Evidence of meeting #30 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was housing.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you.
I'm sure there's always room for improvement.
Housing is certainly a significant issue. When we extended the funding of $1.9 billion for the homelessness and housing initiative it was well received. As François mentioned, during an economic crisis is exactly the time we should boost our housing dollars. We have put $2 billion in the budget for renovations and new housing units for various groups--seniors, and those with disabilities.
There is a question you've raised that I want to pursue. We spend $1.7 billion annually for existing social housing needs, and many of the agreements with provinces for 35, 40, or 50 years are starting to expire. So there is that pool of $1.7 billion, but you're saying there should be an additional $2 billion spent.
Some of the housing associations have made sure that the properties were improved and can withstand the test of time. They have spent money in that regard and have paid off debts, but others haven't done that.
What are your suggestions on how to handle existing housing stock in the years to come with that $1.7 billion? It's not too far from your $2 billion suggestion. I know we're going to be facing that in the next short while.
2:10 p.m.
Coordinator, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain
Concerning the budget for the programs and their renewal, we hailed the fact that funding had been allocated for new social housing. However, we must take into account the limited opportunities that it represents.
If we add the various amounts for the announcements made in the fall, the extension of the affordable housing initiative and the provisions of the new budget, we see that this funding will allow the Government of Quebec to subsidize 2,600 units over two years. Yet Quebec currently has 448,000 tenant households that are paying rent that is above the standard.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I appreciate that, and there's room for more dollars. My question to you is specifically about existing social housing and the agreements that are expiring. There's $1.7 billion there. How can that money be utilized?
2:10 p.m.
Coordinator, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain
In my opinion, the federal government must extend the agreements it has signed with housing coops, not-for-profit housing associations and the provinces for the management of their housing stock. I myself live in a coop unit, so I know that at the present time, the money we receive from the federal government is basically used just to subsidize the lower-income people, so that they are paying an amount that is in keeping with their income. They are paying 25% of their income in rent.
If the federal government picks up its marbles and leaves once the agreements expire, the people who are currently paying 25% of their income in rent will be subject to rent increases of $200, $300 or even $400 per month. Instead of paying 25% of their income in rent, they will wind up paying 50%, 60% or even 70% of their income in rent. Some of these people will no longer be able to make ends meet. Some will have to move. In my opinion, that would be a disaster.
Here in Canada we currently have a national heritage. By that, I am talking about our social housing. We have 623,000 units, of which 120,000 are in Quebec. We need to increase the number of units. Or in any event, we must at least conserve the units that we currently have, and maintain the spots for low-income people. I would not want to see my own housing coop be only for people who can afford the rent. I want the people that the units were created for, that is to say, low-income people, to be able to afford living there. It's a major challenge.
Some of these agreements have already ended. The worst is yet to come, and even so people have been calling us recently and telling us that their rent has been increased because of the lack of federal subsidies. I think that the federal government absolutely must settle this issue immediately. The existing agreements must be extended for another 35 years, if necessary. It would not cost a single cent more than the current funding. It would just be a matter of maintaining the current funding.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
We will now begin the second round, and you will have five minutes for your questions and the answers.
Ms. Minna.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to go back to the discussion we started earlier. Some of the presenters we had in Ottawa talked about the persistence of poverty. We know that poverty has persisted in a certain portion of our population, sometimes for generations. But there's also the depth of poverty for some of our people.
It was suggested that we need to look outside the box, maybe even change EI and the whole welfare situation, and establish a fund to assist Canadians along the lines of the guaranteed income supplement. Welfare would be an absolute last resort.
What kinds of programs could we fold into this? I'm thinking that with the exception of the child benefit, housing, early education, and child care, we have a myriad of tax credits and income support programs. Have you looked at creating a guaranteed income supplement that would maybe even include the EI system, all of the refundable tax credits, the working income tax benefit, and so on, to create one safety net? I want to get a bit more sense on whether there's any appetite for that kind of thing.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I'm sorry. It's to all of them--but maybe Monsieur Saillant and Madame Jetté.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
2:15 p.m.
Spokesperson, Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec
The Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec does propose a universal guaranteed income, which would not be subject to seizure and which could not be reduced. If everyone in Canada received a basic income that would ensure they would never lack the basics... Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff causes problems for political decision-makers. We know that people who are at the LICO are not rich.
We need a new approach. The ping-pong games that the federal government and the provinces get into are becoming more complicated—who will control this and how much will this guaranteed income be? The reference we have for a general, universal income is the low-income cutoff. People have to meet certain criteria in order to qualify for various grants under targeted programs. For example, we need to know whether the children know how to brush their teeth, assuming they still have some. The targeted programs force us to label social problems as diseases.
2:15 p.m.
Spokesperson, Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec
The cost to society is extremely high. If young people find themselves living in Maisons de jeunes, this is very costly. The Maisons de la famille are also very expensive, but these are the effects of poverty.
I have been working with people living in poverty for 40 years. I worked in youth protection, I have been involved with welfare recipients, with young drug users and with people who are released from prison. So I am familiar with the various faces of poverty.
If the child of parents on social assistance comes to school dressed differently from the other children, he or she will not be able to afford to take part in school activities. Mom Dion will have to provide the school supplies, and the Breakfast Club will provide the food. What are the labels? Do parents perpetuate the situation or are people marginalized from one generation to the next because of the way in which society is organized?
If we really want to fight poverty, we have to look at these issues as a whole, and examine them in much greater depth than we are at the moment. In the meantime, we must set up programs to help out young people and families.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
But we have to change our way of thinking.
Monsieur Saillant.
May 13th, 2009 / 2:15 p.m.
Coordinator, Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain
We would be quite in favour of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, as Nicole was explaining. In the past, we had some concerns. I am thinking, for example, of the recommendations made in the Macdonald report in the 1980s, which advocated a very low guaranteed income supplement and the abolition of all social programs.
Whether or not there is a guaranteed income supplement, we will always focus on social housing. We cannot allow social housing to be controlled by market forces, and think that they alone will solve all our housing problems.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thank you.
I appreciate the work that you do.
Madam Trudel, you touched upon a nerve I'm passionate about: financial literacy. Through our travels and through our committee meetings, we have heard about those who are most vulnerable, the need for housing and income supports, mental health treatment, and addiction. I don't think anybody can dispute any of those points. I worked in a software company before, and there were some fairly well paid people there, young people. I was the old guy at the company. There are some massive needs among those who are most vulnerable, but there's a huge part of our society that, though gainfully employed, is at the poverty level at the end of every month because of poor financial management. These are people with tremendous educations in computer science and computer programming.
How could we provide some financial literacy to that segment of our society?
2:20 p.m.
Coordinator, Association Coopérative d’Économie Familiale de la Rive-Sud de Montréal
We often come back to education, the educational aspect. Unavoidably, we have to go there. This aspect has to do with individuals.
However, let me come back to the credit issuers. Money is lent out very easily, with very little study of each case. People end up with loans that are much too large and they cannot afford to make the repayments.
I imagine that at the places where you worked, many young people had credit. Certainly, if a young person 25 years of age can get $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000's worth of credit —because we do see 25-year-olds with credit margins of $15,000 in our offices—...a young person like this sees that it is possible to spend the entire sum in one month. He does not see the impact of the coming repayments. Therefore, this is an issue of consumer education.
We also need to set limits on credit issuers when they issue loans. When a consumer can no longer make the repayments, we must not let the credit issuer just wash his hands of the matter. In my opinion, the accountability is shared by everyone.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Actually, that's a good segue into my next question. With respect to payday loans and credit cards, in years gone by I have been annoyed to see on my credit card statement that the actual line of credit has been increased without my say-so, sometimes by as much as 50%.
2:20 p.m.
Coordinator, Association Coopérative d’Économie Familiale de la Rive-Sud de Montréal
It is forbidden.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
If people have the ability to borrow more than they're able to repay, it makes no difference whether the credit rate or the line of credit is 28% or 2%. If you can never pay back $20,000 on a line of credit or a credit card, it's an unfortunate situation. The payday loan companies, in my opinion, are brutalizing those who are most vulnerable.
Do you have any suggestions about the amount that someone should be able to borrow? Do you have any comment on the payday loan business?
2:20 p.m.
Coordinator, Association Coopérative d’Économie Familiale de la Rive-Sud de Montréal
Payday loans are a fairly recent occurrence here. The people who take out these loans are often young couples, young people whose mortgage is well above their payment capability. They are between 25 and 40 years old and they are heavily in debt. They are the ones who will slide down the spiral. These young people are our future politicians. They are our future. It is not too late to do something.
Currently, we believe that we are living through a crisis, or some kind of misunderstanding—we no longer know exactly what to call it—but I believe that this is not very serious as compared to what the future holds in store for this heavily indebted generation. Many people cannot get jobs at this time, but these young people often work for 40, 50 or 60 hours a week to pay back their debts. They have small families, but I cannot say that they are enjoying a marvellous standard of living. They have large budgets, they could take part in leisure activities, but they do not have the time for that. With regard to quality of life, I believe that it is important to mention people who have low or modest incomes, but nevertheless, the labour force in our provinces also includes these young people aged 25 to 40.
We will have to adopt a long-term approach regarding these people who borrow far too much.
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Raymonde Folco
Thank you.
I would like to add a few words, with your permission.
Ms. Jetté, you mentioned court challenges. I sat on the Standing Committee on Official Languages at the time when the Court Challenges Program was abolished by the government. Of course, for our clientele, namely Quebec anglophones and francophones in other provinces, this was a crucial program. There was a strong outcry, so much so that a part of the program was restored by the government.
Unfortunately, I think that the general public, and perhaps more specifically parliamentarians, do not know that this program had to do not only with language rights, but also with other rights. In fact, this helped groups such as yours or others to access government funds to challenge unfair positions held by that self-same government. I think that this is splendid for a government that wants to practice democracy.
With your permission, I will make the following comment not as the chair but on my personal account. It would be good to inform the parliamentarians that the pool of persons who can access the Court Challenges Program is much bigger than people think. We should find some way to inform the public about this, especially in the context of committees other than the official languages committee.
I think that you see what I am driving at. We could discuss this later on. Ms. Jetté, would you like to say something about this?
2:25 p.m.
Spokesperson, Front commun des personnes assistées sociales du Québec
My answer will be brief.
In a way, some attempts were made to make this known. We issued releases and we contacted MPs and politicians. In any case, we are up against prejudice, and defending the rights of the poorest of the poor is not considered to be worthwhile.
It seems to me that we are very concerned about people who do not know how to establish a budget, but we are less concerned with people who have nothing to eat. When the time comes to create social programs for groups, organizations or persons in a precarious situation and who are already excluded from society, the decision-makers seem to be telling us that they are very kind to be setting up these programs.
In Quebec, we have heard of the “welfare state” of the 1960s. I am sorry, but it was not a welfare state; it was a responsible state. Before the 1960s, the health insurance plan, the Quebec Pension Plan, hospital insurance, were not counted as welfare but as justice. Some have claimed that it was welfare, and now the government would have a choice in being more or less generous. The government has no other choice than to be just. This is what we are fighting for. The Court Challenges Program reminds the government of citizens' rights.
Many questions are raised regarding democracy. Currently, in Canada, who are those who live in decent enough conditions to allow them to carry out their responsibilities as citizens? Our Canadian citizens are expected to maintain their good health, to pay for their housing, to feed themselves and to get involved socially either by working for wages or by some other means. These are responsibilities that adult Canadian citizens are expected to meet, but they are not given the conditions that they need in order to meet them, neither with regard to housing, nor with regard to food. This is inconsistent.
We are told that this has to do with rights and not with responsibilities. In fact, we are talking about responsibilities. We asked that people be given the means to meet their responsibilities as citizens, whereas poverty does not allow them to do so. If I lack the means to feed my children, I cannot meet my responsibilities as a parent.