It would seem obvious that being disabled has a big impact on the level of poverty. I think you have clearly explained that.
I may not have too many questions to ask, but I would like to come back on a statement by my Conservative colleague. This morning, I feel completely dismayed. I want to make these remarks before our panel just to make sure I understood you well. We are having a problem here.
I worked a lot on affordable housing. In Quebec, we have two programs: the federal affordable housing program and a program called AccèsLogis, to make access to housing easier.
You said that one of the reasons why there are less affordable housing units is that a number of them have been converted into other things, including cottages. I have to tell you I find it devastating that this should ever happen in a Canadian province. I have never seen such a thing in Quebec. And I worked with people from other provinces, and I have never witnessed such a thing. Usually, cottages are in the countryside near a lake. But affordable housing units are usually in an urban setting. Also, it is generally rich people who have a cottage. I want to make things clear for fear that this would set us off in the wrong direction.
In the early eighties, a ratio was determined about the vacancy rate that relieves pressure on costs. It means that in each municipality, if the vacancy rate is higher than 3%, costs are reigned in automatically and there is less pressure on costs. Over time, starting in the nineties, the federal government stopped contributing 1% for affordable housing units, when in the seventies and in the early eighties, it was contributing in each of the provinces in order to keep a steady supply of new affordable housing units, and targeting communities where the vacancy rate was less than 3%. In the nineties, this contribution was cancelled. It has been reinstated just in 2001. That is why we do not have enough affordable housing units. This is the first correction that needs to be made.
Second, it has been determined that in order to have a decent living, one should not have to spend more that one week's salary on housing. Otherwise, there is a problem. In Quebec, for example, more than 35% of low income people spend more than 50% of their income on housing. Even worse than that, 7% of them spend more than 75% of their income on housing. It is easy to realize that housing problems and the lack of affordable units has an impact on poverty. I wanted that to be clear.
Something similar happens with employment insurance. Yesterday, I pointed that out when a Bloc Quebecois bill passed on second reading to set conditions such as those you raised, like a 360-hour requirement to be eligible to EI benefits; an increase in the number of weeks of benefits; and independent workers coverage. This bill was passed on second reading. Let us hope it will also be passed on third reading.
My question is for all of you. How do you approach the following problem? You are talking about challenging situations people are in, but the government is raking in huge surpluses and does not meet the needs of citizens. Oil companies get grants to the tune of $250 million. Oil companies are not struggling. What do you think? How can this be justified? And not only the situation was not corrected, but it has even been made worse because of $1 billion cuts. What do you think?