI. Even when pressure from the public and the NDP forced them to reverse their decision on energuide in February 2007, the Conservatives never did restore the $550 million that was designated to help low-income families.

The government's entire record on housing is one of wilful neglect and abandonment. It has disgraced Canada on the international stage. More importantly, it has undermined the ability of Canadian families to survive this recession. A family under stress from job loss or underemployment should not have to face the additional challenges of finding suitable housing for themselves and their children. Children deserve the stability that comes from being safely housed.

Best practices research confirms that building assets, which include savings accounts, home ownership and stable rental housing, promote family stability, give people a stake in their communities, encourage political participation, enable families to plan for retirement, and pass resources on to future generations. Investing in a national housing strategy that focuses on a continuum of options, from social housing to affordable home ownership, will help families build for their future while ensuring prosperous communities.

I believe that is a goal that all Canadians would support. The road to reaching that goal begins with the adoption of the bill that is before us today. Bill C-304 mandates a national strategy for a national problem. It is about rights. It is about dignity. It is about investments. It is about jobs. It is about time.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the New Democratic Party on introducing Bill C-304. We do not spend enough time talking about housing, and this gives us a chance to point out, as the Bloc has often done, that the federal government has the means to make massive investments in social and community housing. That is what it is supposed to do.

Investment should add up to 1% of federal government program spending, or about $2 billion per year. That is what the Bloc has always said. However—and this is the problem with the bill—Quebec and the provinces need to be in charge of how that housing money is spent.

The federal government must respect provincial jurisdiction by limiting its role in this area to providing funding to enable Quebec to act on its priorities and special needs. Previous agreements recognize that housing falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec.

I would like to quote from a document published by the Government of Quebec, Coûts du fédéralisme pour le Québec dans le domaine de l'habitation, an analysis of what federalism costs Quebec in the area of housing, conducted by the Société d'habitation du Québec in September 1995. On page 21, it says:

Federal housing measures constitute interference in an area under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has imposed very rigid rules for housing measures. It has also made its financial participation contingent upon a multitude of administrative rules as well as pan-Canadian objectives and criteria, making it difficult to plan interventions in a Quebec context. The presence of the federal government in this sector of activity has resulted in much administrative duplication engendering additional costs that undermine the coherence of interventions.

That was written in 1995. Nothing has changed. This bill, too, constitutes encroachment.

Quebec has the skills and the experience to take care of its own housing responsibilities. That is the point. We would be better served if we took matters into our own hands.

Quebec is calling for a transfer of all federal responsibilities for housing, provided that this be accompanied by satisfactory financial compensation in light of the criteria of fairness, sufficiency and continuity. Currently, Ottawa’s proposal is limited to offering Quebec only the administration of existing federal obligations with regard to social housing stock, which only amounts to a simple management contract. In addition, on the subject of social housing, Quebec has not obtained its fair share of federal expenditures. The Government of Quebec cannot accept this situation, no more than prior administrations were able to tolerate this. Were we to be satisfied with less than our share of financing of the federal effort for housing, this would be all the more unacceptable since Quebec's needs in this area are proportionately greater than those of the other provinces.

Bill C-304 in its current form does not respect Quebec's jurisdiction in this area. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, if we recall that, in 2007, Bill C-303 concerning early learning and child care faced the same situation as this bill. The solution: allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally, with full compensation, as set out in clause 4 of Bill C-303. Thus, there is hope that this bill could also be amended in committee.

We are in favour of Bill C-304 being studied in committee, with one caveat: it must be amended considerably.

If Bill C-304 comes back to the House in its present form, the Bloc will not support it. The solution is to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally and with full compensation, as was the case with clause 4 of Bill C-303, nothing less. In addition, the preamble of Bill C-304 includes the principles of housing rights that we support. However, we believe that a more thorough study should be conducted on the consequences of having these principles in the bill and on the possibility of an individual without housing turning to the courts.

Bill C-304 does, however, indicate set out the context in which this strategy must operate with specific points of action that already exist in Quebec. Consultation by the minister with provincial counterparts, which the bill advocates, will lead to subsequent procedures for settling accounts.

Under clause 3, the Minister shall, in consultation with the provincial ministers responsible for municipal affairs and housing and with representatives of municipalities and aboriginal communities, establish a national housing strategy. We do not agree with having a national strategy other than to have our share of the program funds. This national strategy is to ensure that the cost of housing in Canada does not prevent an individual from meeting other basic needs, including those of food, clothing and education.

Under clause 4(2), the minister, in cooperation with the provincial ministers responsible for housing and with representatives of municipalities and aboriginal communities, may take any measures that the minister considers appropriate to implement the national housing strategy as quickly as possible. Note that we in Quebec have the SHQ, which sets priorities. We have absolutely no desire to have our priorities set by the federal government.

The minister's powers to take the measures indicated are not dependent on the consent of Quebec. Clause 4(2) provides clearly that the minister may take any measures to implement the national strategy, regardless of the opinion of the provinces, regardless of Quebec's or the other provinces' prerogative over housing, regardless of the efforts made by Quebec and other provinces in the area of social housing, regardless of the existence of protection for renters provided by the Régie du logement du Québec and regardless of the different social choices being made in Quebec.

The intent of this bill is, in the end, to eradicate and appropriate the decision-making powers of Quebec and the provinces with respect to housing, including social housing. This is appropriating an area of jurisdiction that does not belong to it and forces Quebec and the provinces to become managers for Ottawa.

Even though Quebec is one of the few provinces to have been commended in the report by the UN Special Rapporteur because of its policy to fight poverty and because of the content of its Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms—page 10, paragraph 28—among other things, this bill ignores this reality and ignores the nation that is Quebec.

The agreement should set the conditions for federal withdrawal, including the amount and type of financial resources to be transferred. In addition, a political agreement should establish the form of compensation, namely cash transfers and tax points. Or, the agreement could require the federal government to continue its expenditures in the province concerned. The territories should also be able to avail themselves of this provision. The federal government would be required to negotiate and enter into this agreement within a reasonable time.

Rather than focusing its actions in its own areas of jurisdiction, the federal government is trying to use worthy causes to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions in order to have the greatest possible visibility. This bill, in its current form, follows that logic.

I will reiterate that we are in favour of this bill on housing but that it must be overhauled in order to respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just thinking, as you were reading that, the time it took to prepare this speech maybe was a waste of time. Therefore, I am pleased you ruled the way you did.

Next week is a scheduled constituency week for all of us as MPs. With that, MPs from all political parties will be heading home to our respective ridings. I, for one, will spend the week working in my constituency office, meeting with community groups and talking to constituents about the many issues that impact upon their daily lives. At the end of each day, I will head home. I will visit with my husband, our children and our grandchildren, if I am lucky, and I will sleep in my own bed.

For me, as much as Ottawa is a tremendous city, there is nothing that can recharge my batteries like spending time in my riding. The people of York West, and Toronto in general, are kind, community-minded people. Because of this, being home is one of life's great pleasures.

However, Bill C-304 again reminds us that not every Canadian has access to that simple pleasure. In fact, homelessness in Canada is a serious and growing problem, a problem of national scope that is often difficult to determine. While counting the homeless is no easy task, the most recent federal estimates suggest that the number is somewhere around 0.5% of the national population. To put it another way, there could be as many as 150,000 people living on the streets in our country.

As if this reality is not bad enough, it is worth mentioning that in 2007 emergency services, community organizations and non-profits spent as much as $6 billion to combat homelessness. I cite this number because, if it is accurate, these sources are spending $40,000 per homeless person and the problem is still growing. I want to be perfectly clear when I say that these emergency services, community organizations and non-profits are doing a spectacular job of dealing with a very difficult problem. They are in the business of giving hope where none exists. However, I wonder if we could attain even greater results if we were all to work together.

In my opinion, if we could somehow pool our resources, coordinate our efforts and focus various societal institutions on combatting homelessness, we would have the beginning of a national strategy on housing. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has demonstrated a total indifference to the issue of homelessness during its tenure in office. The Conservative government has failed to deliver any substantive policy measures to tackle homelessness. In my estimation, this lack of action demonstrates that the Conservatives are either disinterested in the problem or inept when it comes to solving it.

The Prime Minister has been in office for 1,334 days or 1,333 nights. That is 1,333 nights when 150,000 people slept without a bed. That is 1,333 nights when 150,000 people did not know where their next meal would come from. That is 1,333 nights when 150,000 people had been let down by the Conservative government and a Prime Minister who is supposed to be working for the betterment of all Canadians.

Bill C-304 would force 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. This is a good idea that is worthy of our support.

It is a good idea today and it was also a good idea when the most recent Liberal administration created the position of a national minister of housing for Canada. It was also a good idea when that same Liberal administration conducted consultation with stakeholders, community partners and a range of government sources at all levels. It was a good idea when the most recent Liberal administration penned a detailed plan and prepared to launch a comprehensive national housing strategy together with municipalities and with our provinces.

I thought this way as well when the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives parties plotted to defeat the Paul Martin government and, in doing so, sidelined that important strategy for housing that we would have had in place today helping the many people who are looking to establish a roof over their head.

For me, access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing should be a paramount goal for the federal government to show leadership. Without a national housing strategy effectively targeting societal ills, such as mental health, poverty, addiction, unemployment and domestic violence, we will be destined to repeat the cycle that creates homelessness in the first place.

Worse than not spinning our wheels on the issue is the thought that during the course of every meeting, every debate and every round of partisan games that go on here in the House of Commons, those same 150,000 homeless Canadians continue to be out on the street without a safe place to call their own. I believe that affordable housing and homelessness programs are an important part of true social justice and, as an extension of this thinking, the federal government has an important role to play in ensuring Canadians have equal access to safe, affordable housing.

I sincerely regret that the Conservative government has repeatedly failed to deliver a national housing strategy that addresses the significant housing needs of Canadians. I am saddened that the Conservative Party's approach to affordable housing and homelessness is again a true reflection of a fend-yourself approach to social programs. It is almost like it cannot help itself.

Taxing income trusts, shipping body bags to native reserves and slamming the doors to offices with a mandate to protect women's equality are all past examples of the government's head in the sand approach to protecting the vulnerable. Its inaction on homelessness is just another bad example in a shameful trend.

It would seem to me that Bill C-304 is aimed at taking us back to where we were just prior to the Conservatives coming into power, and I am more than ready to support that. Bill C-304 would demand that the Conservatives accept a number of benchmarks and tasks, including a couple of goals, one being to secure adequate, affordable, accessible and not-for-profit housing in the case of those who cannot afford it.

Sustainability and energy efficient designs, not-for-profit rental housing projects, mixed income, not-for-profit housing co-ops, special needs housing and housing that allows for senior citizens to remain in their homes as long as possible. All of those are parts of the puzzle that would be there for a housing strategy. They would also require an inclusion for temporary emergency housing and shelter in the event of disasters and crisis.

However, more than the actual measures demanded by this proposal is the fact that it imposes a timeline for the consultation: 180 days or, more aptly put, 179 nights. To me, this is one of the most significant elements of the bill because it acknowledges the human factor. It acknowledges the fact that this is not just another political file.

A national housing strategy is about tackling a societal problem that is complex, multi-faceted, immediate and long overdue for action and resolution.

The bill should go to committee for further study but I would stress that the study must be mindful of the urgency of the timelines. The solutions to the problems of homelessness have been mired in a political muck for far too long. Private groups and agencies have been expected to provide the leadership needed for far too long.

The Prime Minister has already ignored a serious problem for 1,333 nights. It is time for the federal government, time for the Conservative caucus to stand up for those 150,000 Canadians who deserve better.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 2, 2009, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, a bill standing in the name of the member for Vancouver East.

I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for having brought the issue to the attention of the chair, as well as the member for Vancouver East for her comments.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary stated that the bill went beyond the establishment of a national housing strategy by requiring, in clause 3(2), that it provide financial assistance to those who were otherwise unable to afford rental housing. Such a change, he argued, made it clear that a key element of this new national housing strategy would lead to an increase in federal spending on housing and thus should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

The hon. member for Vancouver East argued that the focus of the bill was not on spending but rather on having the federal government develop, in co-operation with the provinces, territories, first nations and municipalities, a housing strategy for Canadians. She contended that there was a difference between a bill that called for the development of a strategy and one that calls for money to be spent.

In determining whether or not Bill C-304 should be accompanied by a royal recommendation, the Chair must judge if the bill seeks an authorization to spend public funds for a new and distinct purpose.

Clause 3(1) of the bill requires the establishment of a national housing strategy. It states:

3(1) The Minister shall, in consultation with the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs and housing and with representatives of municipalities and Aboriginal communities, establish a national housing strategy designed to ensure that the cost of housing in Canada does not compromise an individual’s ability to meet other basic needs, including food, clothing and access to education.

However, it is the effect of the second paragraph of this clause which is in dispute. That paragraph reads as follows:

(2) The national housing strategy shall provide financial assistance, including financing and credit without discrimination, for those who are otherwise unable to afford rental housing.

As the Speaker stated in his decision on March 21, 2005, at page 4373 of Debates,

—a bill effecting an appropriation of public funds […] or an equivalent authorization to spend public funds does so immediately upon enactment.

Once Parliament approves a bill that requires a royal recommendation, there should be nothing further required to make the appropriation.

In the case before us, Bill C-304 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize spending for a new and distinct purpose. Rather, the bill seeks Parliament's approve for the minister, in consultation with various stakeholders, to develop a national housing strategy. While the bill requires that strategy to provide for financial assistance to those unable to afford rental housing, the bill itself provides no such assistance. Furthermore, clause 4(2) of the bill provides the minister with great latitude concerning the measures that have been taken to implement such a strategy. The Chair cannot speculate on what these measures might be.

In other words, Bill C-304 requires the government to develop a plan. It does not address the actual implementation of that plan. If Parliament decides to approve this bill and a national housing strategy is developed, it will then be up to the government to determine the financial resources required to implement the strategy and to set about getting Parliament to approve such resources. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

However, those decisions lie in the future. Meanwhile it is Bill C-304 that is before the House and is being proposed to members for second reading. The Chair is of the view that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and may proceed.

The House resumed from April 2 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.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The first petition is from people in the Lower Mainland who are very aware of the critical need for affordable housing. They call upon Parliament to ensure swift passage of Bill C-304, which we will be debating today in the House in the hopes that this bill will be passed.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by religious leaders from St. John's and Marystown, Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as citizens of Nova Scotia.

The petitioners call for swift passage of Bill C-304 put forward by the member for Vancouver East.

Bill C-304 would mandate the government to create a national housing strategy that would, 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 call for an increased federal role in housing through investments 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.

They ask that Parliament pass the bill when it returns to the House in the fall, a bill to address the ongoing crisis in our country.

Both the petitioners and I look forward to the government's response.

National Housing Strategy

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is from residents in Vancouver who call for a national housing strategy and the swift passage of Bill C-304, which calls for a national housing strategy to increase the federal role in housing through investments and not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, and access to housing for those with different needs including seniors and persons with disability.

Housing

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by many people in Alberta and elsewhere across the country who support the need for 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 ask Parliament to ensure the swift passage of Bill C-304, which is an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition in support of a national housing strategy. The signatories to this petition are from around Halifax and Dartmouth, in Nova Scotia. They were actually collected by Community Action on Homelessness, an organization that is committed to housing and homelessness issues in Nova Scotia.

The signatories are calling for the swift passage of private member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. They call for an increased federal role in housing through investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, access to housing for those with different needs, and sustainable and environmentally sound design standards for new housing.

Both the signatories and I look forward to the minister's response.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition in support of a national housing strategy.

The signatories of this petition are from Antigonish, a vibrant university town in the riding of Central Nova in Nova Scotia. The signatures were collected by Katherine Reed, a well-known anti-poverty advocate from the area.

They are calling for swift passage of Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. They call for an increased federal role in housing through investments 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.

Both the signatories and I look forward to the minister's response.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my voice against Bill C-304, the bill that seeks to create a national housing strategy. In fact, the only thing this bill would do is handcuff the efforts of this and future governments to continue to respond to the housing needs of Canadians in a timely, flexible and proactive manner.

What else would it do? It would run roughshod over provincial jurisdiction in this regard, empowering federal governments to make housing decisions that are rightly to be made by the provinces and territories.

The NDP would have this House believe that Canada does not have what they call a “national housing strategy”. The truth, though inconvenient for the NDP, is much different. The reality is that our government already has a multi-pronged, comprehensive and well-funded approach in place which provides housing for Canadians from all walks of life and across the country.

As a result, Canada's national housing system allows the housing needs of 80% of Canadians to be met through the private market. This approach recognizes and respects the constitutional responsibilities of the provincial and territorial jurisdictions in the area of assisted housing. More important, our approach actually includes both the provinces and territories, unlike the NDP's bill which fails to even mention the territories at all. Our approach recognizes the need to work with a variety of partners, to support vulnerable Canadians, homeowners, renters and the housing sector.

Our national housing agency, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has been working with these partners to help Canadians access safe, affordable housing for more than 60 years. In total, this government is already investing more on affordable and supportive housing than any other government in Canadian history.

Even more important, those investments are achieving real results, making a real difference in the lives of Canadians across this country. For example, for those Canadians who need help to find housing they can afford, our government provides $1.7 billion each year through CMHC in support of some 630,000 low and moderate income households. This includes ongoing financial support for many non-profit and cooperative housing projects.

In September 2008, our government committed more than $1.9 billion over five years to improve and build new affordable housing and to help the homeless. Canada's economic action plan builds on this commitment with an additional $2 billion over the next two years to build new social housing and to repair or retrofit existing social housing.

Under the affordable housing initiative, more than $900 million of a total of $1 billion federal funds have now been committed or announced, every dollar of which has been matched by the provinces and territories. This funding will help an estimated 41,000 Canadian families to have access to a safe, affordable place to call home.

Through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and CMHC, we are also helping first nations build the capacity to manage their own housing programs. In our 2007 budget, we announced the creation of a $300 million first nations market housing fund, which opened its doors in May 2008. This fund will help provide new homes for up to 25,000 first nations families living on reserve over the next 10 years.

Those are only some of the steps taken by this government on housing and only a part of our national approach.

When it comes to housing matters, the provinces and territories expect federal governments to respect their jurisdictional responsibilities. In this regard, our government will continue to work with the provinces, the territories, the private sector, first nations groups and community and non-profit partners to facilitate access to housing and to lend a helping hand to those whose needs cannot be met by the marketplace.

These kinds of collaborative programs are essential because in Canada assisted housing is fundamentally part of the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. Bill C-304 does not recognize or respect this jurisdiction.

That is why I cannot support the legislation and urge all members to oppose it as well. To put it in perspective, we have debated this bill for 55 minutes and we have already faced two amendments, so there are many flaws in this to begin with.

Allow me to continue to tell the House about other measures within this government's national approach to address the housing needs of Canadians.

Each year CMHC's many renovation programs help low income households, landlords, persons with disabilities and aboriginal people bring their homes up to minimum health and safety standards. These programs enable seniors and persons with disabilities to live independently in their own homes and communities, close to friends and family. Other CMHC programs provide funding for emergency shelters for women and children who are trying to escape domestic violence and a start to a new life free from fear.

CMHC also helps those Canadians who are looking to buy a home where they can put down roots and raise their families. Through its mortgage loan insurance, CMHC has lowered the cost of getting a mortgage and helped one-third of all Canadian families with the purchase of their home, regardless of what part of the country they live in.

In 2007, for example, 37% of CMHC's mortgage loan insurance business helped Canadians who lived in areas that were underserved by private insurers. CMHC also facilitates financing for affordable housing projects by allowing borrowers to have access to loans at the best possible rate. Its securitization program helped to lower the overall cost of borrowing. CMHC remains the only mortgage insurer in Canada of large rental housing buildings, nursing and retirement homes and first nation housing on reserve.

I know my time is coming to a close. I would like to conclude by saying that, as I mentioned before, we are 55 minutes into this debate and already we have uncovered several flaws in this legislation as well as several amendments that would need to be made before we even get going.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, now more than ever we need a national housing strategy. I want to commend my colleague from Vancouver East for presenting Bill C-304, one which I hope will have speedy passage through this House so that we can finally realign our efforts at fighting homelessness with the actual needs of Canadians.

I am very proud to second this bill. I am honoured that the member for Vancouver East would ask me to be involved, since housing and homelessness is an issue that I am very passionate about.

As the housing and homelessness critic for the New Democratic Party, I have had the opportunity to speak several times on the housing situation in Canada, in speeches, in questions to the minister, and constantly I refer to the situation in Canada as a crisis. Canada is truly in a housing crisis.

In 1998, on the 50th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee declared that housing was in a crisis situation. It made the following statement:

We call on all levels of government to declare homelessness a national disaster requiring emergency humanitarian relief. We urge that they immediately develop and implement a National Homelessness Relief and Prevention Strategy using disaster relief funds both to provide the homeless with immediate health protection and housing and to prevent further homelessness.

That was 11 years ago and the rallying cry is still echoing today. However, my question is, is anybody actually listening? Many Canadians still do not have access to adequate, secure or affordable housing.

Our international friends would be surprised to hear that we have a housing crisis in Canada, because in 1976 Canada signed on to the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. This covenant guarantees everybody's right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing and housing. What this means is Canada has said out loud to the world that there is a right to housing in our country. Unfortunately, we have not lived up to those international obligations and Canada's once positive reputation has now been tarnished.

Right now, there are as many as 1.5 million families in Canada in precarious or unacceptable housing situations. Three hundred thousand people use our shelters every year. If asked, most Canadians would probably say we have a strong social safety net, with employment insurance, pensions, social assistance, and the like. The reality is that many of those programs do not actually meet the needs of Canadians. These programs have been continuously eroded by the actions, or inactions, of successive governments.

To give a snapshot illustration, in my community of Halifax, Community Action on Homelessness recently released a report card on homelessness for my area. One of the things it found was that the wage one would need to afford a one bedroom apartment is $14.23 an hour. That is the wage one would need for rent, bills and groceries. The minimum wage in my province is $8.10 an hour. It is obvious that it does not add up. A person on social assistance would need the equivalent of 144% of his or her personal allowance in order to afford even a bachelor apartment. It is just not right. Imagine how that person's situation would change if there actually were affordable housing that the person could access?

In my life before becoming a member of Parliament I worked as a community legal worker with Dalhousie Legal Aid Service. I worked a lot on the tenant rights project, where we would work with low-income individuals to try and keep them housed. We would help advocate at the residential tenancies board to try to keep them housed. It was slum housing. It was in poor repair. There was mould. There were overcrowded rooming houses. I had a client whose ceiling fell in on her. There were bedbugs. I was fighting to keep people in that housing. Imagine actually fighting to keep someone in a place where the ceiling has collapsed on her in the middle of the night.

This is why I ran federally. I wanted to be involved in creating a national housing strategy to create options for low- to middle-income Canadians to offer them just a little bit of dignity, because that is what this is about. It is about human dignity. Thankfully there are policy solutions that can be made right here in this House.

The best way to combat homelessness is, surprise, by housing people. I know, it is a bit out there.

I was reading recently about tent city, an area in Toronto where people were homeless and living in tents. At the culmination of the events down at tent city, a very concerted effort was made by the city to actually house a lot of these people.

A staggering number of those people who were housed, I think it is around 80%, are still housed. That shows us that it is not necessarily about these people being drug addicts or having mental health issues and that is why they are homeless, they are choosing to be homeless. The majority of the people from tent city are still housed. The answer to homelessness is to build housing. It is pretty radical.

To illustrate the point further, I will tell a brief story, again featuring an organization in Nova Scotia. Many people are familiar with the Elizabeth Fry Society. It works across Canada with women involved in the criminal justice system and it does great work. In Halifax, it found that regardless of how much advocacy it does, regardless of how much support it gives to women in need, the results were just not what it needed. It was really clear, as I am sure it is to most of us here, that we cannot help women whose lives are touched by crime, addiction or the associated risks of poverty if they do not have a safe place to stay and a roof over their heads.

The people in this group actually shifted direction slightly and decided to try to fill that need themselves. They opened up housing for women. It is called Holly House and it is located in Dartmouth, on the other side of the harbour to my riding. Having worked with this organization, I can say that creating affordable housing options has saved lives and it has increased the prosperity and well-being of the clients they serve and of my community.

Holly House gets it but so far the government does not. Perhaps, after hearing these very passionate interventions in this honourable House, maybe it will introduce its own bill for a national housing strategy. We can always hope.

I will acknowledge that there was some money in the budget for affordable housing, which is great, and I will not really criticize what was there. However, sadly, the money that was in the budget was specifically designed to be a one time only measure.

This might be fine if homelessness were a one time only problem. Maybe it is a two year phase that people suddenly find themselves in, but the crisis is real in this country, in our cities, in our rural communities and it is tragically higher among first nations.

To tackle a problem that is this large, we need bold and comprehensive plans. There needs to be coordination between the federal government and its responsibility for the well-being of Canadians, the provinces and their responsibility over housing in general, and the municipalities, first nations governments and friendship centres that provide the front line services in our communities.

The bill we are debating today seeks to re-align the government's approach to dealing with this issue by mandating a national strategy for a national problem. It takes our current patchwork of programs and it strengthens them, setting national standards and calling for investment in not for profit housing, housing for the homeless, housing for those with different needs and sustainable and environmentally constructed homes. It is about rights and it is about dignity.

For those who are not swayed by a human rights argument, let me put it in a little bit of a different way. Let me put it in economic terms. Operating emergency shelters in this country costs more than it would to simply build affordable housing, the foundation from which our most vulnerable people can build a meaningful life.

Earlier today I spoke with Sheri Lecker who is the executive director of Adsum for Women & Children. Adsum offers quite a few programs for women and children, including an emergency shelter and second stage housing, as well as long term housing for women.

Sherry explained to me that the per diem she receives from the province for a single person, a women or a child, to stay at the shelter is $86.80 per day. Let us contrast that to Adsum Court, which is long term housing for women that Adsum provides. It has 24 units and it is supportive housing. It is housing where people are there to support the women who are in this housing. The rent being charged is anywhere between $125 and $535 a month. It does not make a profit but it does come out even. I share this example to illustrate how simple it is. It is remarkably easy to solve this problem. We just need leadership at the federal level to do it.

In closing, with this bill we have an opportunity to make a real difference by implementing a plan to tackle this crisis. I would ask that all members of the House join me in support of the bill sponsored by the member for Vancouver East and join in this national project for a just and more prosperous Canada.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the member for her passionate speech. She raises a number of interesting points. Some of them I disagree with and I rise here today in the House to indicate that we I will not be supporting Bill C-304, a bill that would legislate the establishment of a national housing strategy.

The NDP sponsor of this bill tells us that it is meant to improve the access of Canadians to safe affordable housing. In fact, this bill would only serve to severely restrict the ability of the government to adapt and continue to meet the housing needs of Canadians. It would do this by hampering our ability to adapt our programs and initiatives in response to changes in the economy, to shifts in local needs, and housing market conditions into the changing realities of today's families.

The housing needs of 80% of Canadians are in fact met through the marketplace. For those who need some assistance, our government already has a comprehensive multifaceted approach in place which covers the entire spectrum of the housing continuum to provide Canadians from all walks of life and in all parts of the country with access to safe and affordable housing. This support ranges from promoting the success of the Canadian housing industry, to helping families buy a home, working with provinces to create affordable rental housing, and helping some of our most vulnerable citizens find a safe place to call home.

Unlike this bill, our government's approach also recognizes the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories in the area of assisted housing, as well as the need to work with a variety of different partners in order to deliver results. This really is about partnership, collaboration, and working together at various of levels of government and with various partners.

It is not the job of government to mandate rigid national solutions to local problems that are under provincial jurisdiction and the member herself alludes to that fact. I am sure the Bloc will have some interesting things to say about that.

In fact, I would point out to the members of this House that the bill, as presently worded, neglects to mention the territories at all. This sort of oversight can be nothing less than a lack of respect for our provinces and territories and the constitutional jurisdiction that they hold on these matters.

Our government's commitment to housing has been part of our government's promise to Canadians for a long time. In total, our government is already investing more on affordable and supportive housing than any other government in Canadian history. For concrete examples, we need to look no further than Canada's economic action plan.

In creating this economic action plan we undertook an unprecedented level of consultation. We listened to Canadians from coast to coast to coast to make sure that the very best ideas were brought forward. Now we are working with our partners in all levels of government, and in the private and community sectors to turn these ideas into action.

Step one in this plan is to create jobs and to create them now. Because of the economic downturn, many people in the construction industry are out of work. Building and renovating homes is a powerful way to get the economy moving again because it puts those people to work quickly and because most of the materials and supplies that are involved in home construction are made right here in Canada. This has an even more economic impact.

Through Canada's economic action plan we will make up to $2 billion available over two years in repayable low-cost loans to towns and cities for housing related infrastructure projects. These loans will make it easier for municipalities to break ground with shovel ready projects that can create new jobs quickly, while also building better roads and developing more efficient and reliable water and sewage treatment systems.

Even while we grow our economy, we cannot forget that housing is about more than financial stability. Having a place to call home has a direct and tangible impact on the health and welfare of Canadian families and their communities. That is why the economic action plan is also investing in the well-being of some of our most vulnerable citizens, including low-income Canadians, seniors, persons with disability, aboriginal Canadians, and for people like Karen from Queensville, Ontario.

Karen lives with a mental illness. As a result, she has led an isolated life which often left her feeling alone and without hope. The Valley View Rest Home changed all of that. Valley View provides accommodation and support for people who are seeking treatment for mental health or addiction issues. More importantly, it offers its residents a sense of family, a feeling of belonging, and a rediscovery of hope.

After a devastating fire in April 2004, Valley View was almost forced to close its doors. However, thanks to a grant from CMHC's residential rehabilitation assistance program, Valley View reopened its doors in January 2007. It has been helping Karen and many others like her ever since.

Like Karen, there are about 1.5 million Canadian households that are unable to afford safe, adequate housing on their own. In September 2008, this government committed $1.9 billion over the next five years to help the homeless and improve and build new affordable housing for low-income Canadians.

Canada's economic action plan builds on this commitment with a further $2 billion over two years to build and renovate existing social housing.

In total, the government currently provides $1.7 billion each year through CMHC for social housing assistance to some 630,000 low- and moderate-income Canadian households. This is a crucial part of our national social safety net. However, much of this housing is in need of major repairs and renovations.

The economic action plan will provide $1 billion to renovate or improve older social housing. This investment will help improve the quality of life for residents of these communities while also ensuring that their homes will be available and affordable for future generations. At the same time, it will put more construction workers and tradespeople back to work and put more money into the hands of Canadian suppliers and manufacturers.

For low-income seniors and people with disabilities, we will be investing $475 million in new social housing to ensure that they can continue to live independently in their own homes and communities for as long as possible.

Our government also recognizes the significant need for affordable and sound housing in many first nations communities and in the three territories. That is why we are investing $600 million to build new social housing in first nations communities and in Canada's far north and to repair and modernize existing housing.

In this regard, our government was pleased to hear all three northern housing ministers say they were thrilled with the northern housing investments contained in our economic action plan.

Here is what the Nunavut housing minister had to say in this regard:

I think we all agree this is good news for housing all across the North. It's an investment in our communities, an investment in our economies.

Really, it depicts how partnership and partnering can work when it needs to work.

Overall, Canada's economic action plan provides $7.8 billion to build quality housing, stimulate construction, encourage home ownership and enhance the energy efficiency of Canadian homes. This just builds on the many other housing programs and investments that are already in place.

Of course, when it comes to housing, the challenge is too great for any one entity to handle alone. We all have a role to play, from the federal government to the provincial and territorial governments, municipal governments, non-profit groups, community associations and the private sector. All have an important part to play in the housing continuum.

In Canada, for instance, assisted housing is first and foremost a provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Provinces and territories support a range of social policy and program interventions. This includes the shelter component of social assistance, operating and support subsidies for special-purpose housing, subsidy programs for home ownership, and the delivery and cost sharing of federally funded programs.

Bill C-304 does not recognize this jurisdiction, nor does it recognize the differences in local need that require local solutions. Indeed, Bill C-304 would provide the federal minister with a carte blanche provision to implement a national housing strategy in any way the minister sees fits, regardless of the views of our provincial and territorial partners.

Consider, for example, how the provinces and territories would react to subclause 4(2) of this bill, which would give the federal minister the power to “take any measures that the Minister considers appropriate” to implement the proposed legislation.

From a constitutional point of view, this approach runs directly counter to provincial and territorial jurisdiction. From a practical perspective, it also works against the clear and compelling need for a flexible approach to housing that recognizes local needs and solutions.

Our government is committed to doing everything it can to work with all our partners across the country to ensure that Canada's housing system remains world-class.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved 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.

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to thank the member for Halifax for seconding the bill. The member is new in the House, but before she arrived here, she already had a terrific record of working in Halifax with anti-poverty organizations and for housing. Her presence is very welcomed in the House. She is a great advocate not only in Halifax, but across the country. She is also our housing critic. I am very proud she has seconded my bill and has been very supportive to get the word and information out about the bill. We think it is a pretty darned good bill.

When I was first elected to the House in 1997, one of the key issues I brought forward, as the member for Vancouver East, was the critical need for social housing and for affordable housing, not only in Vancouver but across the country. That seems like a long time ago. I feel we have had so many steps going backwards and only a few baby steps going forward.

I want to begin my comments about my bill by pointing out that Canada used to have a sterling record when it came to the provision of affordable housing. We had many good federal programs, whether it was for co-op housing, social housing or special needs housing. There were great programs through CMHC during the 1970s and the 1980s, even going back to the end of the second world war when the vets' housing was built in cities across the country. The federal government always had an incredibly strong presence in the provision of housing. It was seen as a responsible mandate of the federal government.

Regrettably, that all changed in the early 1990s, when a then Liberal government decided that it wanted to get out of the housing business. Ever since then, it has been an unfolding disaster across the country. Therefore, many of us today now represent communities where we see the travesty of growing homelessness. People are sleeping on the streets or living with housing insecurity. Working families cannot afford rents. Seniors are very insecure in their housing. The situation has deteriorated for people with disabilities and certainly for the aboriginal communities both on-reserve and off-reserve. That is all because of public policy. It was deliberate public policy to end those housing programs and offload it to the provinces. As a result, we have seen a dramatic increase in homelessness and lack of housing security.

As it stands today, about three million Canadian households live in housing insecurity, paying more than 30% of their income toward housing. That is the measure used by CMHC.

Canada is the only major country in the industrialized world without a national housing strategy. In fact, we have fallen far behind most other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, in our level of investment in affordable housing. We have one of the smallest social housing sectors now among developed countries. However, we still have tremendous expertise across the country in developing social housing and affordable housing.

We find that fewer Canadians are qualifying for the higher cost of home ownership. This issue really comes home to roost in an economic recession. People have failing mortgages. Some people's financing was arranged through sub-prime mortgages.

Over the years, we have seen a very piecemeal approach to housing. While we saw a few initiatives in the late 1990s toward a homelessness strategy, there was never a recognition by the previous government, or the current government, that this was a mandate of the federal government.

The bill before us today says to the federal government that we must develop that national housing strategy and that we should work in partnership with the provinces, territories, Quebec, first nations and municipalities. A great amount of expertise exists, but it needs federal leadership and an overall strategy to ensure the resource is fully developed.

My will bill speaks to that. It calls on the minister to convene discussions with the various stakeholders to develop such a national strategy to ensure there is adequate housing. In this day and age, where we see such severe problems, this is very critical.

I know that in Quebec there have been some really excellent programs developed. I do want to acknowledge the very good work that has been done there over the years. We often point to Quebec as an example of what can be done in the development of good social housing and co-op housing.

I am hoping that if this bill can move forward on second reading and into committee, that we will have the support from the government, certainly from Liberal members, many of whom have a great interest in this issue, and also from members of the Bloc Québécois.

I do want to make it clear that my intent and commitment, should it go through second reading and into committee, is to ensure that there is an amendment along the lines that would recognize the unique nature of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec with regard to social housing in Quebec, and notwithstanding any other provision of this act the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the application of this act, and should the development of a national housing strategy cause to be created a transfer of funds to the provinces and territories, the Government of Quebec may choose to be exempted from the strategy, and notwithstanding any such decision shall receive in full any transfer payment arising from the implementation of the strategy.

Now we are not at that point yet because we are talking about the development of a plan and a strategy, but I did want to make it clear to my friends in the Bloc that we are hoping for their support, recognizing the unique nature of the jurisdiction of Quebec.

I also want to point out that there are many initiatives underway across the country. For example, this Saturday in Vancouver there is a grand march for housing. This is organized by the city-wide housing coalition. It is really a manifestation of the incredible anxiety that people are facing. Certainly, within low income communities, like the downtown eastside, groups like the Carnegie Community Action Project have done a lot of work to draw attention to the housing crisis in that neighbourhood, a neighbourhood that I represent as a member of Parliament.

This is now a crisis that has gone right across the city. It is affecting renters in the west end, in Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, and South Vancouver. We have such a severe situation in Vancouver, with an almost zero vacancy rate, that people are now crying out for every level of government to see this as a key priority, not only socially in terms of providing for this most basic of human rights, the right to adequate shelter, but also as an economic stimulus. I cannot think of a better way to create good Canadian jobs than having a good investment in social housing.

In Vancouver, there is going to be a huge march with thousands of people in our city calling on all levels of government to work together. My bill today is an example and a reflection of what could be done if we have the will to do it.

I know that organizations like the Wellesley Institute and Michael Shapcott have done so much work on housing over the years. He has pointed out that hundreds of thousands who will experience homelessness this year will not get a single penny in desperately needed new programs and services. He again points out that three million Canadian households are precariously housed, which he calls a modern day record. He has expressed in his research, in the work that he does with organizations across the country, just how bad the situation is.

I think this is very alarming to people because we think of Canada as a wealthy country where these basic provisions of human needs can be met, and yet we have seen not only a growing gap between wealth and poverty but we have seen an abandonment of this most fundamental measure by the federal government.

We do think it is very important for the federal government to take up its responsibility as was called for by the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing. We have had visits by the UN rapporteur. He has issued reports that have in effect condemned Canada for the fact that it has not provided the kind of leadership for the provision of housing, particularly when it comes to aboriginal people.

I am very happy to read into the record statements made by the National Aboriginal Housing Association, which is an excellent organization that has done much work over the years to provide aboriginal housing. It points out:

Canada must put in place a National Housing Strategy; indigenous peoples must have a voice in developing such a strategy.

The proposed bill (C-304) includes a reference to, and a provision for, Aboriginal housing to be addressed, and calls for Aboriginal participation in developing a national strategy.

I would say that is absolutely right on. That is what the bill contains, so we are very pleased to see that the National Aboriginal Housing Association is supporting the bill.

We also received a letter from the mayor of Sudbury, John Rodriguez, who points out that he is pleased to lend his support to the bill and its objective, an effective housing strategy for Canada. He states in his letter:

Many years ago, the federal and provincial governments cooperated effectively to build affordable housing here in our community. Today, there is a crisis of homeless and housing stressed individuals and families in this city. The historic cooperation is needed again and the federal government has no real plan to address these challenges.

There it is. He hit the nail right on the head. There is no plan to address this crisis, whether it is in Sudbury, Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal or Toronto, which I know has had severe housing issues.

There is no question that this is something that is urgently needed.

During the last few years, we have seen some incredible leadership at the municipal level. We have seen municipalities go the distance using zoning, municipal land and incentives to develop social housing.

However, without the partnership of the federal government, without clear objectives laid out, as we used to have more than a decade ago, then all of these things become piecemeal efforts. We should be ensuring that the efforts of municipal governments, provincial governments, and the success of what we have seen in Quebec is something that we can strengthen and build on if the federal government was at the table.

Therefore, I am very hopeful that the bill that is being debated today for a national housing strategy for the development of such cooperation and partnership is something that can be and will be supported by members of the House.

I believe that when we talk to people in our communities, we see the dire circumstances that people are facing. I sometimes feel sick when I see people come to my constituency office and they have been on a waiting list for more than 10 years to get into social housing. It just seems so wrong for something so basic. When somebody puts their name on a list and they wait and they wait, they still do not manage to get into the limited housing that is there.

It is an issue of demand completely outstripping the capacity that we have. Therefore, it is very important that we develop this plan so that we can move on and begin to use the resources that we have to put such a plan into effect.

I want to thank the organizations that have been supporting the bill. I know that there will be more support coming in because it has gained a lot of interest across the country. This is something that housing organizations, like the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, the National Aboriginal Housing Association and others, have worked on year after year. They have never let it go.

There was a time when housing was not even on the national agenda. It is now. We are making this a political priority. We are saying front and centre that Canada's record on housing is now abysmal. It is something that is an embarrassment in the international community as evidenced by the report from the United Nations.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in other parties about the bill today. We look forward to support of the bill, so that we can work on it in committee. I certainly want to say to our colleagues in the Bloc that we are committed to presenting an amendment that we think will make the bill acceptable in terms of the jurisdiction of Quebec, as we did with our child care bill and our bill on post-secondary education.

I want to see the bill go forward. There is more debate to be had. We want to see this plan go forward and I hope the members will support it.

Bill C-304--Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am the member who is putting forward Bill C-304, which will receive its first hour of debate today. I have listened very carefully to the comments from the member across the way who is rising and suggesting that this bill will require a royal recommendation.

I first introduced this bill a number of years ago, and I have reintroduced it in this Parliament. I have to say that it was written very carefully. The purpose of the bill was designed in such a way that it is focusing on the development of the need for a strategy and a plan. I would submit that there is a difference, a very key difference, and a balance between a bill that speaks to the need to have the development of a strategy and plan and a bill that actually clearly delineates that money shall be spent.

The focus of this bill is to say that the federal government should be collaborating with the provinces, the territories, first nations, and municipalities to develop a housing strategy for Canadians. What flows from that plan would be the subject of another debate, should this pass, and I hope it will pass because I think it is something that is urgently needed in this country. It may well be at that time, in terms of when a plan is developed, that we will be in a debate such as the member has raised today.

The focus and the key element of this bill is for the federal government to work with its partners to develop a plan and a strategy. It does not speak to the implementation or the development of funds or the expenditure of funds, it focuses on the need to develop a plan in partnership with other key stakeholders across the country.

I feel that is a very important difference. As submissions are received, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will consider that and recognize that developing a plan is something that I as a member, and other members, should be able to call on the government to do. It is within the government's mandate to do that, to work with other partners. What flows from that would be the subject of a further discussion, a further debate, and these issues may arise, but they do not arise at this particular time for the purposes of Bill C-304.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, brought forward by the member for Vancouver East.

Without commenting on the merits of Bill C-304, I submit that this bill would create new spending and therefore must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Bill C-304 would require the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consult with provinces, municipalities and aboriginal communities to establish a national housing strategy.

Subclause 3(1) of Bill C-304 provides that the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation shall, following consultations with provincial ministers and representatives of municipalities and aboriginal communities:

establish a national housing strategy designed to ensure that the cost of housing in Canada does not compromise an individual’s ability to meet other basic needs, including food, clothing and access to education.

Subclause 3(2) states:

The national housing strategy shall provide financial assistance, including financing and credit without discrimination, for those who are otherwise unable to afford rental housing.

I submit that subclause 3(2), relating to providing financing and credit without discrimination, can only be accomplished by making changes to the parameters governing provision by the Government of Canada of a guarantee to mortgage loan insurers operating in Canada.

Providing homeowner mortgage loan insurance to individuals who were previously unable to obtain financing because of their financial circumstances would require changes to the mortgage loan insurance parameters, which would change the guarantee that the government provides to private mortgage loan insurers in Canada as well as to the conditions and criteria used by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to determine eligibility for mortgage insurance.

Therefore, the effect of the national housing strategy would be to broaden the eligibility of homeowner mortgage loan insurance, which would increase government liabilities by covering individuals who would otherwise not have been eligible for such loans.

In a decision on changes to the parameters for a program, on April 23, 1990, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill C-69, the Expenditures Restraint Act, that:

...there are instances where the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications may be affected in such a manner as to involve financial implications. For instance, if a program is extended to cover an additional period of time or if the parameters of a program are broadened to cover more applicants, then a royal recommendation is necessary.

In a decision on increasing government liabilities, on June 12, 1973, the Speaker ruled in the case of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, that:

It may be said that the proposal in Bill S-5 does not in itself propose a direct expenditure. It does, however, propose substantial additional liabilities on public monies.

The responsibility for housing is shared between federal, provincial and municipal governments. Bill C-304 appears to rely on the constitutional spending power to implement an expanded federal role in housing in the form of a new federal housing strategy.

Subclause 3(2) of Bill C-304 makes clear that a key element of this new national housing strategy would be to increase federal spending on housing.

Therefore, I humbly submit that the bill should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, before oral questions I was presenting proof to this House that drug use continues to rise in Canada. In 1994, 28% of Canadians reported to have used illicit drugs, but by 2004, the number was 45%, almost double. This is what happens when a government is not smart on crime.

I had the pleasure of visiting the Salvation Army's Booth Centre in Halifax last week. The Booth Centre offers addiction and rehabilitation services in both Halifax, Nova Scotia and Saint John, New Brunswick. The centre's services include group therapy, individual counselling and classes in life skills and relapse prevention. The centre includes a homeless shelter for men that offers hot meals and personal supports to the men.

Robert Lundrigan, the assistant executive director, gave me a tour of the centre. During our tour, I saw quite a few familiar faces. One familiar face was a man with whom I had worked to help find housing back at Dalhousie Legal Aid when I was working there. He had been referred to me by the Booth Centre. Since he was in the drug counselling program, he was looking to move out of the shelter and into affordable safe housing of his own. I was so pleased to see him. He was at the Booth Centre, not because he had not gotten through the program, not because he had relapsed, not because he had fallen off the wagon, but in fact he was there as a volunteer. He was clean and he was giving back to his community.

I joined Mr. Lundrigan for lunch with some of his colleagues at the centre. Over lunch, I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Rick MacDonald. Rick had come through the rehabilitation program. He had been homeless and addicted. He was now clean and he was employed as an addictions counsellor himself, offering supports and strength to men who are currently in the situation that Rick had managed to get out of.

We talked about the work of the centre. I raised the fact that Bill C-15 would be debated in this hon. House. He was quite interested to hear about it. I started telling him about the changes to the minimum sentences and he cut me off and asked whether there was any money for treatment in this bill. I said no. He asked me whether there was money for supportive housing. I had to say no. He told me that it is not going to work, that they need treatment and housing, that they need supportive housing.

He told me about how he hits the streets as part of his job. He looks for men who are addicted and who are homeless hiding in the nooks and crannies of Halifax that we have forgotten about. He finds men living under bridges and in the bushes. He checks on them to see if they are okay and to see if they are ready to take the first step toward dealing with their addictions, which is getting housed and getting into treatment.

If the government were serious about its war on drugs, it would support us in our call for a national housing strategy.

My colleague from Vancouver East has introduced private member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. It is due for second reading on April 2. This bill would legislate the government to develop a national housing strategy, one that would consider investments in not-for-profit housing, housing for the homeless, housing that is sustainable and environmental, and access to housing for those with different needs, including seniors and persons with disabilities. That includes supportive housing, supportive housing that Rick knows is vital to getting the men he works with off drugs and out of the cycle of crime and violence, and the jail they find themselves in.

If passed, Bill C-304 would tie together Canada's current patchwork of homelessness and housing initiatives and it would mandate the government to create a plan that is effective and comprehensive.

I talked about this housing bill at the Booth Centre. People there asked for a copy. They asked me if there was a petition about the bill. These people are staff at an addictions and rehabilitation centre and they are getting excited about a bill about housing because they understand what a positive impact a national housing strategy would have on the work that they do fighting against the stranglehold that drugs have on their friends.

Since my election to this hon. House last October, less than six months ago, I have seen time and time again examples like this, where the community gets the problem, the community gets the solutions, but the government gets neither.

The government thinks that throwing people in jail is the solution, that prison is going to fix everything, that this is great federal leadership, that it is tough on crime. However, it will be the provincial police forces, courts and legal aid and treatment centres that will bear the greatest burden of the cost for the initiatives under this bill. Craig Jones from the John Howard Society has said, “The feds will crack down on crime, but the provinces will be punished”.

With 12 of the 24 proposed mandatory sentences under a two year duration, it will be the provincial prison populations that continue to grow. HIV and AIDS advocates worry about the growing rate of infection in overcrowded prisons already. The B.C. Government and Service Employees' Union has spoken out publicly about this issue, saying that Canada's prisons are overcrowded and “boiling over with violence”.

The costs of this approach are remarkable. The annual average cost of incarcerating an individual male in Canada is about $74,000 at the minimum security level and over $110,000 at the maximum security level. That is $110,000 a year for each person who is scooped up by these mandatory minimums, yet we do not see any money in this bill that would go toward ensuring that people do not end up in jail in the first place.

This is not being smart on crime. It is smoke and mirrors. I feel it necessary to point out that in 2005 the Conservatives promised 1,000 additional RCMP and 2,500 additional municipal police officers, which they have failed to deliver.

If this bill is not smart on crime, what would that bill look like? How about this: an overall coordinated strategy focused on gangs and organized crime; an improved witness protection program; more resources for prosecution and enforcement; toughened proceeds of crime legislation; more officers on the street, as promised by the Conservatives but not yet delivered; and better and more prevention programs to divert youth at risk.

This approach is smart on crime and this is the approach the NDP is calling for. In 2002 the House Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, the Officer of the Auditor General and the Senate committee made a call for how to deal with the drug situation in Canada. Their recommendations were strengthened leadership, coordination and accountability with dedicated resources, enhanced data collection to set measurable objectives, and increased emphasis on prevention, treatment and rehabilitation. They all seem to get it. All of us seem to get it, except for the government.

In conclusion, Bill C-15 increases the already imbalanced and over-funded enforcement approach to drug use in Canada without reducing crime rates or drug use. It is an oversimplification of drug use in Canada and targets street-level users and small-time traffickers. It does not address the problems of violent or organized crime.

The Conservatives are taking Canada in the wrong direction. It is a direction that is expensive, has no effect on drug use and will only increase the prison population, creating a whole new set of problems with overpopulation, and health, safety and crime problems within the prison system.

Canada must have a balanced approach to drug use. The four pillar approach of prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement has been successful in Europe and it is being adopted by big city mayors right here in Canada. That is what we call being smart on crime.

Housing

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to present a petition in support of private member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, due for debate in the House in the coming weeks.

The petitioners call for an increased federal role in housing through investments 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.

I am pleased to point out that many of these petitioners come from Halifax as well as from Saskatoon, which shows that the support for this bill runs across the country. They ask that this support extend beyond the one-time stimulus investment contained in budget 2009.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition in support of Private Member's Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, due to come up for second reading on April 2.

A number of Nova Scotians have signed this petition, from the communities of Halifax, Dartmouth, Timberlea, Eastern Passage, Lower Sackville and other communities. They are calling for an increased federal role in housing through investments 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.

If passed, Bill C-304 would tie together Canada's current patchwork of homelessness and housing initiatives and would mandate the government to create a plan that is effective and comprehensive.

I look forward to the minister's response to these petitioners.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present today a petition in support of private member's bill, Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, due for debate in this honourable place in the coming weeks.

The petition contains 42 signatures and they were gathered by community activist, James Chant, who works in the health care industry in my riding of Halifax.

The petitioners call for an increased federal role in housing through investments 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.

They ask that this support extend beyond the one-time stimulus investment contained in budget 2009.

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Halifax for seconding the bill.

The bill would ensure adequate, accessible and affordable housing. There is no question that there is a housing crisis in this country. We know that at least three million Canadian households live in housing insecurity and that homelessness is a terrible crisis in many communities.

It is important that the federal government accept its responsibility for housing and work with the provinces, local communities and aboriginal representatives to ensure we deal with the housing problem.

The bill puts forward a strong plan to ensure that secure, adequate, affordable and accessible housing is there, that coop housing is developed, that housing for aboriginal people is developed and that housing is developed for people who are homeless. The bill calls on the federal government to work in a cooperative way with other partners to develop such a strategy and a program. We believe this is critical.

I hope all members of the House will consider the bill and support it because we need to ensure that we do not have a homelessness crisis and a housing crisis in a country as wealthy as Canada.

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