Finance Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much.

I think this is a set-up. I get what I would consider offensive remarks from the Conservative side that force me to respond and eat up part of my time.

Mr. Chairperson, I am going to use a little of my time to in fact deal with what I thought was a very self-serving comment by Mr. Turner, and I think our witnesses are far too polite to take him on.

I would like the record to show that the reason Sharon Chisholm, and others from the housing movement, suggested they were waiting for the housing money--it was the money they were waiting for--was because, in fact, the only housing money in the budget that we are talking about was the money the NDP forced the Liberals to put in the budget that they didn't flow, and finally the Conservatives agreed to flow that money. There was no new money, there was no new indication from the Conservatives of a commitment to a national housing policy, or anything at all in the housing area. It was simply a commitment to flow the money once the surplus dollars had been ascertained. So it's important, Mr. Chairman, for that.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I have a point of order. The honourable member is talking to me, she should be talking down there, and I'm getting upset about it.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm not talking to you, Mr. Turner, I'm talking to the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Excuse me, Madam.

I would have to say, Mr. Turner, you don't have a point of order, though I think it would be wise to utilize the remaining few seconds to address the witnesses who are here with us today.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I will certainly do that, Mr. Chairperson. I think it's important to clarify the record when members of your side put misleading information on the public record.

I would like to ask Sharon Chisholm this. Given the fact that we don't have a track record with the government, given the fact that there was the scare with the skimpy dollars, with the cutback letters going out and then suddenly pulled back, given the fact that there are rumours about Canada Mortgage and Housing being privatized, given the fact that they have already opened up the mortgage insurance part of CMHC to private competitors, and given the fact that there is no indication of an understanding of the need for a national housing policy, what is the best approach for us at this point to get something in this upcoming budget that will deal with this serious issue for all Canadians?

[Sharon Chisholm]

Maybe I could just make a couple of recommendations. One is we're waiting for the renewal of the national homelessness initiative and the RRAP program. The national homelessness initiative is well regarded by communities. Homelessness is increasing in our major cities, and we really have to address that. There's no reason in the world for a country like Canada, as rich as Canada, to have any homeless. I know that several years ago in the U.K. they set a target to eliminate homelessness, and they've practically managed to do that, for all intents and purposes. Canada could do it as well. So I think we have to do that, as a minimum.

As far as the other things that CHRA is talking about, we have to look at where the different interests of government are and look at the economic case, the health case, the education case, the environmental case for doing housing, and that means speaking to our colleagues at the provincial level and the municipal level. We know, from history and experience, that there will not be housing delivered in this country unless the federal government antes up. Unfortunately, that's the case; the provinces are not doing it on their own, for the most part, so we need to have a strong presence there. At the very least, let's make sure we renew the programs that are incredibly important.

On the RRAP program, which has been around since 1974, you probably all know about it. You probably know of someone, or perhaps you've had your own house RRAPed, but it's important in communities. It's well known by almost all Canadians, and it's important that we continue it. As our housing ages, it needs repairs, and a lot of low-income families are not able to make those repairs without the RRAP program.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

I appreciate that. I know you've mentioned the provinces are not always doing their part, and I agree. However, most activists in this field point out that Canada is one of the few countries in the industrial world that does not have a national housing policy, recognizing in fact that there is an obligation on the part of a national government, as well as on provincial and local governments, to act in this area. I'm wondering if that is still the case or if that's your understanding.

[Sharon Chisholm]

We were very close to having a national strategy. There were consultations that went on and on under the previous government, and beyond consultations, but they didn't manage, at the end of the day, to make it enough of a priority to have that put in place. Well, we still need a national housing strategy for all the reasons I've spoken about today, and I would like to see this government review what was done, or come up with something new, or look at what the various interests are in continuing to invest properly in housing. When I see that dollars go out without a lot of accountability, I have to wonder what that interest is, because, really, if you want to achieve some objectives that I know this government has around the environment, around a whole number of issues such as attracting investment and employees, you're going to have to use housing as a tool. So this government ought to set up a committee that will look into putting together a national housing strategy that will lead us into a more productive place in this century.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you.

In an earlier session we had a presentation from the Canadian Hardware and Housewares Manufacturers Association. It made a number of recommendations pertaining to use of the RRSP savings and other tax credit measures to deal with housing, first-time homeowners' predicaments, and so on. What is your sense of those kinds of recommendations, and if we have to make a choice between a direct investment in certain targeted areas or a tax measure, what should it be?

[Sharon Chisholm]

I haven't seen the recommendations, and I would want to see them, because housing is really a complex area and there are no simple, inexpensive solutions. It's an expensive area to make good changes in. I haven't seen them, but I can tell you we've looked at affordable home ownership recently, and you have to be very careful about how you invest money in that area. I think CMHC has done good work making mortgage insurance available, but often when we get gung-ho on home ownership we encourage low-income families to buy homes in areas where they don't maintain the resale value.

So there are good reasons to be careful about that and where you have so little investment, aside from the $1.4 billion Mr. Turner referred to. Where we're not doing a lot...we have to look first at direct investment and at the outcomes we achieve with housing investments. I would leave it at that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Is there time for any more?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No. Thank you very much, Madam Chisholm.

We continue with Mr. McKay, in the second round, for five minutes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Yakabuski, we recently witnessed the tragedy in Quebec with deteriorated infrastructure. It makes your point quite well. Usually in insurance there's a subrogation. My question to you is, is there any legal restriction to explain why the insurance companies would not be suing the Province of Quebec?

[Mark Yakabuski]

There are few actual legal restrictions on the possibility of, in this case, suing the Province of Quebec, just as there are few legal restrictions on suing municipalities for any inadequate sewer system that may create all kinds of flooding and sewer backup, etc., in people's basements.

It's not the preferred approach of the insurance industry because the expenses of having a province or a municipality go through a legal case are ones we would rather see invested in the infrastructure itself. This game is not going to be solved by people suing each other. We want to avoid that. We want to work with the municipalities, with the provincial governments, but we need the federal government at the table because there is simply not enough money being invested in this country in very basic infrastructure and we are all going to pay a very sorry price. The answer is not taking each other to court. It is working together to ensure innovative financing methods are available, and I think the federal government has a role to play in this.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I agree with you completely, the point being, as was made by previous witnesses on previous panels, that if the government doesn't get into the infrastructure game seriously, then it will effectively be forced into it by virtue of lawsuits flowing from tragedies such as the one we witnessed in Quebec.

[Mark Yakabuski]

That possibility exists. There are a few cases where municipalities have been taken to court, and the insurance industry, in those cases, has almost always won. But that's not our preferred approach. We want to work with governments to make sure we get this problem under control, because it is one that is seriously undermining the health and safety of Canadians.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Chisholm, Mr. Turner was having his political sport with you. The moneys that flowed were out of Bill C-48, as Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has said, and the irony of this whole matter is that this bill was jointly supported by the Liberals and the NDP in the last Parliament. The Conservatives voted against it; however, because of the surplus, they were required to fund, notwithstanding their ideological biases.

As a consequence of that, the reality prior to that, on the budget itself, I don't think there was any.... Setting aside the $1.4 billion out of the C-48 obligation to fund, was there anything...I don't recollect anything in the budget with respect to social housing and the issues of your concern. Is that a correct statement?

[Sharon Chisholm]

There was another announcement of a tax credit program for $200 million. I don't know if any further work has been done on it, but the announcement was made at that time.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

If you had a choice between tax credits and actual grants, what would your choice be?

[Sharon Chisholm]

You would have to do a study on the whole program, but grants generally work better. They cut out a lot of the middle people involved in tax credit programs. But we didn't ever get to the point of seeing what kind of tax credit program might be implemented.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

If I'm a lower- or middle-income Canadian taxpayer, a tax credit is of dubious benefit to me when I'm trying to retrofit my house or something of that nature.

You have something of an apprehension with respect to the SCPI money and the RRAP money. Beyond what you've said, do you have any basis for that apprehension? Is there any other reason why you are afraid this will be in Mr. Baird's enthusiastic program review?

[Sharon Chisholm]

It would be nice to hear that we don't have to be concerned about this matter at all, that the programs will be renewed. I hope there is support for that. But when I say I have an apprehension, I'm representing the interests of a whole range of groups, including the provinces and cities, the National Coalition on Housing and Homelessness, the national network of housing coalitions. These groups are very concerned and want to make sure the programs are renewed.

We were hoping it would have happened by now. You can't wait to renew them until the next budget. By that time, programs in place at the community level would have been dismantled. So there is a certain momentum now. The groups that are working, the cities that are working on their SCPI initiatives, have to know that they're going to be continued so that they don't lose the resources and their capacity to keep the programs going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Of course, as a non-partisan chair, I always run a risk in making a comment. But in respect of your presentation, a number of my members have chosen to use the back-of-the-napkin commitment to housing in the NDP-Liberal budget announcement as an indication of their degree of caring. I assure you that there are members of all political parties in the House who take exception to this method of developing a housing strategy for our nation.

We move on now with Mr. Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Warden, I would like to talk about your sixth recommendation. You are recommending that the Standing Committee advise the government to provide volunteer firefighting personnel with a personal income tax credit in the forthcoming budget, for the time they expend performing their volunteer firefighting functions. You are proposing that the deductions be based on the number of hours they spend performing such functions.

Do you know how many hours per year, on average, a volunteer firefighter devotes to his firefighting functions? You are proposing a deduction of $1,000 for 50 to 99 hours, $2,000 for 100 to 199 hours, and $3,000 for 200 hours or more. How many people would be affected in each of these categories?

[Chief Donald Warden]

I don't have the exact number at each level. All we know is that across Canada there are different levels of ongoing training within the local fire departments. Some of the smaller fire departments do not train very often, because they cannot often get the people out to do the training. In a large municipality such as my own, we do at least 200 hours of training a year, plus other specialty training on weekends.

We're suggesting a scale because there are a lot of members of the service who can't spend the time to train, and we do not feel they should get the same tax benefit as the people who are training to protect the citizens of Canada. That's why we introduced the scale.

Another thing you may be interested in knowing is that the House of Commons in London just introduced and passed at second reading a bill much the same as this one. It allows the minister to add other agencies or people to this same tax bracket.

We appreciate that the government has a problem in dealing with emergency responders. But I can assure you that being an emergency responder is a lot different from being a volunteer coach on a hockey team or that kind of thing. I have served in both capacities. I did the hockey to be there for my friends and family. I'm here as a volunteer firefighter to help you if you get into a serious situation. Maybe I can come in and rescue you or save a member of your family. Running into a fire is a lot different from standing outside and watching it.