Bill C-400 (Historical)

Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act

An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians

The purpose of this enactment is to require the Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to consult with the provincial ministers of the Crown responsible for municipal affairs and housing and with representatives of municipalities, Aboriginal communities, non-profit and private sector housing providers and civil society organizations in order to establish a national housing strategy.

Housing

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although we share some of the same concerns and agree on certain issues, I invite the parliamentary secretary to take note of some of the constructive bills that the NDP has introduced to help people gain access to safe and affordable housing.

I am talking about Bill C-241, which seeks to recognize an individual's right to proper housing at a reasonable cost, and Bill C-400, which seeks to ensure secure, adequate, accessible, and affordable housing.

Having been the head of a community housing organization for more than 10 years, I am well aware of the different roles of municipal, provincial, and federal governments. I worked in the world of social housing for more than 10 years. I expect great things from the federal government when it comes to social housing. I saw thousands of young people benefit from social housing and saw how it gave them what they needed to get ahead in life.

Economic Action Plan 2015 Act No. 1

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to what is called the 2015 budget. However, to my perspective, it is actually the 2017 budget because none of the money for cities will arrive for two years.

We will hear in conversations from the other side about how the Conservatives have put all kinds of money into cities through the gas tax. I would remind everybody here that this was a Paul Martin Liberal Party initiative. To take credit for it is to give us credit for forward thinking.

However, the budget has been described by the minister on the other side continually in question period as having three Ts, and I agree with him. There are three Ts. This budget is totally useless, totally unnecessary and totally unfair. For cities, nothing highlights this more than the housing promises.

There is a provision in the budget bill to forgive mortgages held by CMHC taken out by public housing providers and to put a fund in place to pay off the penalties for discharging mortgages and refinancing, and that is taking up a second mortgage with a second, private sector lender. What is not detailed, but has now come out through questioning, is that when public housing providers take advantage of this so-called opportunity, they lose their subsidies for the rent-geared-to-income units in those buildings. In other words, they would give up a mortgage, take on a new mortgage and somehow, magically, would be expected to finance subsidies for low-income seniors, people with disabilities and other individuals who need assistance. They would actually end up spending more money, relieving the federal government's obligation to people who need housing.

That is the most cynical bait and switch I have ever seen on the housing file. What it ends up situating is one of two opportunities. Either low-income Canadians are subsidizing the government so it can provide tax cuts for affluent Canadians, literally Robin Hood in reverse; or else, the housing providers are given an opportunity to refinance the housing, but in doing so they send the poorest in the housing sector out onto the streets. Out west in Manitoba, where the minister resides, most of those people, close to 5,000 of them, are seniors on fixed incomes. Putting those people at risk is unfair. The fund is totally useless and the response to the needs of the housing sector is totally unreal.

However, it is not just that. There is a promise of $1.7 billion being spent every year as a result of provincial and federal agreements. The Conservatives said that would be continued, that there would be no cuts to this program. They know damn well that those funds actually shrink year after year as subsidies disappear and as mortgages expire. The suggestion is that because they would have no mortgage, they could somehow have a poor neighbour subsidize a less affluent, even poorer neighbour. That is just not fair.

What is really cruel about this is that the assumption is that because housing providers have retired their mortgage they can finally find sums to pay for the subsidy. The truth of the matter is that the funds that are needed when these mortgages retire are there for state of good repair. Because there is no federal capital funding to repair old and aging housing stock, the money that suddenly becomes available to housing providers is dedicated for that, not for subsidies for other poor people. It is the most regressive way of running a housing program we have ever seen.

We have a housing policy, and that policy is more than a plan to have a plan. It involves partnering with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and funding directly, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to create supportive housing programs with an endowment. The second part of that is to renew the co-op and housing agreements and to step back into the housing market, but then also to take those savings as they accrue to the department and reinvest them once again in sustaining and building more co-op and affordable housing across the country.

The final piece of this is that with a shrinking CMHC and pulling CMHC out of the housing market, we also need to ensure we do not just focus on affordable housing but housing affordability. That housing affordability is critical in places like Calgary, Saskatoon and Edmonton where, because of the drop in commodity prices, the housing market has suddenly become very fragile. We need a federal government that protects middle-class homeowners, access to rental housing and access to the market for first-time buyers. Instead, what we get is some sort of laissez-faire attitude that says “do what you will”. We have not indexed, for example, the tax breaks for first-time homebuyers, so it is still stuck in the 1980s model as opposed to being updated annually and making housing accessible to everyone who wants to gain that opportunity.

These programs need to arrive. The government on the other side has no program other than to pull money out fo the public housing sector and use it to subsidize tax breaks to the affluent.

The NDP, to its credit, has a plan but it is only a plan to have a plan. If we read Bill C-400, we see it is to have a big meeting. There are no actual specifics as to how to solve the housing crisis in the country.

When we speak about it and folks criticize an earlier government, they are fine to go off and build a time machine, and go back and prosecute that election. It is time to start building housing in the country and the Liberal plan would do that. This budget does not address one iota of that.

On transit, it is even sillier. There is no money for two years and then it comes in dribs and drabs. The program the government has proposed is too big for small cities and too small for big cities, and it will not get transit built in a timely way. Cities need that money now, and not just for new projects. The state of good repair in places like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver is a critical issue facing urban centres. Without additional dollars, not earmarked for ribbon-cutting exercises but earmarked for the development and sustaining of existing transit systems, those transit systems will fail.

Stepping in and providing that revenue is critically important today, not in two or three years' time. If it arrives in two or three years' time, the new transit does not arrive for five to ten years, and that is not a response to gridlock. In fact, what the Conservative government is saying with this budget is, “Wait at the side of the road. Wait for the bus for two or three more years. Wait, wait, wait, we'll get to you at some point”, because right now it is more important not to provide the assistance to cities for which they have asked.

Finally on infrastructure, two years ago there was a 90% cut. Last year, there were zero dollars in Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, and small communities and small towns right across the country. The odd dollar arrived, but the bulk of the program, once again, is back-end loaded for 10 years. For critical infrastructure, to build strong cities, in which close to 82% of Canadians live, there is no new money in this budget. There is not a new timetable. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the cities know this.

This budget has to change, and it has to change to support those very programs I just mentioned. If it does not change, cities will not grow, our country will stagnate, and 82% of all Canadians will see their cities fail as the government promises tax cuts that, quite frankly, do not even address the socio-economic needs of the people who live in those cities. This is a huge problem and it needs to change and it needs to change with a go-forward argument, not a debate about what happened 25 years ago.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member may not be familiar with our many initiatives, because he had not yet been elected at the time, but the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot introduced Bill C-400, which is precisely our proposal for a national social housing strategy. I invite the member to look it up online to see the details of our plan.

My colleague from Hochelaga introduced a bill before Parliament calling on the government to continue to invest in rent subsidies, thereby maintaining the agreements. I invite the member to also look that up online for more details, and to consult the NDP website to learn more about our plans. We have concrete plans. We have brought them before the House, and the government refused to support them.

Finance

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for that very important question.

Affordable housing is definitely one of the biggest losers in this budget. Many organizations have condemned the lack of adequate funding. None of the recommendations coming out of the pre-budget consultations really address this issue in any meaningful way, despite the fact that we heard witnesses talk about the importance of investing in housing and express disappointment in the federal government's lack of interest in this issue.

Also, in our supplementary report, we specifically talked about how the government should take immediate action to address the affordable housing crisis facing Canadian municipalities by renewing social housing agreements and working to develop and implement a national housing strategy as proposed by Bill C-400.

Unfortunately, the government did not pay attention to that recommendation, which is a real shame because the affordable housing crisis is affecting the whole country and is not getting any real attention from the federal government.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, on October 29, I asked the minister about homelessness in Canada, about homelessness strategies that the government was not employing and the fact that homelessness was getting worse, not better, under the government. The minister's answer was somewhat glib and somewhat non-specific to what has become a crisis in our country.

Homelessness costs Canadians $7 billion. Beyond that, there is a critical housing shortage.

When my colleague presented Bill C-400 in the House last year, the Conservatives voted against it because they that said it would cost $6.2 billion. The purpose of that bill was to find a way to ensure that everyone in our country had a home. The $6.2 billion is less than $7 billion, so it would have been cheaper for the government to have adopted Bill C-400.

In my riding of York South—Weston, close to half the residents are renters and of those, more than 36% spend more than 30% of their income on housing, which is the standard by which the government and the banks determine when people are spending too much. Almost 90% of the renters living in those big concrete towers, which is 45% of my riding, have some form of insecurity attached to their housing, yet the government says that everything is fine.

Close to one-third of those renters are in critical risk of homelessness. They have four or more aspects of their housing that is on the edge, that is either insufficient for the number of people in their household or is costing way too much for them. If they miss one paycheque, they and their children will be out on the street, and nobody wants to see that happen.

In the past few years, the government has signalled that it will not renew some 600,000 affordable housing units that are provided through the co-ops that have agreements with CMHC, with the government. These are coming to an end over the coming years. Many of those co-ops will be unable to continue. They have huge bills that have mounted up over the years because they have been living on the edge and they will be unable to continue once that funding ends.

It is almost criminal for the government to suggest that the funding will end, that the money will return to the treasury and that everything will be rosy when in fact, it has admitted, through its responses on Bill C-400, there is a $6.2 billion gap in the housing in our country, a $6.2 billion need for housing. There are 1.2 million households that have some kind of housing need. Those households have an average of $4,779 of need and the government has decided it will not provide it. It is not going to talk about it because it does not want to know. That is no way to address a real problem.

Some answers have been given to us by those who have written the “State of Homelessness in Canada 2014” report. I would like the government to at least consider these recommendations: a new framework agreement that sets clear priorities and requires local planning between the federal, provincial, and municipal governments; increased Housing First investments that target chronic and episodic homelessness through an expansion of the homelessness partnering strategy; direct investment in affordable housing programs, specifically, federal funding for social housing, co-ops, non-profits, as operating agreements wind down; a housing benefit for those who face a severe affordability problem; a new affordable housing tax credit; and a review and expand involvement in aboriginal housing both on and off reserve.

Child Poverty

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as official opposition critic for Employment and Social Development, I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for bringing this important motion forward, especially because this debate falls just a day away from the 25th anniversary of the all-party motion to eradicate child poverty.

At the end of last week, I had the privilege of attending a phenomenal conference in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which addressed a large component of this motion: affordable and accessible child care. The NDP was the only federal party whose leader was in attendance. I want to take a moment to personally thank the leader of the official opposition for making it his priority to be in attendance.

I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the important announcement made by the leader of the official opposition last month. An NDP government would see no parent in our country paying more than $15 a day for child care and would create one million new child care spaces. That announcement cuts to the very heart of the child care crisis in Canada right now. It cuts to the very heart of child poverty and to the eradication of poverty.

Right now in our country, two parents, working full-time at minimum wage, would struggle to pay for a full-time daycare spot. In Winnipeg last week, the leader of the official opposition said that this was not okay, that it should be no more than $15 a day for accessible, quality daycare. The NDP has also called for a $15 an hour minimum wage for federally regulated employment.

No parent should have to choose between affordability and safety. In 2014, in a beautiful developed country like Canada, one of the top in the G7, it is absolutely flabbergasting that we have child poverty. Unfortunately, eradication of poverty is not a given. Canada ranks 23rd among the countries in the OECD, despite the fact that we like to see ourselves as part of the G20 and the G7.

Not only that, but when it comes to public spending on early learning and child care, Canada ranks dead last among comparable countries. We can do better. Simply put, we do not prioritize our young people and that will have a significant consequence on the future of our country if we do not turn things around.

Currently 900,000 children in Canada are in need of affordable, quality daycare spots. The government promised the creation of 125,000 new spaces in 2006. Where are those spots? Not a single new spot was created.

The importance of quality early childhood education in the development of children cannot be understated. It prevents social exclusion and ensures that every child has an opportunity to develop into a contributing member of our society. Studies suggest that growing up in a household that lacks adequate financial resources for basic family needs has long-term negative impacts.

According to research by Pierre Fortin, Quebec's model of child care has a positive effect on the economy, and we know how much the Conservative government likes to believe it is a good economic manager. More than 70,000 mothers were able to join the workforce and generate a return of $1.75 for every dollar spent on child care.

In 1989, my friend, Ed Broadbent, introduced a motion that was was unanimously passed in the House. All parliamentarians in this place came together and committed to eradicating child poverty, because all of them could agree that one child living in poverty in our country was one child too many, yet here we are. One in seven children currently live in poverty. When we look at aboriginal children, the numbers are bleaker. Two in five aboriginal children live in poverty.

On these numbers alone, I implore all members of the House to stand and support my colleague's motion, but words are not enough. We need to take action. Let us all come together again in a renewed commitment for the betterment of all Canadian children. Surely all members in the House still agree that one child living in poverty is one too many. Surely, with all of the divisions that exist within these walls, we can agree on that.

I want to take a moment to thank a mentor of mine, Laurel Rothman, who has dedicated her career to eradicating child poverty in Canada. I have the deepest respect for her tenacity and dedication. In our short time working together, I have learned so much from her, both factually and ethically. She is my hero in countless ways, and I wish her the very best in her retirement. Laurel is an inspiration and I am a better person and member of Parliament for having worked with her. From the bottom of my heart, I thank her.

The Conservative government has led the country into such a housing crisis that one in four Canadian families spends more than one-third of its overall income on housing. Housing prices in Vancouver, and outskirts like Surrey and Delta, are sky high, yet Canada is still the only country in the G8 without a national housing strategy. I am devastated by that. Housing costs are among the top concerns of my constituents in Surrey, and I am sure the same holds true for the constituents of many members in the House.

The NDP proposed Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the government. Had it passed, it would have addressed the plight of 300,000 homeless Canadians and approximately 1.5 million households, many with children, that could not access a decent, affordable home.

For the NDP, a housing strategy that establishes a structured coordination between the federal and provincial levels of government, as well as with other relevant organizations, is of fundamental importance.

The eradication of poverty will only be possible when the national housing crisis is addressed. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is pleading with the Conservative government to invest in long-term funding for affordable and sustainable housing. Due to cuts from the Conservative government, many low-income renters are in a state of panic.

Since the 1970s, low-income renters have received federal subsidies, but the government claws them back and people are left without a solution. In first nations communities, the situation is even more dire.

This motion is not asking for too much. Quite simply, we are asking the Conservative government to make the elimination of child poverty a priority, not just in words but in real actions, and to develop a poverty reduction plan with timelines and measurable benchmarks that would include components to address children's poverty. That would involve taking action on the crisis of poverty for indigenous children, making housing more affordable for lower income Canadians, creating a national early childhood education and child care program, addressing childhood nutrition, and improving economic security for families.

Children are poor because their parents are poor. No child chooses to be born into poverty. Because of that, it means addressing poverty in a comprehensive way is essential to addressing childhood poverty and to ensure the future of our country. Poverty affects three million Canadians. Three million children, seniors, indigenous people, persons living with disabilities, single parents and recent immigrants are all more likely to live in poverty.

Over 967,000 children live in poverty, and 22,000 adults under age 25 are homeless. Canada ranks 15th out of 17 among peer countries when it comes to child poverty rates, and B.C. has the ignominious privilege, if I can call it that, of having the highest child poverty rate in Canada.

Thirty-eight per cent of children living with single parents live in poverty and forty per cent of indigenous children live in poverty. I said it already, and I will say it again, that collectively we can do better. As members of Parliament, we can stand together in the House and recommit to eliminating child poverty. What more meaningful way to mark the 25th anniversary of the unanimous motion passed in the House with an objective we have yet to achieve.

I ask all my colleagues to support the motion, because no one should be left behind and, mostly, no child. Let me remind the House, no child chooses to be born in poverty. It behooves each and every one of us to address this stigma on our country right away.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should work in collaboration with the provinces, territories and First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities to eradicate child poverty in Canada by developing a national poverty reduction plan that includes: (a) making housing more affordable for lower income Canadians; (b) ensuring accessible and affordable child care; (c) addressing childhood nutrition; (d) improving economic security of families; (e) measures that specifically address the unique needs of First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities; and (f) measurable targets and timelines.

Mr. Speaker, today on the eve of the 25th anniversary, I am honoured and privileged to stand and present my Motion No. 534, to reiterate our commitment to eradicating child poverty in Canada.

A quarter of a century ago, in 1989, a similar motion was introduced by former NDP leader Ed Broadbent to eradicate child poverty by 2000. That motion received unanimous consent in the House. Here we are 25 years later, and not much has changed.

I do not want to make accusations to any of the successive Liberal or Conservative governments for not taking proper actions to eliminate child poverty since the House made the promise and commitment to do so. However, I also cannot keep quiet and pretend that poverty rates among children have improved compared to 25 years ago, or that Canada is poverty-free.

For 25 consecutive years, Canadian children and their families who live in poverty have been left behind and marginalized on the agendas of successive governments. Twenty-five years is a long time. It makes me wonder why almost one million Canadian children are living in poverty today and why successive governments have allowed the rate of poverty to increase compared to 25 years ago. It makes me wonder whether the Liberal and Conservative governments over the last 25 years have felt that the opinions of the impoverished do not matter.

What went wrong? Why was a promise to our country's children broken? If we did not keep the promise to our children, then that is fine; it is perhaps that the governments of the day felt that children do not vote and so they are not a huge priority.

However, how about the promise that Canada made to the rest of the world when we ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in 1991? We agreed to uphold international principles, values, and standards. According to article 27.1:

States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

The section then continues and holds states more responsible by obliging them to do the following:

[...] take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

My motion deals with all of those, but specifically nutrition, housing, and child care.

As a state that is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canada is not meeting its commitment globally today.

This past week, I spent a lot of time with children in our schools in Scarborough, and many of them found it difficult to imagine that there are children and families who go hungry and cannot afford to have their daily meals. The reality is that it is happening right here, in one of the world's richest countries, our great Canada.

In its November 7, 2013, report, Campaign 2000 stated:

Food security among families is highly critical with 1.1 million children experiencing food insecurity, a situation of inadequate or insecure access to food because of financial constraints, and children represent 36% of food bank users in Canada.

According to another recent article in the Huffington Post, on November 4, 2014, there are 375,000 people in Ontario who use food banks, of whom 36% are children.

Health Canada's report entitled “Household Food Insecurity in Select Provinces and Territories 2009-2010” showed that Nunavut, in Canada's north, has the highest number of households in Canada that are food insecure, which is 28.8%. That is more than double the number in the Yukon, which holds second place at 11%.

Another question that one might think to ask is what the current government has done to lower the levels of poverty in Canada. When we pose questions in question period, the government says that it has lowered the levels. Let us look at some details.

The reality is that not much has been done. Some cabinet ministers have even demonstrated quite embarrassing hospitality when the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food was in Canada. It was quite a shame.

The United Nations has also described housing and homelessness in Canada as a national emergency. An estimated 250,000 people are homeless, with another 1.1 million living in inadequate housing, and more than 500,000 are facing a serious financial burden which threatens their housing security. Over 10% of those identified as homeless are youth aged 16 to 18.

In its first universal periodic review, a number of members of the UN Human Rights Council expressed significant concerns about poverty and housing in Canada. A number of recommendations were made to enhance the catastrophic situations of housing, for which we as a nation were heavily criticized. Despite the original denial from the government, it involuntarily, and under pressure, accepted some of the recommendations from the member states.

Canada agreed to consider taking on board the recommendation of the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, specifically to extend and enhance the national homelessness program and the residential rehabilitation assistance program. Canada also committed to double its efforts to better ensure the right to adequate housing, especially for vulnerable groups and low-income families.

However, just when we thought there might be improvements, the current Conservative government voted against Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. It did not stop there. In the June 2012 budget, it also defunded and closed down the former National Council of Welfare, the NCW, which was an organization that highlighted poverty and warned policy-makers of the consequences of neglecting those in need. By eliminating the role of the NCW, the government officially shut down the source of reports and information that depicted the depth and breadth of poverty in Canada. Instead of eliminating the problem of poverty, it eliminated the messenger, the NCW.

It is something like the metaphor where the cat thinks that if it closes its eyes and drinks milk that nobody around can see it.

We have heard the parliamentary secretary stating that we do not have much of a poverty problem in Canada. The truth is that we do not have a national information centre, the NCW, to do the research and present any reports to us. The government does not understand that affordable and adequate housing does not only offer shelter but also offers individuals and families a sense of stability, security, and motivation. The children I met with last week knew that. They know that ensuring that they have a roof over their houses means safety and security for them.

We need a comprehensive plan to tackle this issue and save more money for Canadians and the national revenue. According to a study conducted by homelessness Canada, each year it costs the system approximately $55,000 to leave a homeless person on the street, while providing adequate housing and support services would cost only $37,000.

Another report by the Canadian Medical Association, in 2013, concluded that child poverty is at the core of socio-economic problems. Over 20% of health-care related expenditure is derived from inadequate housing and the consequences of low-income conditions.

By implementing what is being introduced today through my private member's motion, Canadians will benefit on many levels. First, we will do the right thing; that is, removing homeless Canadians from the streets. Second, that will save Canadians more than $15 billion dollars annually—that is five from removing the homeless, and ten from savings on health care from inadequate housing—which could be used in other areas that could benefit Canadians in various tax benefits and could finance a national child care program, which is the third piece of the motion.

On many occasions when the government was asked about child poverty rates in Canada, there were no clear reasons as to why the rate of child poverty had increased over the last 25 years. On October 28, UNICEF issued its annual report card, and on November 3, it had a symposium entitled “Children in the Wake of the Great Recession”, which was dedicated to child poverty. Neither in the report nor during the seminar was anything positive said about the current and previous federal governments' serious engagement and commitment to eradicating child poverty. Even though the current government and ministers may avoid the facts, poverty is a reality for far too many of Canada's children. If these irresponsible policies continue, that will continue to be the reality for even more of our children.

The government likes to acknowledge that 180,000 children were pulled out of poverty due to its great efforts, which it likes to celebrate. However, it is in denial of the truth, that poverty exists and Canada has a high percentage of child poverty.

On several occasions, the Minister of State for Social Development and the Minister of Employment and Social Development and Minister for Multiculturalism have referred to the UNICEF report and quoted only the favourable parts from it.

I would like to bring to their attention that on November 3, I was present at UNICEF Canada's annual symposium to hear from other experts about report card 12. The government did not even bother to send a representative there to hear from experts on the ground.

The conclusion from the day was that children are worse off today than when the crisis began in 2008, and much worse off than they were 25 years ago. Here is some of what the spokespeople of UNICEF Canada had to say on the day that report card 12 was released:

...what disturbs us is that the relative poverty rate hasn't budged for many years. As a wealthy country we are not doing well enough for our children.

That was from Lisa Wolff, the director of UNICEF Canada.

I have another quote from Tiffany Baggetta, the spokesperson for UNICEF Canada at the symposium. She said:

Overall, child poverty in Canada has decreased but children who were the most poor to begin with have slipped further into poverty.

This means we are not really helping the most vulnerable people in our country: our children.

We can see that the government has a trend of doing things in its own way. We know that it does not like to have much consultation and it does not like to listen to experts or people in the field. It is true that during the recession years, Canada's child poverty rate did decrease from a shameful 23% to 21%. However, 25 years ago, when Parliament made the commitment to end poverty among our children, the rate was only 13%. Successive governments have contributed to the child poverty rate increasing from 13% to 23%. The Conservative government is celebrating that it is now at 21%, which is a significant increase from the 13% it was at when we committed to eradicating poverty in this country.

Let us compare our country with Scandinavian countries and the U.K. These countries have actually done a great job in reducing their child poverty rates. The child poverty rate in Nordic countries is below 6%. It is not 21%, as it is in Canada.

What have we done in the past 25 years in this regard? We can go in circles and have the Liberals and the Conservatives blame and accuse each other for irresponsible governing, but those excuses and accusations will not feed the poor or the children in our country, nor will they provide them with adequate housing, security, or child care.

Again, let me return to parts of the UNICEF report. The government quotes frequently from this report. The quotes lead the government into believing that it has accomplished the mission of eradicating child poverty by pulling 180,000 children out of poverty. According to Statistics Canada, in every year since 1989, on average, 180,000 to 250,000 children are removed from the category of being poor children. Regardless of these numbers, the child poverty rate has continued to increase, despite the fact that the fertility rate has not increased in the same time period. Therefore, it is not that we are having more children: the number of children being removed from poverty remains the same because they are aging out, and our poverty rates continue to grow.

None of the previous governments has done enough. Many factors have contributed in removing these 180,000 children from poverty. Around 12% to 15% of those children who were 17 years of age became 18 years of age and were removed from the count of child poverty. Basically, we removed them statistically from child poverty to make them adults living in poverty, and more than 23,000 of them are now homeless.

Over 70% of those children and their families were lifted above the poverty line through the efforts of provincial governments, private corporations, NGOs, charities, and other social agencies, such as food banks and shelters.

Mr. Speaker, you are giving me the one-minute warning, and I have so much more to say.

Poverty is also racialized in our country, and I will give members some statistics from the GTA before I conclude. Among the broad ethno-racial groups in the GTA, the rates of child poverty were about one in ten in global European groups; one in five for east Asian groups; one in four for aboriginal, south Asian, and Caribbean groups; one in three for children of Arab and west Asian groups; and one in two for children of African groups. Today the GTA has 79% of Ontario's immigrants and 81% of Ontario's visible minorities. This means that far too many of our racialized people living in the GTA are living in poverty.

I would like to conclude by saying that implementing a national strategy to eradicate poverty would have a positive impact on our Canadian economy in both the short and long run. High levels of child poverty generate very significant and growing human and fiscal costs to society and to the economy in the long run.

This motion calls for the eradication of child poverty by investing in affordable and accessible housing, child care, and child nutrition programs. Those are the three social determinants of poverty among our children, and it is our responsibility as the lawmakers of this country to ensure that we are investing in the most vulnerable people in society, our country's children.

Opposition Motion—Affordable housing

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Minister of State for Social Development.

I have two things to say. One, on the issue that we did not ask her questions at committee, we would welcome her return to the committee so we can do that. It is not a problem for us to schedule committee meetings so she can come back. I understand that the questions centred on temporary foreign workers. When we only have 12 minutes to ask questions and the temporary foreign worker program is such an enormous and timely problem, it is difficult to ask all the questions we would love to ask the minister. If she came back it would be wonderful.

The second point is on the $1.7 billion or the $2 billion they are spending currently on housing in some manner, some of which is inherited money from the existing programs or existing mortgage subsidies, as she calls them, although that is not what they really are. When Bill C-400 was presented, the Conservatives suggested that the size of the problem was $6.2 billion. If they are spending $2 billion and the size of the problem is in addition to that, so that the total problem is $8 billion, where would that $6.2 billion come from? Where is the Conservative strategy? Why are the Conservatives suggesting that this little drop in the bucket is enough?

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments. However, they confirm my worst fears, that in fact the current government intends to cut the $1.7 billion it is now spending on affordable housing through the co-op agreements by simply allowing those agreements to expire without any replacement funding whatsoever.

In fact, the government will apparently determine that it will save $1.7 billion, which would then go to provide a more balanced budget, which at the same time, would leave several hundred thousand Canadians without adequate, suitable or affordable housing.

The government suggested, in its opening statement, that it has a commitment to safe, suitable and affordable housing. Yet, when presented with Bill C-400, which would have in fact allowed the government to create a strategy with the provinces and territories to do just that, the government decided to vote against that motion and to kill any idea that the government would be involved in a strategy with the provinces, territories and municipalities.

In conclusion, it appears that the government has not yet answered the question about what will happen to those people whose residences would become unaffordable when these long-term agreements expire.

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 27, I asked the minister for social development about the government's plan to address the affordable housing crisis that exists in this country. Her answer shows that the government just does not understand the depth of the problem. It is a crisis that is causing the city of Toronto to bring people to Ottawa to rally and to ask the federal government to stop the cutting. It is amazing to see a city send people here. It is one thing to have social groups, but a city sending people here to rally is quite an amazing feat.

As the Conservatives allow the long-term housing agreements to expire, up to $1.7 billion in annual funding for housing will be lost. Low-income Canadians will bear the brunt of these cuts. They will no longer be able to afford to pay their rents when their rent-geared-to-income programs end.

I asked why the government is allowing the funding for housing to expire. What I received in reply was a litany of what exists today in helping people who are in housing need. There are 800,000 families and individuals currently being supported in part by federal funds, the result not of the government's action but the actions of previous governments, including the deal cut between Jack Layton and Paul Martin in 2005. The current government voted against it, and I heard nothing about the government's plans to help those in housing need.

The government has been cutting and plans to cut even more from its contribution to housing. The federal contribution to affordable housing was $3.6 billion in 2010. It has fallen to about $2 billion today, and it will fall further, to $1.8 billion by 2016. This is a 52% cut over six years, at a time when the need for affordable housing continues to increase. Further, the number of households served by federal funding to make their rents affordable will also decline, from 800,000 today, to 525,000 by 2016.

The minister also in her answer suggested that job creation would somehow solve the problem. It again shows how out of touch the government is. Many of those receiving assistance already have jobs, but the cost of housing strips many of their ability to pay for their rent. The government is making it worse by forcing people to accept less when coming off EI.

The need for affordable housing for low-income families in this country, which is already great, is growing. Housing need is defined as having to pay more than 30% of one's gross income on shelter.

In my riding of York South—Weston, there are nearly 16,000 households in housing need today. That is over one-third of the households in my riding.

If government members had passed Bill C-400, presented by the NDP, it would have forced the government to begin creating a strategy to deal with this crisis in collaboration with provinces and municipal governments. When it killed the idea of a strategy, it said that to fully correct the problem would cost $6.2 billion. It is good that it has identified the scope of the problem. That is based on the 1.4 million households needing help and that the help needed is an average of $4,779 per year per household. The government is good at pointing its finger at the problem but refuses to lift that finger to help.

When housing costs eat up so much family income, there is little left to pay for health needs, for the needs of children, or to save for the future. There is little left for food. It is no wonder that food bank use is so high in this country.

My question remains: With housing costs at an all-time high, why is the government allowing the funding for housing to expire?

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

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to move concurrence in the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented on Wednesday, December 12, 2012, with respect to labour and skills shortages in Canada. The subtitle of the report is “Addressing Current and Future Challenges”.

There is no doubt that a vital competitive economy in the global era requires the development of a skilled workforce that provides Canadian employers with the workers they need and that provides Canadian workers with the opportunities they deserve. In order to achieve that goal Canada needs to find the right match between skills and employment opportunities so that we do not suffer from skills shortages and high unemployment at the same time.

My NDP colleagues and I supported the standing committee's report on labour shortages in Canada, and we were particularly pleased to see recommendations on incentives for training and labour mobility. However, we also think there are some important areas in which the recommendations did not go far enough in addressing the crucial challenges that Canada faces.

Let me begin with some general areas of concern that were raised in testimony by a number of witnesses who appeared before our committee.

It is true that labour shortages were already being felt prior to the 2008-2009 recession, especially in the western provinces. The recession eased this pressure, but already shortages are reappearing in certain regions and sectors.

Given the aging population, it is likely that labour and skills shortages will increase, but this will not be true for all regions nor for all occupational groups. While shortages may be less severe in occupations requiring fewer qualifications, low-skilled occupations are also experiencing shortages, especially in regions with strong and rapid economic growth.

The first finding of the study, which was reiterated by many witnesses, is that no single solution will magically solve the challenges caused by labour and skills shortages. Various complementary solutions must be identified.

One solution that was mentioned often by the witnesses who appeared as part of the study was to make all the essential information on future labour needs available so that educational programs can be created and modified accordingly, and so that consequently young people can choose occupations that will be in high demand.

Obviously that will not be possible without high-quality labour market information. The holders of these data must work together to avoid duplication and find ways to improve both the quality of the information as well as the distribution of all LMI products to the people who can benefit the most from its use.

Another solution the committee heard throughout the study was to maximize the untapped potential of individuals and certain groups of the Canadian population that have a lower participation rate or a higher unemployment rate than average, such as mature workers, people with disabilities, aboriginal peoples and recent immigrants. These groups represent a huge pool of untapped talents and could help address a significant part of the skills shortages.

Other suggestions made by witnesses include increasing labour force mobility, increasing awareness of trades and professions in demand that are not popular with young people, providing workers with adequate on-the-job training, increasing the level of basic skills, improving worker productivity and increasing reliance on partnerships between various levels of government, companies, educational institutions, students and workers.

Of course, special mention was made of the temporary foreign worker program, around which there was a significant consensus that there had to be reform. Given the recent media spotlight on the temporary foreign worker program, I do not think that will surprise any member in the House.

The recommendations in the report address many of these concerns. In fact, there were 38 recommendations made by the committee, most of which my NDP colleagues and I agreed with. Let me re-emphasize the word “most”, because as one can imagine, on a Conservative-dominated committee, much of the language in this report is both self-congratulatory and slanted to the needs of employers only. Nonetheless, we did find some significant common ground.

There were, however, also areas of significant disagreement, and I want to spend the better part of my remaining time on those areas. These areas represent a huge missed opportunity, and I would hope that moving forward, the government will take a second look at our minority report and use it to shape additional measures that were lacking in the original recommendations.

Let me begin with comments about labour market information.

Time and time again the committee heard from witnesses that labour market information in Canada is not good enough. We heard that the data are not granular enough and do not allow for sufficient breakdown by occupation or region. The data are also not published frequently enough and do not allow for high-quality projections of shortages in the future. In fact, the committee's final report offers numerous instances in which the testimony from industries and the data available from current surveys disagree on whether or not there is or will be a skills or labour shortage in a given industry.

The Certified General Accountants Association recently published an examination of available sources of data that concluded that our current LMI is not good enough to enable policy-makers to effectively deal with labour shortages. It recommends “...closing the statistical information gap and improving the relevance and reliability of labour market statistics at the regional and occupational levels”.

Given that good LMI is the linchpin to good skills training and labour force development policy as well as crucial to good immigration policy and management of the temporary foreign worker program, we find the report's recommendation on LMI to be very weak indeed. We need more than better publicity for the data that are already being produced.

The experts on the advisory panel on labour market information established by the Forum of Labour Market Ministers have already provided an excellent blueprint of the steps that could be taken to improve the collection, analysis and use of LMI in Canada. For that reason, my NDP colleagues and I recommended that the government take steps to implement the recommendations made in the final report of the advisory panel on labour market information.

We also noted in our report that the weakness of our labour market information has been exacerbated by cuts to Statistics Canada and its surveys and by the elimination of core funding for sector councils, which play a crucial role in bringing together industry partners and provide very useful sector-specific LMI. Therefore, we also recommended that Statistics Canada be provided with the funding it needs to improve labour force-related surveys and that core funding be restored to sector councils.

Moving on to a second area that merited additional attention, I want to focus next on the need to develop the Canadian labour force.

While employers are experiencing shortages of both skilled and low-skilled labour, unemployment in Canada remains high, with six unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy. The Conservatives' response has been to blame the unemployed for their unemployment, to reduce access to employment insurance while trying to force Canadians to move to other parts of the country and to use the temporary foreign worker program to drive down wages.

By contrast, New Democrats believe that Canadian workers and employers benefit when Canadians are given the tools they need to be able to take available jobs. That is why we believe that investments in skills training are so important. We laud the report's recommendation that the government consider incentives to employers to invest in on-the-job training. However, we also recommend that the government review its bilateral agreements with the provinces to ensure that they provide maximum benefit to Canadians in need of training. For instance, the fact that the largest part of funding for skills training provided through labour market development agreements is limited to those who qualify for employment insurance benefits makes no sense when more than 6 in 10 unemployed Canadians are not qualifying for EI.

Similarly, we believe that Canadians need support for labour mobility rather than to be threatened with the loss of their EI benefits if they do not move for the jobs. We are pleased that the report recommends support for a tax credit for travel and lodging for those working more than 80 kilometres away from their residence. This is a proposal I have been pushing for years by introducing Bill C-201, an act to amend the Income Tax Act for travel and accommodation deduction for tradespersons. The building and construction trades have been lobbying for this bill for over 30 years, and it continues to be one of the key priorities at each and every one of their legislative conferences.

In every Parliament the government has made vague promises of progress to come; then each Parliament ends without concrete action. The time to rectify that situation is now, and I appreciate the committee's support in this regard. The ask is simple: allow tradespersons and apprentices to deduct travel and accommodation expenses from their taxable income so that they can secure and maintain employment at a construction site that is more than 80 kilometres away from their home.

At a time when some regions of the country suffer from high unemployment while others suffer from temporary skilled labour shortages, the bill offers a solution to both. Best of all, it is revenue neutral for the government because the cost associated with the income tax cut is more than made up by the savings in employment insurance.

Now that the Conservatives have a majority in the House of Commons, there are no more excuses. The government can and must support the bill and act unequivocally to support Canada's building and construction trades. I am hoping to be able to test the government's resolve on this issue in the very near future.

Let me just give a quick shout out to some of the people from my hometown of Hamilton who have been instrumental in putting this issue on Parliament's agenda. In particular, I am thinking of Joe Beattie, Tim Penfold, Geoff Roman, Gary Elleker, Dave MacMaster, Paul Leger and all the members of the Hamilton-Brantford Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, whose support for the bill has been unwavering and who, frankly, were the first to bring the issue to my attention.

I could talk about my bill and the need for its speedy adoption all day. Nonetheless, I recognize that my time here is limited and I also want to get some other issues on the record with respect to the current skills shortage.

One of the other barriers to labour mobility that was raised over and over again was the lack of affordable housing. Regions that are experiencing an economic boom cannot develop housing fast enough to offer workers reasonable accommodation at prices they can afford. Therefore, in our minority report we recommended that the government support NDP Bill C-400, which called on the government to create a national affordable housing strategy in co-operation with the provinces and territories.

Members will know that in the time since we tabled our report, the Conservatives defeated that bill in this House. To New Democrats and housing activists from coast to coast to coast, that was a devastating rejection of a desperately needed program. Canada remains the only G8 country without a housing strategy, while 1.5 million families and individuals are unable to access adequate, affordable housing. It is a national disgrace. Certainly the evidence we heard at committee confirmed that the lack of affordable housing should have been a priority for our federal government.

Similarly, testimony confirmed that the Conservatives also mismanaged the temporary foreign worker program, allowing employers to bring in temporary foreign workers with little to no monitoring for compliance with the rules of the program. The result has been that Canadian workers have lost out on jobs that should have been available to them, while temporary foreign workers face exploitation and rights violations.

If managed properly, the temporary foreign worker program should provide a temporary solution to a serious problem while emphasizing a longer-term response that promotes the best interests of Canadian workers and employers and our economy. The government has announced a review of the temporary foreign worker program, and New Democrats recommend that this review be conducted in a thorough and transparent manner, with a report tabled in the House of Commons as soon as the review is concluded.

Although this is another topic about which I could talk for hours, I will keep moving along.

Let us look next at the need for effective partnerships. In its skills strategy, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that all relevant stakeholders must be involved in order to ensure an effective, comprehensive approach to skills policies. Designing effective skills policies requires more than coordinating different sectors of public administration and aligning different levels of government: a broad range of non-governmental actors, including employers, professional and industry associations, chambers of commerce, sector councils, trade unions, education and training institutions and individuals must all be involved.

New Democrats agree that policies are stronger when all relevant stakeholders are involved and consulted, and that is why we recommend that the development of policy options to improve labour market information to ensure a better match between the skills of graduates and the needs of employers and to develop strong curricula must always include all relevant stakeholders: federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal governments, businesses and industry, employee representatives and labour unions, educational institutions and student associations as well as not-for-profit groups.

Speaking of students, my NDP colleagues and I respect that one of the major goals of post-secondary education is skills training. However, we also recognize that this is not the only goal for Canada's colleges and universities and that there is a role for pure research.

We also respect academic freedoms and the rights of scholars to freely choose their subject areas and research projects. Therefore, we recommend that consultations on curricula always be undertaken with appropriate respect for the multiple roles of post-secondary educational institutions.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about the participation of aboriginal peoples in the labour market. Our committee heard some very compelling testimony in that regard. As the report notes, aboriginal peoples' labour market outcomes must be improved to ensure that aboriginal peoples benefit from resource development to reduce aboriginal poverty and to provide the skilled labour force that Canada will need in the future.

A key element of aboriginal labour market outcomes is education, yet the report offers no recommendations on aboriginal education at all. If educational outcomes are to improve for aboriginal students, they need adequately funded education that respects their unique culture and history in safe and healthy school facilities.

First nations education is the jurisdiction of the federal government, which does not provide equitable funding for first nations children.

While budget 2012 provided some new funds for first nations education, only eight new schools were built out of 170 needed, and so far, no money has been committed directly to first nations schools for front-line education services.

According to the Assembly of First Nations, $500 million is needed to bring funding for first nations K-12 education to parity with non-aboriginal Canadians. The AFN has also noted that a gap in funding for post-secondary education has prevented more than 13,000 first nations students from pursuing higher education. Those realities are completely unacceptable. That is why my NDP colleagues and I recommended that the government provide sufficient and equitable funding for first nations K-12 education as well as post-secondary education, including vocational training and apprenticeships, and that the government remove the punitive 2% cap on funding increases to first nations.

The Conservatives' failure to take consultations seriously has already derailed this process once, with the chiefs withdrawing from the process due to inadequate consultation. That is why we further recommended that the government recognize first nations' jurisdiction over education and abide by the federal government's duty to consult by holding extensive and meaningful consultations leading to the creation of a first nations education act that respects first nations' rights, culture and history.

The federal government also provides funding for Inuit education through territorial transfers and land claims agreements. The education system is seriously failing Inuit youth, with only 25% graduating from high school. Those who do manage to graduate are still not at the same skill level as non-aboriginal students.

The report of Thomas Berger, a conciliator appointed to resolve differences in the negotiations for the implementation of the land claims agreement, found that education was a key factor in impeding progress on Inuit representation in the public service. It called for an increase of $20 million annually to education funding beyond what is provided through territorial financing.

The same holds true for other jobs. Inuit youth need culturally and linguistically appropriate education that enables them to stay in school and graduate with the skills they need to join the workforce. New Democrats therefore recommended that the government increase funding for Inuit education beyond the funding provided through territorial financing and land claims agreements.

Finally, the committee heard from multiple witnesses that the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, ASETS, has been very successful in providing the training aboriginal Canadians need and the links with employers that help them find jobs after their training. However, the committee also heard that funding has been frozen since 1996, despite the fact that the need is greater than ever as the aboriginal population grows.

ASETS holders have also noted the heavy reporting burden that comes with their funding. A review of the program is beginning, and New Democrats recommend that the federal government include ASETS holders in the ongoing program review in a meaningful way and work with them to establish a process for stable, predictable and adequate funding to maintain and improve this highly successful program.

Let me try to sum up. To meet our labour force goals, we need more and better labour market data; incentives and/or requirements for employers to offer training programs; more support for workers seeking training; better EI programs; more affordable education programs; enhanced support for labour mobility; the ability of immigrants here to have their credentials recognized and a much faster and more efficient process; and better support for an immigration program that does more than simply provide cheap foreign labour with no path to citizenship.

Overall, we need to see the skills shortage as one important issue among a series of important labour market issues, the most important of which remains the still very high unemployment rate. With 1.4 million Canadians out of work, it is hard to make the argument that we have a national labour shortage. What we have are regional shortages that cannot overshadow the fact that the Conservative government's most lasting failure is to develop and implement a strategy to create Canadian jobs. Until that happens, at best we will be tinkering at the margins.

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?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Surrey North.

Almost a year ago, my leader gave me the official opposition housing critic portfolio. Since then, I have risen many times in the House to demand that the government make housing and homelessness priorities.

I also travelled across Canada to meet with Canadians and interest groups to find out what they think about these very important issues. When I read the budget tabled last Thursday by the Minister of Finance, it became clear that I have a long road ahead of me to get anyone to bother listening to these people.

I cannot say that I am surprised by the lack of housing and homelessness measures in the budget. I never once believed that they were priorities for the Conservatives.

I knew what what I was in for when the Conservatives voted as a block against Bill C-400, which was introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to ensure that the different levels of government and the stakeholders would sit down together to assess needs and establish a national housing strategy. But I was shocked when I saw that, the day before the vote, the government posted a document on the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation website claiming that Bill C-400 would cost Canadian taxpayers $5.5 billion even though the stakeholders had not yet met to discuss what was needed, which was the one and only purpose of the bill. The government must be clear and honest with people.

On pages 1112 and 1113 of O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, we learn that:

There is a constitutional requirement that bills proposing the expenditure of public funds must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, which can be obtained only by the government and introduced by a Minister. Since a Minister cannot propose items of Private Members’ Business, a private Member’s bill should therefore not contain provisions for the spending of funds.

That seems pretty clear to me. What this means is that a private member's bill cannot commit public funds. In light of what I just said, I would like to know how Bill C-400—which was introduced by the member from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot and whose only objective was to have government representatives and stakeholders sit down together to discuss housing issues—could have been assigned the kind of price tag that the Conservatives used to justify voting against the bill? Such a bill would have been considered out of order under the rules of procedure of the House. I will not speculate about the government's motives, but will allow people to draw their own conclusions.

The budget presented last Thursday does not satisfy the NDP official opposition with regard to housing and the fight against homelessness, but let us nevertheless play along and render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

I am pleased that the government has finally committed to renewing the homelessness partnering strategy, as I have requested many times in the House without ever receiving a satisfactory response. However, when I said renewal, I was not just talking about extending full funding for the HPS. I was also asking that it be increased. Unfortunately, funding for the fight against homelessness has never been indexed since the SCPI was introduced in 1999.

You do not need an advanced course in economics to understand that costs and salaries have increased since the program was created and that funding allocated to the fight against homelessness in Canada has been doing less and less to meet the needs of groups in that regard.

I was not only asking that the budget allocated to the program be indexed to reflect those realities; I was also asking that it be increased to reflect the needs of the groups combating homelessness and its repercussions.

Why? Because, unlike my colleagues opposite, I consult stakeholders in the sector and I listen to them. They can tell us about the needs they see, and they can clearly see that homelessness is increasing year after year.

Unfortunately, I get the impression I was simply misunderstood. When the Conservatives say renewal, they understand it in the literal sense. To them, it means “change everything.”

Reading the budget that was presented to us last Thursday, in the section ironically entitled “Housing for Canadians in Need”, on page 228, we see that the government has extended the HPS, providing $119 million in funding a year over five years using a housing first approach.

We in fact learned about this on the morning the budget was presented because, once again, the Conservatives leaked the information to the media in a Canadian Press article entitled “Budget to fund and reorient federal homelessness strategy; new focus on housing.”

There are two important things to know about the HPS. First, not only have the Conservatives not increased or even indexed the program to reflect rising costs and salaries; they have also cut the amount that was allocated to it.

From 2011 to 2014, the program received funding of $134.8 million a year. Now it will be $119 million, which means that groups that already could not meet needs will collectively have to absorb an annual $15.8 million cut to the budget allocated to combat homelessness.

Second, the program's approach has been completely changed. With the housing first approach, any intervention funded by the HPS may be terminated if a number of projects do not give housing priority. Several organizations could thus lose their caseworkers, and the development of new projects to fund capital expenditures could be jeopardized.

In my riding of Hochelaga alone, where homelessness comes in many forms, the program's new purpose could harm several groups already established in the area. Dopamine, a substance abuse organization, and the shelter for prostitutes planned by the CAP Saint-Barnabé could lose caseworkers. This organization may also find it impossible to develop new services starting in 2014.

Far be it from me to speak out against the promising outcomes achieved by the inspirational at home project. However, I want to be very clear. Homelessness is not just a housing problem. Drug abuse, mental health problems and drug-related prostitution should also fall under this program.

In reaction to the budget, Tim Richter, president of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, who had asked that the HPS take more of a housing first approach, said the following:

While this news is very exciting, there are some important questions that will need to be addressed, namely: What does the government mean by Housing First? What will this shift to Housing First mean to HPS funded communities, programs and existing investments? How will community planning processes & Community Plans change? How will the transition to Housing First be managed?

It's also important to remember that Housing First is a critical component of ending homelessness, but it is not a silver bullet. There are many other critical elements that need to support community plans and Housing First programs in order to reduce & end homelessness.

For us, the HPS must retain a diversity of approaches and respect the independence of the provinces and municipalities that are more familiar with their communities' problems.

Now, the economic action plan has little to say about funding for social housing. The only intentions this government has are stated in the main estimates for 2013-2014, according to which a net decrease of $23.3 million in CMHC's budget, for this year alone, is “to reflect the expiry of long-term project operating agreements.”

Once again this year, the government is not only confirming its complete withdrawal from social housing; it is doing so on the backs of the least well-off in our society and of the Canadian provinces. Those long-term operating agreements currently allow co-operatives and non-profit housing organizations to grant subsidies to their members and tenants so that they do not allocate more than 25% to 30% of their incomes to rent. They also enable the provinces and municipalities to provide low-income housing to the public.

Many of those agreements with CMHC have gradually been expiring in the past few years, and the government is simply not renewing them. Even worse, it feels it is saving money.

If we let this withdrawal continue, by 2030, these cuts will have amounted to $1.7 billion a year, and CMHC will only be managing approximately 15% of its current budget. When I think that the Conservatives were prepared to sign a multi-billion-dollar blank cheque in the F-35 scandal, I feel like saying, “We want houses, not airplanes.”

Housing

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I introduced Bill C-400, on which we voted recently. It is about implementing a national housing strategy.

The government voted against it, but these people still want a national housing strategy to be developed.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and has commented, on this side of the House, the government voted against Bill C-400, on February 27 of this year.

It is important to note that investments have been made to address housing and homelessness in our country, in every community across this land. In 2008, our government committed an additional $1.9 billion, over five years, for housing and homelessness programs. As a result of that commitment, the homelessness partnering strategy was renewed for an additional five years.

We have worked closely with the provinces and territories to deliver funding earmarked for housing, most recently through the investment in affordable housing framework agreement, which provides for a combined federal, provincial and territorial investment of $1.4 billion over three years. It is focused on reducing the number of Canadians in housing need.

This funding is over and above the $1.7 billion we provide annually in the form of ongoing subsidies to support over 605,000 households who are living in existing social housing. These subsidies help to ensure that lower income families and individuals living in these homes do not pay a disproportionate amount of their salary or income towards housing, getting at the very root of what the member speaks about in terms of the issue of making a decision as to whether it is home or it is feeding their children or families. We have made a determination that it should be housing and the ability to ensure healthy meals are there on a daily basis for those individuals and families.

In addition, let us not forget the $2 billion-plus in social housing investments that were included in the stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan. As reported earlier, this funding supported an estimated 16,500 social housing projects across our country. I am sure that in Windsor, as in my community of St. Catharines, those investments were spent immediately and they assisted in delivering on repairs to the units in existence in cities like my home riding.

I know the minister came down a couple of times to make announcements. I know I had the ability to let the region know we are making investments in partnership with the region and with the provinces on social housing.

That was not a commitment the NDP was prepared to support at that time. That was not a commitment that it saw as a need in this country. The NDP made a determination that it was going to vote against it.

During a time when we were in recession, we included an investment in social housing as part of a stimulus program because we believe in the future and making sure we are able to deliver on behalf of these individuals and these families.

On this side of the House, we have made a commitment, and we are going to ensure we stay by that commitment to assist those in need of housing.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last November, I described Canada's housing situation to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. Canada will have to report to the UN in April. That is not far off; time is running out. The government will have to explain why it is twiddling its thumbs when it made a clear commitment to the United Nations in terms of the right to housing.

Do I need to repeat that we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy? That is appalling.

Last week, the government voted against my bill, Bill C-400, which proposed a very effective strategy that is working in the other G8 countries. The Conservatives have flat out rejected solutions and tools that would help families who are in desperate need.

The UN states that safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing is a right. It is not a privilege, it is a right. Let us make that clear. Yet right now, as we speak, millions of families—at least 1.5 million—are having to choose between paying the rent and putting food on the table. That is a problem in a country as rich as Canada. Yet the government stubbornly continues to believe that decent housing is a privilege.

Having access to safe and affordable housing is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right and families should not have to make a choice between their house or buying food for their children.

I hope that my colleagues heard what I said. I think I was clear. We have to stop burying our heads in the sand and face the facts. All of the experts agree that we need a national housing strategy.

As I said earlier, over 1.5 million families have core housing needs. What does that mean? People who live in dwellings that are too small, unsanitary or unaffordable have a core housing need. They have to choose between buying groceries to feed their families and paying rent. Forcing people to choose between eating and keeping a roof over their heads is cruel. Yet that is what the government is doing.

At least 150,000 people live on the street. That number could be as high as 300,000. Getting precise numbers is difficult and that in itself is unacceptable.

Will the government report to the UN? What does it intend to do to keep its promises to Canadians? Will Canada remain the laughingstock of the UN on this issue and many others that I will not name because I do not have enough time?

Criminal Code

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak about such an important issue, particularly since I am a young woman working in politics. Bill C-452 seeks to amend the Criminal Code in order to provide consecutive sentences for offences related to procuring and trafficking in persons.

Bill C-452 also makes it possible to reverse the burden of proof for this type of offence. The accused would therefore be considered guilty until he proves beyond doubt that he is not exploiting others. Finally, this bill adds the offences of procuring and trafficking in persons to the list of offences to which the forfeiture of proceeds of crime apply.

Public Safety Canada accurately describes human trafficking as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, often described as a modern day form of slavery. It is nothing less than that. The victims, who are mostly women and children, are deprived of their normal lives and compelled to provide their labour or sexual services, through a variety of coercive practices all for the direct profit of their perpetrators. Exploitation often occurs through intimidation, force, sexual assault and threats of violence to themselves or their families.

Human trafficking is a scourge that knows no borders and affects many countries, including Canada. We must not put on our rose-coloured glasses. People need to know that this is happening here, not far from where we live.

According to the Department of Justice, it is difficult to provide accurate estimates on the full extent of trafficking in persons within Canada because victims are reluctant to come forward, and understandably so. Often victims are afraid to testify against a procurer for fear of reprisal.

The RCMP described human trafficking as a growing phenomenon. Statistics are hard to ascertain; however, estimates indicate that between 1,500 and 2,200 people are trafficked from Canada into the United States every year. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police estimates that around 600 women and children are trafficked into Canada each year for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and that this number rises to 800 when broadened to include those trafficked into Canada for other forms of forced labour.

Contrary to popular belief, victims of trafficking in Canada are not just young women from abroad. They are often Canadians. Unfortunately, trafficking of Canadian men within the country is a problem not often covered by studies and statistics about human trafficking, especially trafficking related to the sex trade. People who come to Canada to flee conditions of abject poverty in their own country can end up in a work environment where they are taken advantage of. So, too, can women from all over Canada, many of them young women in crisis and socially or economically disadvantaged women who leave their homes to join the sex trade in major Canadian cities.

There are a number of reasons why a vulnerable woman may be convinced to become a prostitute. We do not have to identify them all here, but no matter the circumstances, trafficking of Canadian men and women is a reality in our country, and it affects the most disadvantaged communities in particular.

For that reason, although Bill C-452 is a step in the right direction, we need a more comprehensive response to the problem of human trafficking. We have to wage this battle with practical resources. To solve the problem of human trafficking, we need a plan that will mobilize human, police, electronic and material resources that goes far beyond a simple bill. We need political leadership.

Surveillance of strip clubs, massage parlours and Internet networks and the creation of a joint investigative unit are solutions that should be studied. Canada must implement a strategy that will not only attack the source of the problem, but will also help the victims and support the work of our police services.

Julie Miville-Dechêne, president of the Conseil du statut de la femme du Québec, also recommends establishing shelters for female trafficking victims. She said:

There are no shelters specifically for female trafficking victims. But their issues are very different from those of domestic abuse victims.

However, there could be some problems with the proposed consecutive sentencing and the presumption that reverses the burden of proof for procuring and human trafficking offences. The reversal of the burden of proof could be challenged on constitutional grounds. As my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, has said in the past, passing Bill C-452 does not guarantee that sentences will be much longer. The courts could potentially base their decision on the principle of proportionality, which means that sentences served consecutively may not end up being longer than if they had been served concurrently.

Despite these pitfalls, we will be supporting Bill C-452 so that it can be studied in committee. The problem is simply too serious to ignore. I have had the opportunity to meet with organizations in my riding that help boys, girls and women who are involved in prostitution. I would like to commend Projet intervention prostitution Québec and Maison de Marthe, which do excellent work with the limited resources available to them.

I want this government to take a comprehensive approach to the issues of prostitution and human trafficking. I would like it to address them here in the House, by amending the Criminal Code, as well as on the ground, where more help is needed for truly effective action. To me a comprehensive approach includes these simple bills that allow us to deal with other related issues.

This Conservative government has dismissed a bill as effective as Bill C-400 on social housing on more than one occasion. Organizations across Quebec are scrambling to get together and call on the Conservative government not to wait until the end of March 2014, but to renew the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, immediately.

This strategy provides a solution to associated problems and can help us take a comprehensive approach to this issue. It is important. The government must renew funding for the HPS immediately, for example, by adding an extra $50 million for Quebec. I know that my colleagues agree with this idea because it is an excellent decision. It is simple. We are talking peanuts here. Compared to all the F-35s and ships that will cost billions, $50 million is nothing.

The government is slowly destroying our social safety net, which would help us take a much more sensible and thoughtful approach to this problem we are facing.

I heard my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine. Movies can sometimes have a huge impact on us. The movie that hit me the most was Human Trafficking, which came out in 2005 or 2006. This movie shows us how international the problems of human trafficking and prostitution are.

It is so insidious and pervasive that we must be aware. Who knows, we may have crossed paths with people who are experiencing these problems, in downtown areas, for example. We cannot be indifferent to what they are going through. My heart goes out to them, which is why I support Bill C-452. That said, I think we must do more, because small, simple actions could help us take a broader and more sensible approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for Ahuntsic for introducing this bill. Although it requires a few amendments from a constitutional point of view, it is a step in the right direction in terms of the fight against exploitation and human trafficking. I believe that the will to consider it in greater depth in committee should provide an opportunity for unity in this Parliament.

Let us remember that, just like arms trafficking and drug trafficking, human trafficking is highly lucrative. In 2005, the United Nations estimated the total market value of human trafficking at $32 billion. It would be foolish to think that Canada is exempt from this kind of vile exploitation.

Its clandestine nature makes it difficult to find out exactly how many people are victims of trafficking and how it happens. However, we do know that the majority of victims are women and children. Victims of human trafficking are linked primarily by factors such as poverty and ethnocultural origin. Social and economic vulnerability and the lack of strong support networks make the traffickers’ lives easier. They find it all too easy to lure their victims using manipulation, threats and violence. With increasing unemployment among young people and the rise in the cost of living, we can foresee unfortunately that a number of young Canadian women will be easily recruited by criminal organizations that will force them into the sex trade.

In Canada, aboriginal women are overrepresented among victims of trafficking. In certain areas, they may account for up to 90% of women who are trafficked for sexual purposes, although they make up only 3% to 5% of the Canadian population. I am saddened to see the cuts made by this government to the budgets for native women’s groups. It is essential that they play an active role in the fight against trafficking of young aboriginal women. I hope the government will correct the situation.

Considering that the impact of our colonial past on aboriginal peoples is still strong, Canada’s attitude to the damaging reports by the United Nations is shameful. It is high time that this Parliament took real action to improve living conditions on reserves. They are the primary reason for the trafficking of aboriginal women, who are looking for an escape by any means possible from the conditions on reserves shaped by the contempt of successive Canadian governments.

Canada is also affected by international trafficking. Although it is not the subject matter of this bill, I cannot ignore the systemic barriers to the fight against international human trafficking generated by our immigration system. With the tightening of immigration criteria, more people are turning to human smugglers or so-called agencies offering so-called migration services, and migrant women are undoubtedly more vulnerable to the traps set by organized crime. Given their justifiable fear of being sent back to their native country, migrant women who are the victims of trafficking find themselves all the more enslaved by those who exploit them.

Our immigration system must be revised to protect potential victims of human trafficking so they will testify against the persons who traffic them. On that point, a report by the Institut de recherches et d'études féministes at UQAM recommends that Citizenship and Immigration Canada work with police services to protecting victims. The researchers also recommend that a special category of refugees be created for victims of human trafficking.

I am shocked to see how commonplace this phenomenon has become. Imagine my surprise when I learned that Montreal was a hotbed of sex tourism. We need only glance through the classified ads in any newspaper to see that they are full of possible sex trafficking dens. The first individual convicted of human trafficking in Canada was prostituting teenagers through advertisements on Internet sites, in full view of the entire world.

Sexual exploitation is often connected to organized crime, and too often takes advantage of the vulnerability of women and girls who want to escape from hardship and earn substantial incomes. In Canada, the stakes are estimated to be between $120 million and $400 million U.S. per year. A single woman forced into prostitution by a criminal organization in Quebec brings in around $1,000 a day for the organization, or at least $250,000 a year. I am sure that this is not the kind of economic policy this government wants to encourage.

I think that passing this bill at second reading will give us an opportunity to come to a strong consensus in the House because we all want to help and protect the victims of human trafficking. We will have to build on this bill with a solid action plan that combines human, police, electronic and materiel resources so we can tackle the problem at its root, help the victims and support the work of law enforcement agencies.

I have spoken several times in the House about the drug-related prostitution that afflicts my riding. The proposed solutions are very controversial, but we all agree that we must protect women forced into prostitution. Amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada are important, and the institutional and community resources that provide front-line services to these women are essential tools in combating exploitation.

Indeed, the launch, in the coming months, of the community organization Dopamine in Hochelaga's red light district, and the opening of a respite care centre for prostitutes will allow us to take concrete action. These initiatives are the first cornerstones of a neighbourhood strategy to help people dealing with drug-related prostitution, homelessness and substance abuse. I want to say that this was made possible thanks to the federal government's commitment through an investment under the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS. Therefore, I am taking this opportunity to encourage government members to renew, in the upcoming budget, this HPS initiative, which is a critical program for many communities in Canada, including mine.

I also want to mention the tremendous work done by stakeholders from many organizations in my riding, including CAP St-Barnabé, Stella, Anonyme, Dopamine, the Concertation des luttes contre l'exploitation sexuelle, Tandem Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, the CSSS Lucille-Teasdale, and the SPVM community police station No. 23. These stakeholders, who work every day with Hochelaga's prostitutes, deserve to be thanked personally.

Despite the hard work of police and community organizations, improving women's socio-economic conditions is one of the most effective way to fight commercial sexual exploitation by unscrupulous individuals.

It is absurd that today women still only earn a portion of men's average salary, that they do not have access systematically to the EI program like young people, that they are overrepresented across the country among minimum wage earners, and that a majority of single parent families are headed by women and are significantly poorer partly because of the serious lack of affordable rental and social housing units.

Bill C-400, introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, offered a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, but the Conservatives chose to ignore this reality. The recent EI reform directly hits people who earn less money or who work part-time. Again, that group includes a lot of women.

As we approach International Women's Day, which is exactly in one week, I call for greater mobilization in this House to pass this bill. Together, we have the power to make it possible to live in a world where exploitation and trafficking in persons, including many women and children, will become a thing of the past. Let us not be afraid to make Canada again a champion of human rights protection.

Tabling of Documents

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, yesterday the opposition members asked the government to table in the House documents relating to costing that was conducted by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in response to Bill C-400. This is the NDP private member's bill for a national social housing program. I have the document here today, which I am proud to table in the House, and it shows the clear reason our government could not support it. It would indeed put us $5.45 billion further into debt. I am pleased that we were able to do this work for the New Democrats since apparently they had not costed the document. I would like to table the document at this time.

Housing

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in support of Bill C-400, introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The bill would create a strategy for adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today from people who are fed up with seeing the government ignore the issue of poverty and deny its very existence.

I am presenting a petition calling on the government to support Bill C-400, which would provide safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing to Canadians. I am starting to get used to saying that.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fiction being spouted by the President of the Treasury Board about the cost of my bill does not change the fact that they have been stalling for four years, while millions of Canadian families do not have access to safe, affordable housing. The experts all agree: we need a national housing strategy. The solution is right in front of them; they just need to vote for Bill C-400.

Will the Conservatives support families who need safe, adequate, accessible and affordable housing? Yes or no?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would ensure safe, affordable, accessible, adequate housing for every Quebecker and Canadian.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition supporting Bill C-400, which would finally give Canadians a national housing strategy.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to table a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing. The housing problem is acute in my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

The need is great in every part of the country. The time has come for government to act and develop a housing strategy. That is what the petitioners are asking for.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce a petition signed by many Canadians who have recognized the serious lack of affordable housing in the country and the need for some federal responsibility and some leadership on this issue.

The petitioners have witnessed Bill C-400, which calls on the federal government develop a national housing strategy. They ask us to support Bill C-400 and to bring this matter to the attention of the government and to other Canadians.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as many members in the House know, safe, affordable, decent housing is absolutely central to the well-being of any family. Despite that, nearly 1.5 million Canadian households do not have the kind of housing they need in order to organize their lives, look after their kids and make a real contribution to community.

With that in mind, the petitioners in question have signed a petition in which they call upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 so we can have a national housing strategy that would ensure the right of every Canadian to a decent and affordable home.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to table a petition in support of Bill C-400.

The petitioners point out that Canada is the only industrialized nation without a national housing strategy. Perhaps that is why 1.5 million households, many of which are in my riding, Laurier-Sainte-Marie, are in core housing need.

I find this issue extremely important. The petitioners ask that we support Bill C-400.

[Claude Patry, NDP, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition signed by Canadians on Bill C-400, the Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act.

In Quebec, Loge m'entraide struggles every day to find housing for young people. That is why I am presenting this petition to the House today.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petitions that call on Parliament to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. I can say that the need for affordable housing is as strong in my riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing as it is in major Canadian cities.

The petitioners point out that almost 13% of Canadian households are in core housing need. They remind the House that access to affordable housing is defined as a fundamental right under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Despite the obvious need, Canada remains the only industrialized country without a housing strategy.

With that in mind, the petitioners ask Parliament to support Bill C-400, which would give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have presented petitions in support of Bill C-400.

I also have a pile of petitions from Canadians across the country, Canadians of all ages and social classes, who are calling on the government to step up and adopt a national housing strategy, so that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

[Francine Raynault, NDP, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition regarding Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to affordable and secure housing.

I think that everyone has the right to proper housing. Everyone should have access to that.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would give Canadians access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

The right to housing is an inalienable right. We must ensure that this bill gets passed.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians in support of Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. Canada is the only industrialized country to not have a national housing strategy. The UN has declared that access to affordable housing is a fundamental right and yet one and a half million households, almost 13% of all Canadian households, are in core housing need.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 and give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, access to secure, accessible and affordable housing is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right. But in Canada, a rich country, this is not yet the case.

That is why hundreds of people are adding their voices to the debates in Parliament in support of Bill C-400.

I am pleased to present this petition.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in the House today in support of Bill C-400, an act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. Nearly one and a half million households are in core housing need in our country and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges that affordable housing is a fundamental right and not a privilege.

Canada is the only industrialized country that does not have a national housing strategy. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass NDP Bill C-400 and finally give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to tell the hon. member that Bill C-400 is not just about holding meetings. A national strategy is also about taking action.

Housing is not just a provincial responsibility. It is a shared responsibility. The federal government has responsibilities when it comes to housing. It must make appropriate investments and work with the provinces. Working with the provinces means talking with them, consulting them. When I talk about the provinces, I am also referring to the territories, of course. Talking with the provinces means consulting with them, being open and listening to their needs. However, this does not seem to be what the government is doing right now with regard to housing in Canada.

The housing crisis is a growing problem. I would like to provide another statistic. Right now, in Canada, between 150,000 and 300,000 people are homeless. It is not normal for a so-called rich country such as Canada to see families in core housing need and people living in the streets—

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member again asked about a national housing strategy for Canada. The hon. member clearly believes that the federal government should be telling the provinces and the territories what they should be doing, and we on this side of the House simply do not agree.

Our government has invested unprecedented amounts in a multi-pronged approach that respects provincial jurisdiction in housing to ensure that Canadians have access to affordable, sound and suitable housing.

Our approach works, because governments at all levels recognize that housing needs differ across the country. Local challenges need local solutions and we all recognize that provinces and territories are best positioned to design and deliver programs to address housing needs in their jurisdictions.

By not recognizing that social housing is largely a provincial jurisdiction and moving away from the local delivery of social housing programming, this approach could lead to more bureaucracy and, as a result, most costly social housing.

Our approach is collaborative. We engage with the full spectrum of housing stakeholders and we respect provincial, territorial and on-reserve jurisdictions. That is why we do not support Bill C-400.

Rather than being a solution to housing challenges across Canada, we believe that a prescriptive, national approach would slow progress, cause unnecessary friction between governments and actually impede the development of effective local solutions.

That is why, instead of holding meetings and developing discussion papers, we have opted for action. We worked closely with the provinces and territories to deliver more than $2 billion in social housing investments under Canada's economic action plan, and Mississauga—Brampton South, my community, certainly benefited from that important investment.

As reported earlier this year, this funding was supported an estimated 16,500 social housing units and first nations housing units across the country. It was delivered quickly and effectively, thanks to collaboration between all stakeholders. Tens of thousands of Canadians have benefited as a result.

In fact, our government is already investing more in affordable and supportive housing than any other government in Canadian history. Last year we announced a new investment in the affordable housing framework with the provinces and territories to guide the delivery of federal housing investments through to 2014. This framework provides for combined federal-provincial-territorial spending of $1.4 billion over three years.

Provinces and territories are responsible for program design, delivery and administration and they have the flexibility to invest in a range of solutions to improve the living conditions of Canadians in need.

Since 2006, our government has invested an estimated $13.1 billion in housing and homelessness programs. During this period, we have witnessed a tremendous level of co-operation between governments and other housing stakeholders, in fact, a truly national collaboration.

This is not the time to interrupt progress by shifting our attention to holding meetings rather than implementing actual housing solutions.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before Christmas, Food Banks Canada reported that reliance on food aid had reached an all-time high in Canada.

The report also indicated that government measures to increase the number of affordable housing units were the primary solution to this problem. I said at the time to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that there was no such commitment in her government's most recent budget.

When we ask questions on this issue, we are told that the government has invested over $2 billion in affordable housing through its economic action plan, and so on. According to the Conservatives' talking points, the government helps 755,000 Canadian households every year. The problem is that the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada reports that some 3 million Canadian households, including 750,000 children, are in core housing need.

The government does not seem to understand that it will take more than just funding to solve the housing crisis in Canada. We need a long-term plan that includes programs to end homelessness and to ensure that all Canadians have a roof over their heads. Canada needs a national strategy. We are the only G8 country that does not have a housing strategy.

With 3 million Canadian households living in housing insecurity, it is obvious that Canada has fallen behind when it comes to investments in affordable housing. Of all the developed countries, Canada has one of the least developed social housing sectors, and fewer and fewer Canadians can become homeowners.

In May of last year, this House unanimously adopted Motion No. 331 introduced by the hon. member for Shefford. This motion confirmed that the federal government has international obligations respecting the right to housing under the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The motion also recognized the duty to support efforts by Canadian municipalities to combat homelessness. Bill C-400 is a logical extension of these efforts.

Canada will undergo its second universal periodic review by the UN Human Rights Council in 2013. It will have to report to civil society organizations and member countries of the United Nations human resources committee on its accomplishments in the area of housing.

A number of groups think that the conclusions of the UN special rapporteur will be worse than those in the 2009 review. At that time, the special rapporteur criticized this government's inaction in dealing with the crisis, which is getting worse. This shows the importance of a housing strategy, which is supported by hundreds of organizations.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain to me why the government refuses to discuss such a strategy when it would greatly improve the situation?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition that calls for the government to pass Bill C-400, since we are the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy and since 1.5 million households are in core housing need.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country know that Canada needs a housing strategy. I am therefore pleased to present a petition signed by people from Regina, Saskatchewan, asking all parliamentarians to vote in favour of Bill C-400.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from residents of Nova Scotia who note that nearly 1.5 million households, almost 13% of all Canadian households, are in core housing need.

The petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 and give Canada a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition today signed by Canadian citizens from across the country, of all ages and social classes, who are calling on the government to take responsibility once and for all and to pass Bill C-400, which would ensure that all Canadians have access to secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing.

Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted on this day in 1948. It says that everyone has a right to an adequate standard of living, including food, clothing and housing. Canada has far too many people paying more than they can afford in rent.

It is our daughter Hollie's 37th birthday today. She has Crohn's disease and can no longer work. Typical of many Canadians on disability, her benefits are too small to provide an adequate standard of living. She pays too much in rent. She will never own a home or a car. She cannot afford Internet or cable TV. She will never have an RRSP. She could never qualify for non-refundable tax credits. She had to give up trying to provide for her son, who now lives with his father.

We need a national housing strategy like in Bill C-400, so that families can have enough after rent for their children, their health and for their future, and we need to keep our promises to the UN on the rights of the disabled. They deserve, as a human right, adequate incomes to provide shelter, health and food.

Housing

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition in support of Bill C-400 introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The bill aims to ensure accessible, affordable and secure housing. The petitioners are calling on the House to pass this bill in order to develop a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many Canadians who are calling on the government to pull up its socks, show some leadership and vote in favour of Bill C-400, which would finally implement a national housing strategy.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The second petition I wish to present has to do with Bill C-400, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, introduced by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

In both cases, the petitioners are all Quebeckers who signed in great numbers.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition in support of Bill C-400. People from all over Canada, of all ages and backgrounds, are asking the government to take action by adopting a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present another petition signed by people from across Canada, people of all ages and social classes, who want the government to take action and create a national housing strategy. These people also support my bill, Bill C-400.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition signed by people from across Canada, from all social classes and of all ages, who are urging the government to take action and adopt Bill C-400, which would establish a national housing strategy.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition signed by people in my riding calling on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-400 to adopt a national housing strategy.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition in support of Bill C-400, introduced by my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Like my colleague, as a member from Montérégie, I know that the housing problem extends beyond large urban centres. Furthermore, it is a problem that very few people are aware of. I am therefore very pleased to support my colleague's bill and to present a petition that also supports it.

I hope that this House will one day adopt a national housing strategy. This is a pressing problem that affects the well-being and dignity of all Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to again present a petition signed by people of all ages and social classes from across Canada. They want a national housing strategy and they support my private member's Bill C-400. I am pleased to present this petition today.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to present a petition signed by people from all across Canada, from all age groups and social classes, who support a national housing strategy, as described in Bill C-400.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it often enough: there is a housing crisis everywhere. Unlike the other G8 countries, we have no long-term plan. And today, 1.5 million Canadian families are living in substandard housing. The FCM, which represents 2,000 Canadian cities and towns, has asked the government to take action and support Bill C-400, to adopt a national housing strategy. But the Conservatives do not listen to anyone. To force them to listen, the NDP will be tabling petitions in support of the bill every day, starting today, until the vote on November 28. The government will be forced to see that Canadians want housing to be a priority.

Will this be enough to convince them? Will the government agree to listen to the voice of Canadians, once and for all?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly here today to present a petition concerning Bill C-400 introduced by my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

Jobs and Growth Act, 2012

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear that omnibus bills will now be the norm in the House of Commons. It gives me no pleasure to rise today at second reading of Bill C-45, the second omnibus budget bill.

In addition to implementing the 2012 budget, the Trojan Horse bill included a number of other changes that had not been announced beforehand. This is yet another budget implementation bill that goes well beyond implementing the budget.

We said it when the Trojan Horse bill was forced through the House in May, and we are saying it now: this is not an acceptable way of doing things in a so-called democratic country like Canada. The monster Bill C-45 is over 440 pages long and contains a huge number of disparate measures. It would amend over 60 laws, giving the minister more power and weakening environmental protection legislation.

It also sets out a vast number of complicated measures, including a reworking of the Canada Grain Act and changes to subsidies for scientific research and experimental development, elements that are essential to the nation's development. In addition, it sets out major changes to the public service pension plan and the Canada Labour Code.

Here are the facts. The Conservatives have introduced a bill encompassing dozens of disparate measures, and they want to have it passed as quickly as possible so that we do not have time to talk about it. That is because they do not want Canadians to know what really goes on here in the House of Commons. MPs do not have enough time to study the bill closely and analyze its repercussions. Who will pay the price for that? Canadians—the very people whose interests the government is supposed to protect. As elected representatives, Conservative MPs are also supposed to work for Canadians.

On the one hand, MPs are being prevented from doing the work they were elected to do, and on the other, Canadians are being kept in the dark. Fortunately, Canadians can count on the NDP, which strongly opposes the undemocratic nature of Bill C-45.

We have defended and will always proudly defend the concepts of transparency and accountability. We will always stand up for environmental protection. We will always stand up for old age security and health care. If we do not, who will? Certainly not the government, which is showing us once again that democracy is not its priority.

Canadians are not blind. They know that the government is not doing so and that it is preventing the official opposition from doing its job by imposing a gag order once again. Actually, how many gag orders have we had so far? I think it is a record number. I am not sure what the exact figure is, but I know there have been more than 20. In short, that is preventing us from doing our job.

As a result of the strong offensive launched by our party, the government is finally going to allow various committees to study this bill. What a privilege. However, we do not know whether we will be able to propose amendments during those consultations. Needless to say, that will greatly hinder the process.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, has once again said that members of Parliament are not receiving the information they need to be able to reasonably exercise their power of oversight. Well, yes, power of oversight, but also responsibility of oversight.

The PBO recently even had to threaten to take the Conservative government to court if it did not forward the information about the budget cuts that were announced. The government has to stop trying to obstruct the work of Parliament and must allow a real study of this bill.

Canadians will agree that the amendments and their impact on Canadian families need to be studied in particular. It is appalling to see that, once again, Canadian families are being completely ignored. The government is continuing to ignore the real needs of Canadians.

According to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 4 million Canadians, including 750,000 children, have core housing needs at this time. However, once again, the 2012 budget implementation bill does not contain any measures related to housing or any measures to fight poverty or homelessness. Yet major institutions like the Wellesley Institute and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have sounded the alarm several times. These national organizations asked the federal government to invest in housing in the most recent budget. Clearly, nothing has been done.

Housing is an important issue not only for families, but also for seniors, a very high-risk group. The current government reduced old age security benefits, which means that some seniors will have even more difficulty paying their rent. Approximately one-third of social housing is occupied by seniors, and one-third of that group is at risk of losing their housing because long-term operating agreements between the federal government and housing co-operatives are not being renewed.

A survey conducted by the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association found that the number of seniors waiting for housing has been increasing steadily since 2004. That number is increasing, yet this government does nothing. Seniors represented one-quarter of all households waiting for housing in 2011.

Since we are talking about poverty, let us also talk about the changes to employment insurance. These measures will also have an impact on a claimants' ability to find housing, particularly since the federal operating agreements are about to expire. As a result of the loss of employment insurance benefits, more households may have core housing needs. Core housing needs are no joke. I am talking about substandard, overpriced homes that are difficult to heat and that are too small for families. These are not trivial matters.

Since the federal government did not introduce any housing measures in its budget, it could at least help all Canadians by supporting my national housing strategy. It will not do so under the pretext that housing falls under provincial jurisdiction.

And yet, the purpose of Bill C-400 is to provide secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, while respecting provincial jurisdictions. The government's inaction is a mystery.

Once again, the government is not demonstrating leadership. The omnibus bill contains another attack on agriculture, which provides even more evidence that the government is not demonstrating leadership.

Bill C-38 already hit my riding hard—really hard—by interfering with the CFIA's ability to conduct proper inspections to ensure the food security of all Canadians.

Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is one of the biggest agricultural regions in Quebec. The CFIA's services are thus very important to this region, which largely depends on agriculture-related economic activity.

Unfortunately, we still do not know what impact the cuts will have on the CFIA's regional centre, which is located in my riding. Many people are concerned about their jobs, and for good reason.

However, that is not my riding's only concern. Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is made up of 25 municipalities and more or less all of the farmers there grow grains. Thus, many of these farmers will be affected by the elimination of the grain appeal tribunals, which are independent committees set up by the region that provide a great deal of support to farmers. Who will farmers deal with if they do not have anyone to represent their region?

If Bill C-45 is passed, any recourse will automatically have to go through the chief grain inspector. Will the chief grain inspector be able to consider the unique characteristics of my riding as well as the local committees can? I seriously doubt it and so do my constituents.

In fact, all Canadians doubt the Conservatives' approach. The 443-page omnibus bill proves that they have reason to doubt.

Housing

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund warned Canada that the country's household debt has reached a critical level. Households are facing higher house prices and record debt levels, where residential mortgages represent 68% of household debt, and rent is higher than ever.

The Minister of Finance himself said that the global economy is fragile and that global economic turbulence has had and will continue to have a negative impact on Canada.

The government and the IMF recognize the potential problems, so when will the Conservatives act to prevent this potential crisis? We are offering them the solution on a silver platter. It is time to implement a national housing strategy. We are the only G8 country that does not have one. With a long-term strategy, we could coordinate our efforts to avoid a crisis and prevent debt from getting out of control.

The time has come for the Conservative government to listen to Canadians and support Bill C-400.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in exactly two weeks, we will have the first hour of debate on my Bill C-400 for a national housing strategy.

This bill does not specifically deal with gender equality. However, all of the reports point out that women are the hardest hit by the housing crisis affecting all of Canada, mainly because more women than men are renters—50% compared to 32%—but also because they are poorer. The average income of male tenants is $33,300 per year compared to $25,800 for women. In Ottawa, the median rent is more than $940 per month. With an income of $25,000 per year, there is not much left over for other basic needs. Moreover, many women are victims of discrimination because their jobs are more precarious or they are single parents. They are turned down or forced to pay rent that is much too high.

Therefore, I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-400 in order to improve the lot of women in Canada.

Opposition Motion—Income Inequality

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' motion raises some points that are worth discussing. It is true that recent changes to employment insurance have hurt low-income workers. It is also true that non-refundable tax credits for caregivers cannot even be used by many people because their income is too low to take advantage of the tax deductions. And it is quite true that income inequality is growing in Canada. In fact, the gap in Canada is greater than in the United States. The Conservatives are rather silent about this, perhaps because they dare not admit that it is true. However, the changes called for in the Liberal motion barely scratch the surface of the problem. It is a good start, but we need much more profound changes in our society, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

I could criticize the government for all its measures with which I disagree, but as a member of the NDP I want to do politics differently. As our friend Jack often said, we want to work together. Therefore, rather than blaming the Conservatives, I would like to suggest some things we could do to help the most disadvantaged, measures that are compassionate, but that would also benefit the country financially. That is something they should like.

The motion we are debating today talks about reducing income inequality between the richest and the poorest. Let us talk a little bit about the neediest of the needy, those who do not even have a roof over their heads.

A recent study by Stephen Gaetz entitled The real cost of homelessness asks an intriguing question: can we save money by doing the right thing? It seems that a number of studies in Canada and the United States show that investing in prevention costs less, in the end, than using a patchwork of emergency solutions. Furthermore, we would be acting very compassionately. For example, the homeless are more poorly nourished and more stressed, often are the victims of violence or accidents, and do not sleep as well. The homeless are three and a half times more likely to have asthma than an average person, four times more likely to have cancer and five times more likely to have heart disease. In addition, they are 20 times more likely to have epilepsy and 29 times more likely to contract hepatitis C.

According to Michael Shapcott, from the Wellesley Institute in Toronto, in 2007, the monthly cost of a hospital bed was $10,900. Comparatively, the cost of a shelter bed was $1,932. Even better, the cost of a social housing bed in Toronto, where rent is not the cheapest in Canada, was $199.92. You do not have to be good at math to see that the best solution is rather obvious, in both economic and human terms.

A homeless person is also at a higher risk of ending up in prison. In fact, according to a study by Kellen and others in 2010, approximately one in five inmates was homeless at the time of being incarcerated. According to Statistics Canada, in 2008-09, the average yearly cost of incarceration for a male was $106,583, and was $203,061 for a female. I highly doubt that subsidized housing for one of these people, even including support workers, would have cost the government as much.

So yes, I agree with Mr. Gaetz: we can save money while still doing good. Secure, affordable, adapted, adequate and safe housing helps prevent a lot of problems. It is an intelligent way to effect profound changes in society, not only for the homeless, but also for everyone. Everyone should have the right to adequate housing without having to destroy themselves financially.

Many families and individuals have a hard time making ends meet because they earn a pittance, because they are ill, because they are retired and living on a fixed income, because they are young and are having a hard time finding a first job, or because they are students.

It is mainly these people who see the gap between their incomes and those of the wealthy getting wider every year.

Yes, we must ensure that employment insurance is fair for everyone, including those who cannot find full-time work and who will lose out with the new clawback mechanism established by the Conservatives. By the way, the presumption that everyone can find full-time work is false.

At the museum where I worked for 19 years, there were only three guides who had full-time jobs because of the nature of the work. The other 17 worked part-time. Jobs are becoming increasingly precarious, particularly in seasonal industries such as tourism and education. Many workers in these industries are women or young people who have less chance of success from the outset.

Yes, we must also ensure that caregivers can benefit from tax credits, even and particularly those who do not make enough money during the year to be able to take advantage of tax deductions. Once again, many of the people in these circumstances are women. Nonetheless, I am going to say it again: we need to take things much further than this motion.

Why not make the housing renovation programs permanent rather than providing temporary programs that leave something to be desired? With doors and windows that do not leak, heating systems would use less energy, and people would have lower heating bills and more money to spend on other things. There would also be more jobs available in the area of renovation.

Why not renew the agreements between the CMHC and social housing projects for buildings that need to be renovated or for those that cannot continue to provide subsidized housing once their mortgage expires?

Why not allow housing co-operatives that are trying to find another source of funding to end their agreement with the CMHC before the set end date without extremely restrictive penalties? This would allow them to find the money they need to do major renovations that cannot wait and that they do not have the means to do given their existing agreement with the CMHC.

Why not invest a portion of the CMHC's profits in new social housing, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, of course? People wait years for social and community housing. In the meantime, all of the money they spend on rent, which costs them much more than 25% of their income, could be helping other sectors of the economy. That money could also help them avoid having to choose between buying food or paying the rent. In the end, it would be better for the government too.

Why not bring back the 19.5% tax rate for big corporations, a rate that is, after all, still lower than that in the United States and that would give the government the money it needs to offer services to those who need them most? That money could be reinvested in housing and the fight against poverty.

I should point out that the NDP has repeatedly asked the House to adopt a national anti-poverty strategy. Maybe it is time for that now. All of these suggestions would help reduce the gap that is widening at an alarming rate between rich and poor in Canada.

Yes, I will support the Liberal motion this evening, but the House should also support bills introduced by my NDP colleagues, such as Bill C-241 and Bill C-400, which would guarantee all Canadians the right to decent, affordable housing so that they do not have to do without other essentials.

I hope that the members of all parties will set aside partisanship and support these important bills when the time comes to vote on them in the House. Forward-thinking, human policies like these are the only way to tackle growing inequality in our society.

Housing

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the 44th National Congress on Housing organized by the Canadian Housing & Renewal Association was held from May 1 to 4 in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Representatives of 400 organizations, municipalities and businesses were there to examine the current state of housing in Canada. The consensus was that, despite some progress in the area of housing and homelessness, the housing crisis is nowhere near being resolved.

I had the honour of discussing Bill C-400, which I introduced last February, to establish a national housing strategy. Countless organizations support this bill. I cannot count the number of representatives from organizations located in Conservative ridings who asked me how they could convince their MPs to vote in favour of the bill.

While Canada is still the only G8 country that does not have a national housing strategy, while over 150,000 Canadians are living on the street and while about 1.5 million households do not have appropriate housing, what more will it take to convince the Conservatives that Canada needs a real housing strategy?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today in the House to speak on Motion M-331 moved by my colleague from Shefford. I would like to thank him sincerely for his work on this issue. I would also like to thank all my colleagues who support my colleague from Shefford.

The New Democrats have a clear position on affordable housing: it is absolutely essential to make affordable housing accessible for Canadian families. We are committed to implementing legislation to ensure that housing is adequate and accessible. This is what we are proposing today.

In Canada, the shortage of affordable housing is flagrant. In Quebec, for example, it is estimated that about 325,000 households have core housing needs. It is appalling that, at the present time, only 10% of all housing starts will provide rental housing. Given that housing is being lost at a greater rate than new housing is being built, the number of rental units offered by the private sector is shrinking every day.

Moreover, according to estimates by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, there will be an additional 50,000 rental households every year over the next decade. The low supply of suitable accommodation is increasing pressure on rents and making it more difficult to find affordable housing.

Some of my colleagues will of course prefer statistics and figures. So here are some that clearly show that the shortage of housing in Canada is critical. Of the households that cannot afford housing, 750,000 have children under the age of 15, 26% are single-parent families, 15% are immigrant families and 20% are aboriginal households.

In addition, nearly 1.5 million households in Canada cannot afford decent housing, which is totally unacceptable. Of this 1.5 million, 25.7% are single-parent families, 18.2% are immigrant families and 20.4% are aboriginal households. The situation is disturbing and now is the time to act.

The shortage of affordable rental housing forces renters into deplorable situations. In the vast majority of cases, if housing is affordable, it is in poor condition. It is also sometimes the case that, given the lack of options available to renters, they are faced with owners who take advantage of their circumstances. This is the situation we are currently seeing in the Montreal area.

Some owners neglect to maintain their units. For example, damage goes unrepaired, pest infestations go unresolved, and problems with mould are left untreated. Residents have their backs against the wall and have no option but to live in these conditions.

Canadian families should not have to live like this. Families in Quebec and in Canada deserve much better.

In the past, the federal government played a major role in the construction of social housing, particularly between 1967 and 1993. Thanks to the funding that was available during that period, many co-operatives and all the low-income housing units were built. It was the Mulroney government that made devastating cuts to that funding.

FRAPRU estimates that, if that funding had continued after 1993, there would be an additional 60,000 social housing units in Quebec alone. There are currently 1,120 low-cost housing units in Laval, 93 of which are located in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. Only 12 of those 93 units are set aside for families and the rest are reserved for seniors.

There are clearly not enough units, and it has come to the point where every week my riding office receives requests from my constituents for help in finding social housing. People are desperate. Some, like Ms. Galipeau, have been waiting for a place in social housing for nine years. Nine years.

The lack of social housing was underlined by my predecessor, who tabled many petitions, including one signed by 135 tenants of social housing asking for funding merely to renovate the low-income units and another one signed by 2,813 residents in Laval asking that the old Saint-Vincent-de-Paul prison be converted into social housing.

There is an urgent need for the government to deal with the social housing it has built. Many low-income housing properties are coming to the end of their agreement with the federal government. Low-income housing was built in partnership with the municipalities and the federal government. Tenants spend 25% of their income on rent, and the federal subsidy pays the remaining operating costs only until the mortgages are repaid. As a result of the expiring agreements, 85% of the social housing stock is facing radical rent increases. In addition, as we all know, once the first mortgage is repaid, major work on the buildings is often necessary. However, the federal government does not appear to be interested.

What is even more alarming is that some families are being forced into homelessness as a result of the housing shortage. In recent years, homelessness has persisted and increased in Canada, and an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 Canadians are currently homeless.

Contrary to what some would think, homelessness is also a problem in the Laval region, as the program Les Francs-Tireurs showed last March. I suggest that anyone who did not see it go to the Les Francs-Tireurs website and watch the episode on the homelessness problem in Laval. It is extremely relevant to this issue.

However, there is very little in the way of resources to assist homeless Canadians, and funding still appears unstable. Needs are growing, whether it be in Montreal, Laval, Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax or any other city in the country, but funding under the homelessness partnering strategy, the HPS, has not been indexed since 1999. In fact, the program will be expiring in 2014, and this government, the one opposite, is refusing to be clear and specific about its plans after 2014. Will this government abandon Canadians? I wonder.

The last budget, which the government brought down in March, does not offer even a glimmer of hope to families looking for housing. In fact, it announces a $10.2 million cut to CMHC's budget by 2014-15. There is also no provision for affordable housing and absolutely nothing about renewing social housing operating agreements.

In reaction to that budget, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association indicated that a commitment to at least extend existing programs, such as the homelessness partnering strategy, would have been appropriate.

The right to housing is part of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for good reason, as a number of my colleagues have already said.

This is also an issue that overly affects people who are already marginalized such as women, aboriginal populations, newcomers, people with disabilities, seniors, and many others.

Access to decent, affordable housing is a health and safety issue in Canada. The report entitled “Housing and Population Health”, by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, indicates clearly that the type of housing affects health. Renters have average health or, at least, their health is not as good as that of homeowners. The poor conditions that exist in some housing are one reason for this disparity, but the percentage of income spent on housing also has an impact, since it influences the ability to spend on other needs such as food, suitable clothing, health services and so forth.

I want to reiterate that I subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that access to suitable housing is a fundamental right, not a privilege. I urge the government to take this declaration seriously. Canadian families have the right to have a roof over their heads for their safety, health and survival.

I want to thank my colleague who took the initiative to move this motion and my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who introduced Bill C-400 to ensure that Canadians have secure, adequate, accessible housing.

I invite the government to support this motion and our affordable housing initiatives because housing is a necessity, not a luxury. It is time to open a dialogue on this.