Debates of Feb. 16th, 1994

Business Of Supply

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Nunatsiaq, NT]

If I was not wearing my earpiece earlier I probably would not have understood a word the hon. member was saying.

I just want to comment on a couple of things that the hon. member mentioned or omitted. One point was the fact that aboriginal people have the poorest housing. I did not hear the word aboriginal once in the whole presentation.

The other point was that I did not hear anything, other than Canadian or global, about how many houses are needed in Northwest Territories or in British Columbia. I just heard the statistics in Quebec.

I know that the member is a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and I think the member should represent all Canadians. I did not hear that.

I would like to comment also on her comment about the hon. minister for external affairs. She seemed to contradict, telling us that we were not aware of all the housing needs and then quoting the hon. minister. The minister must have been representing his constituents and Canada when he made his concerns known about housing and therefore did not need lessons from the hon. member about not knowing what was going on in our ridings over here. Does the hon. member have any understanding of the housing needs of aboriginal people across Canada as well as in Quebec? Does she have any statistics about the state of poor housing in areas other than Quebec?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to answer the member in English. Maybe he will understand me better and he will not need the translation.

The hon. member should know it is not the first time I have spoken about social housing. I have talked about aboriginal people also and their problems. He probably was not here to hear it. I always talk about social housing across Canada not only in Quebec. I gave statistics about Quebec because we are from Quebec. However I always speak for every Canadian in every riding everywhere.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for putting forward a motion which discusses some very substantive issues relating to social housing.

I do not wish to be too congratulatory to my colleague opposite, however the subject matter before us this afternoon can be debated in a very civilized way and perhaps suggestions from all quarters can be put on the record. We can then present them to the Minister of Finance, who as we all know, is in the process of preparing his budget.

Although I thank the hon. member for putting the subject matter before the House I cannot concur with the way in which the motion has been written and placed before the House.

I want to assure all hon. members that as the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, I take my mandate very seriously, as does the government. We fully understand the challenges ahead and we are committed to carrying out the government's agenda in the area of housing.

Make no mistake about it, the government is committed to maintaining a strong role in social housing across the country. Our commitment reflects our desire to help the least advantaged in our society and we will continue to do just that.

In the speech from the throne the government clearly signalled its resolve to address the fiscal situation while at the same time acknowledging the continuing importance of social priorities. The government is respecting its promises within its current financial capabilities. I want to underline that because I have been asked questions numerous times on the floor of the House. I have gone out of my way to make it abundantly clear that the fiscal capacity of the Government of Canada is somewhat limited as the previous administration basically left the cupboard bare. The deficit of the Government of Canada is $12 billion over and above what we had anticipated and what we had been told during the election campaign. I am sure hon. members opposite have concluded that it does limit the fiscal capacity of the government to move in all the social areas in which we might wish to move.

Having said that to the substance of the motion before us, I cannot concur with the way in which it has been written, although I am happy about the subject being debated just days before the budget.

It should be clearly stated that the government is providing close to $2 billion for the direct financing of some 652,000 households across the country. That is a very substantial amount of money which is lent under the auspices of the direct lending program, administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

To suggest otherwise is being totally irresponsible in my view. I direct those comments not necessarily to members opposite but to those who are outside the Chamber and those who may come into the Chamber and speak to the issues, that the government is making an important contribution to social housing. The hon. member made reference to the fact that this administration is the same as the old administration. That is not true.

The throne speech which was tabled in the other House and which has been referred to by the Prime Minister and by myself on several occasions, talked about social housing. We have put down $100 million over a two-year period for the residential rehabilitation assistance program.

With a limited fiscal capacity, we are providing $100 million to individuals in order to improve the quality of the stock of homes. This is a significant contribution in terms of the health

and safety which will be across the country, not in one particular area but all Canadians in all provinces will have an opportunity to benefit.

We have embarked on a very ambitious program. I will get to it in a little more detail when I talk about the meeting I had with provincial ministers of housing. We intend to save through cost cutting measures over the next four years a total of $120 million. All will be directed for social housing. Those initiatives will be in concert with shared objectives and providing those who are in need with capacity to move on and to improve their quality of life. This is another significant aspect of the social housing budget.

It should be noted that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has forecast for 1994 a modest recovery in new housing starts, which is approximately 162,000. If I can use this term-hon. members opposite may find it rather amusing-it is a conservative figure of 162,000 units.

Other forecasting organizations, such as banks and trust companies, indicate that those figures are very low and housing starts in Canada will be much more significant than that. However being the modest type of government that we are, we intend to go with the low figure and that is the figure we are sharing with our colleagues across the way.

Social housing also has implications for other areas and other aspects of the housing industry. For instance in the city of Toronto the issue is contaminated lands. In my discussions with ministers of housing across the country we have put this issue on the table for action by ministers and deputy ministers. In fact we discussed this when federal, provincial and territorial leaders met in Toronto. We agreed that our deputy ministers would pursue this vigorously, that we would have several meetings and hopefully make decisions on those kinds of issues, which have an impact on what the private sector does vis-à-vis social housing as well as other types of housing.

It should be noted that the theme we use for this issue is one of common sense.

I want to underline that there are numerous individuals who think that one cannot build a home anywhere in the country in 1994 because of environmental concerns. There are others in this country who say to hell with environmental concerns, they will build the homes regardless.

There are two competing views of a problem. I suggest, and ministers of the crown both federally and provincially have said, that we must have some semblance of common sense to the approach that the housing industry must take in the weeks, months and years ahead. That is an important aspect to which we must give due consideration.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is embarking upon a comprehensive-I want to underline the words-examination of the rental market research. My colleague who spoke earlier in the House with regard to the motion made reference to the province of Quebec and it having more units for the purpose of rental housing. That is very true.

However, there are other areas in the country whether in Calgary, Edmonton, British Columbia, parts of Atlantic Canada, where the rental component is an essential element. We hope that in the next couple of months to put together the terms of reference for a comprehensive review of rental markets.

I would be interested in hearing the views of hon. members on that subject as I will be hearing the views of the private sector and other stakeholders across the country.

Encouraging innovation is another aspect of our policy as it relates to housing. It relates directly to social housing in terms of the things we might be able to do. I make reference to the good work that my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, has been able to do. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, have followed that quite closely over the years.

I refer of course to R-2000 which in my view has provided an upgrading of the quality of housing in the country which many private stakeholders as well as non-profit stakeholders have taken advantage of over the years. Therefore, encouraging innovation will be another aspect of our housing policies as we approach this fiscal year, 1994-95.

I want to talk for a few minutes if I may in the time that I have remaining, which I believe is about 15 or 20 minutes-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Three. I do want to say that our commitment to housing for Canadians recognizes that there are groups with special needs which must be met.

Victims of family violence is one such group. It is astounding to me that the incidence of family violence continues to increase. I look forward to the day when we no longer need to build and maintain shelters for women and their children fleeing domestic violence.

For now we need to address this critical issue in the best way we can. We will continue to provide funding for shelters and other housing commitments under the family violence initiative.

Canada Mortgage and Housing provides financial assistance for project haven and project next step, two programs that provide emergency shelter and long-term housing for victims of family violence and their children.

There are 458 emergency shelter units that have been committed under the project haven initiative. Under the second phase of the family violence initiative, again a part of the social housing objectives of the Government of Canada, and the next step program, 150 self-contained units and 100 emergency shelter units are planned with a budget of $20.6 million.

During the upcoming months Canada Mortgage and Housing will be discussing with its counterparts in the family violence initiative new opportunities for Canada Mortgage and Housing participation in a possible third phase to the family violence initiative.

This assistance goes a long way to providing much needed shelter for women and children. The federal government is also committed to improving housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. As part of the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities, Canada Mortgage and Housing has been administering a $10 million two-year demonstration program called home adaptations for seniors' independence, or HASI, to help older seniors make their homes more liveable.

In the few moments that I have left-I am sure there will be a number of questions that hon. members will want to raise-I want to say two final things. One is with regard to housing for aboriginals on reserves and housing for aboriginals off reserves across the country. My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I have been working jointly on these issues and we hope to be able to put a paper before our cabinet colleagues to address some of these serious situations.

I want to assure the House and hon. members that it is certainly a priority for me and it is certainly a priority for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that we will want to pursue this with vigour and creativity. I have spoken to a number of aboriginal groups which have come to me, and I want to underline this, with some very creative and innovative ways in which they as individuals can take control of their own destiny and provide the kinds of quality housing that they need.

Finally, with regard to the province of Quebec, la belle province, I have had several discussions with the minister responsible for housing in the province of Quebec whom I am sure all members, particularly members opposite, would want to congratulate in terms of the new responsibilities he has achieved in the recent cabinet shuffle, including those of housing.

I am now embarking upon a program with my provincial colleague in the province of Quebec, and possibly elsewhere in the country as well, in terms of how we as governments can get better value for our dollar. The province of Quebec has earmarked moneys for housing under the renovation sector. It is a very exciting, good and solid program.

Through our moneys under the RRAP, the $100 million, and the amount of money we would provide for Quebec, we are trying to make an arrangement whereby we would lessen the administrative nightmares which are associated with the delivery of the housing in order to have the one level of government deliver that, of course maintaining a federal presence and maintaining some degree of credibility for the Government of Canada as we make expenditures in that great province, but lessening the administration and getting more money to the people who are really in need.

I want to assure hon. members in my final sentence that we as a national government are seized with the issue of social housing. We are attempting through a number of vehicles with our provincial counterparts to provide the best value at the best price for Canadians across the country.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before going to questions and comments the hon. minister being a seasoned member will know the question of parliamentary language, a four-letter word starting with h and rhyming with ``bell''. The eyebrow of one of his own members went up when the minister used the word. I see in Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 147, that that phrase in context has been found to be unparliamentary in the past. I wonder if the minister would perhaps reflect on it.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will accept your intervention, but I hope the Speaker will do the honourable thing post 6.30 this evening and read the "blues" and ascertain that the word which he anticipated and thought that I had said was not what he has referred to but was a word which is called h-e-c-k, which is different from what he had said.

However, if the hon. Speaker is not mistaken, I wish to withdraw any reference to that particular word. I would hope that if the Speaker has made a mistake he will come back to the House in due course.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Getting back to the substance of the debate, questions or comments.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the member is showing an interest for our belle province, I would like to give him a few statistics regarding social housing funding in Quebec. I wonder if he is aware of the fact that, from 1986 all the way up to 1993, there have been some significant discrepancies in the level of federal funding to various provinces in Canada, including Ontario.

Quebec received between 10 and 13 per cent less from the federal government. That is why it is now calling for an improvement in the level of government expenditures. We say expenditures, but what we are really talking about are job

creating investments. I am giving this piece of information to the minister because I would like him to tell me what his government intends to do to improve the social housing program in Quebec, in view of the fact that, for the last ten years, Quebec has been short changed compared to other provinces.

Let me explain the criteria used by the federal government to allocate funding for housing. Quebec is at a real disadvantage because, to determine each province's share of the budget, Ottawa grants each province a certain number of units based on the real building cost per unit. Yet, we know that the average building cost per unit is higher in Ontario. This analysis shows how Quebec has always been short-changed by the federal government.

I would like to add another point. The member mentioned new social housing starts by CMHC. There might be new housing starts in Ontario and other provinces, but certainly not in Quebec. I received a letter from a director in the CMHC economic department saying that there was no sign of recovery in housing starts in Quebec. I would like the minister to comment on that.

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate the hon. member because I think those are very appropriate and very sound questions that should be raised on the floor of the House of Commons.

First of all, I agree with my colleague that this should not be interpreted as subsidies. We should look at it as investment. I could not agree with her more.

I cannot and will not try to rewrite history in terms of the amount of moneys which has gone to the province of Quebec. There are some rationales which have been given to me as to why Ontario, for instance, which has a bigger population and higher costs in terms of social housing, has received more and Quebec has received less.

I can assure the hon. member, who has raised a fundamental question of equity, that under this administration Quebec will get its fair share. I can assure the hon. member of that.

The hon. member made reference to a number of other issues. However, it should be noted that the Government of Canada will also be providing $5 million over the next four years in financial assistance for unique, non-profit housing co-operatives in the southwest of Montreal. The hon. member probably knows that. This was done as a pilot project and we are continuing with that particular funding.

I want the hon. member to know as well that in terms of the units in the province of Quebec, she knows and I know that the predominance of rental units as opposed to new free standing units is greater in the province of Quebec than anywhere else in the country. Hence, we will work closely with the Quebec government, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, in terms of providing moneys for renovations to that social housing stock.

We will also work closely with the Government of Quebec and stakeholders in that province as well as in other provinces to see whether there are creative ways we can put money into projects to provide the kinds of new housing or renovated housing to house Canadians.

I do not want to mislead the hon. member in thinking that there is a Santa Claus who sits two seats down from me, the Minister of Finance, who will walk in on February 22 and say to the people of Canada that he has a bag of goodies and this is what he is going to do.

It is important to be fiscally responsible federally, provincially, municipally, in non-profit organizations and the private sector so that we can arrive at expenditures which meet our objective which is to provide affordable, reasonable and healthy housing for Canadians.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents who live in low-cost housing in my riding have made representations; they are quite numerous. Their income is not high and they are very concerned by a possible 25 to 30 per cent rent increase .

Could the minister tell us today if I can go back to my riding and reassure my constituents by telling them their rent will not increase following the next budget?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has again asked a very excellent question.

The hon. member cannot have it both ways. One cannot put a hand on one's heart and plead for new social housing for Canadians across this country and only look at one side of the ledger, which is to cut expenditures and duplication, without looking at the other aspect in terms of revenue increases.

I believe a total of eight provinces across the country have moved from the 25 per cent to 30 per cent or are in the process of moving in that direction. It is called rent geared to income. That is what the hon. member is referring to. It is a good question.

I cannot give any assurances until such time as the Minister of Finance makes that kind of decision in the budgetary papers which are to be available on February 2.

Let us not put our heads in the sand and say that we can only look on one side of the ledger, but we cannot look on the other side of the ledger when we are both saying that we need additional moneys for the purposes of creating new social housing for Canadians who are in desperate need.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question concerning the minister's comments on aboriginal housing on and off reserve.

The statistical material that I have been able to make available indicates to me that housing on and off reserve for aboriginals has a habitable life span of some 16 to 25 years as compared with 35 to 50 years for other housing, for non-aboriginal housing. This would indicate to me either there is substandard housing being provided in those cases or that housing is not being properly maintained and cared for.

Has the minister taken into serious consideration those statistics in providing the renewal of housing?

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to comment on the efficacy of the statistics that my colleague has used, although being in the House for some time I will have to accept them at his word.

The only thing that I can reply to the question is that in my deliberations over the last three months, the last 103 days as a minister of the crown, with aboriginal groups across this country I have found an attitude among aboriginal leaders that they do not want handouts. What they want is an opportunity like we have had over the years to be able to have affordable housing. They are coming forward with creative, innovative, dynamic ideas which will involve the private sector, which will involve governments at all levels, and which will involve other stakeholders to provide that kind of quality housing.

In terms of the substance of the question that the hon. member has asked, there is substandard housing on reserves across this country. Governments should work with aboriginal people, not against them, to provide meaningful solutions to real problems.

To quote a friend of mine who shall remain nameless, shelter in this country, next to water and land and the air we breath, is probably the most important aspect of Canadian life.

I hope I can call upon the hon. member for creative ideas, creative suggestions and support when we put our money where our mouth is.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe that the period reserved for questions and comments is over.

We will continue debate with the hon. member for Macleod on behalf of the Reform Party.

Do I understand that members of the Reform Party wish to divide their time?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I inform the House that we would like to divide our time. Could the member for Calgary Southeast speak prior to me?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with keen interest and deep concern that I rise today in the House to address the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

Acknowledging the seriousness of our discussions here today is more than just debating how to provide more effective and efficient support to those in need. It is a challenge most fundamental coming to the realization that responsible financial management requires thoughtful planning. Nowhere in this motion do I sense a strategy or any idea for that matter of where that money is going to come from.

Spending in the country continues at an alarming rate. Even as I speak every minute represents $88,410 in additional debt. The jobless, the discouraged, the fearful and the poor are still out there. That is very overwhelming. What are we going to do?

I believe we have to ask ourselves three things when we consider expenditures of any kind, especially in the area of social spending. It takes courage to be objective when reviewing social reforms because our emotions are involved and that is when it is most difficult to make a decision.

My questions are what do we want, how do we get there, and what will it take?

Let us look first at what Canadians want. People are outraged that our government has been in an out of control spending mode for two decades. Our nation is like a Hollywood front, all glitter and glass purchased on borrowed money with nothing of substance holding it up.

It is a stunning picture on the reality of this House that not since the minority Parliament of 1972-74 has Parliament directly acted to cut expenditures. Even in that situation in which the government lacked a controlling majority, the House of Commons achieved two small cuts amounting in total to $20,000.

To give a sense of proportion, since the current procedure for committee review of estimates was initiated in 1969, Parliament has authorized about $2 trillion worth of expenditures. This means that Parliament has made cuts that represent only one millionth of one per cent of total expenditures that it approves.

Here we find the Bloc Quebecois having spoken eloquently on numerous occasions about deficit control and debt reduction, bringing forward a motion to spend money but not explaining within that context how that money will be found.

If we want to reduce the deficit and begin a meaningful effort at getting our economy on track and our social reforms in place, the second question I ask is how will we get there? We begin with the right people. We need people who will stand up and say this is not good enough, we are not willing to solve tough issues

by following the easier path. Throwing money at programs is easy.

I believe the social role of government is determined by clarifying priorities, responding to the give and take as governments attempt to pay for increasingly costly social programs while coping with the ever diminishing economic base.

However, in the motion before us today there is no appearance of a give and take, merely an arbitrary dole, a short sighted, stop gap solution.

Canadian welfare and social programs were designed on a premise of high employment. Therefore, social programs and economic policy are mismatched. Given that the overwhelming need for social support is the direct result of the poor economic health of the country, tinkering with pieces of social policy will not help. However, changing our economic policy will help.

If a room is freezing because of frigid air coming in through a broken window, we do not turn up the heat; we fix the window. So it is with this motion. We are turning up the heat when we need to fix what is broken.

It is the unhealthy fiscal policy of this government and that of previous governments which are causing such a strain on our social programs. As the debt has grown interest payments have consumed an increasing proportion of the government's spending. They now constitute an enormous strain on the treasury. In 1974 they consumed only 11 per cent of the government's spending but today they consume 25 per cent. That is $40 billion from the treasury which go to interest payments on the debt. That, not coincidentally, is about equal to the federal deficit.

The point I am making is one given to us by the Auditor General: "In 1992 in an age of scarce public resources and growing debt, seeking ways to see that things get done by or through others rather than spending money to do them becomes increasingly important". Are we not ever going to hear the wisdom of those words as we apply mental energy ever seeking answers to the pressing social concerns of the day?

I ask the question: What will it take? I know courageous leadership is part of the answer. A government that listens to its people is made stronger and can deal more effectively with tough issues.

However, the Bloc motion puts more emphasis on spending to relieve an overburdened social system. I cannot support that. However I support greater financial sustainability over the long term. This requires a new commitment to sound, long-term financial management.

Another important question now needs to be asked: is it better to help households obtain adequate housing by directly providing the housing or by assisting them to increase their incomes? This means fostering an environment in which people are able to work. It is critical that we maintain federal spending at current levels for high priority functions, including labour force and training and adjustment programs.

It is also necessary that provinces have the freedom to distribute federal funding and manage their own programs. This comes back to my earlier comments about priorities. Maintaining federal transfers to provinces remains key in terms of preserving those programs targeted to those in need. I believe that public money should be regarded by governments as funds held in trust and that governments should practise responsibility, particularly the responsibility to balance expenditures and revenues.

We need to see significant spending cuts that are judiciously planned for the long term. I applaud those moves by the government to withhold funding support for programs for which there is no long range plan or strategy for the expenditure.

In conclusion the choices and decisions we must make have to be so clearly laid out before every Canadian so that all of us understand where we are going and what it is going to take to get there. This is my challenge to this House and to the Bloc Quebecois on its motion.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech, but I must admit to having some difficulty understanding the underlying logic. I say this in a very cordial way, because I do appreciate her input in this debate and I would like to ask her a question.

First, I noticed that she makes no difference between social programs and housing when, in my opinion, a distinction should be made. I will come back to this later in the 20 minutes allotted to me. My question is: Does she not feel that when the government intervenes in the housing sector, it becomes a job-creating sector? It is a sector where, if we invest public money, we get an interesting return on our investment.

I do not know if the hon. member contacted the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. This organization conducted a very extensive and competent review of this issue and came to the conclusion-corroborated by American studies-that every time the government invests to build a co-op unit, 2.2 jobs are created.

This example illustrates how social programs reform and social housing cannot be put on an equal footing. With all due respect, I must tell the hon. member that her speech did not reveal a great deal of social understanding, because when we discuss public finances, we cannot simply reason like an accountant trying to balance revenues and expenditures.

I come from a riding where there are many social housing developments and I can tell the hon. member that families living in co-op units do not have to spend as much on housing; consequently, they can invest more on food and health care, and are therefore more likely to exert less pressure on those social programs which she seems to be so concerned about.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I may be so bold I just have to say that you do have an interesting way with your hands. You kept gesturing making me think I was running over my time or that I had to wrap up my comments. You might want to put your hands in your pockets, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. He has to know how difficult this question is for me to address because it is based very much on emotion. I would be the last person to look at something from an accountant's perspective. When it comes to compassion requiring difficult decision making, that is difficult because this matter is very much couched in difficulty.

I am sorry I did not make the relationship of social reform, social programs and expenditure more clear to the member. I am committed to an economic agenda. As members of the House of Commons during this particular Parliament it is extremely important that we get our spending under control. There will be a very inefficient and ineffective system for care for everyone if we do not get our financial house in order.

While I was campaigning I did meet people who had lost their homes or who were going to be losing their homes because of the very sad condition of our economy. That is the perspective I brought to this debate and which I presented to the member.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my hon. colleague on her insight in terms of not only this debate but some of the comments she has made on a wider economic plane as it relates to housing.

I have worked in the housing industry. I take exception to one of the questions concerning the need for federal government funding in the area of social housing as a means of stimulating jobs. I can assure the hon. member that in the private sector we often found ourselves with private money competing with public money. The result was not only waste and duplication, but at the end of the day there was lack of housing.

I have a very simple question for the hon. member. Would she consider looking at housing as a means for the private sector, with all that is attached to it, to make a more affordable and accessible product in this country through financial institutions? That seems to be the real reason many developers and builders are not able to bring on a good product at an affordable price for the economy and for people to get access to quality housing.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Within the context of my presentation I did quote the 1992 Auditor General's report.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make. We seek other ways to get things done in this particular area by approaching problems using private sector funding.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one brief comment.

The hon. member raised a good point when she talked about the changes made to the way the estimates were dealt with in 1969. It seems to me it is at that point that Parliament and the House of Commons began to lose control if not necessarily over spending, it lost its ability to affect spending, to have a committee actually have an effect on estimates. Therefore we got into the situation in which estimates are deemed to be passed by a certain period of time whether a committee has looked at them or not.

When I first came here there was at least an effort to question the minister and to spend some time on that. However even that atrophied after a while because members came to notice that it did not really matter what they said and these things got to be passed anyway. The minister simply took up the necessary time. When it was over it was over and the estimates were passed. The point is well taken. No amount of parliamentary reform in the last little while has been able to overcome that dilemma.

Just for the record much parliamentary reform happened here in the 1980s by unanimous consent or with the agreement of all parties, although not the reforms in April 1991. However, those particular reforms in 1969 were not the result of all-party agreement; they were brought in by the use of closure at that time by the then Liberal government.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the motion the Bloc posed to us:

That this House condemn the government's inability to re-establish and increase budgets for social housing construction programs.

As I looked at this issue I looked at social housing construction in an overall sense in an attempt to put it in the frame of reference of Canada's needs.

I found that this whole program is under the auspices of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and that CMHC has a social housing stock of 650,000 units in our country. There are four separate programs: the native housing program; the seniors housing program; the next step housing program for women who are victims of violence; and the housing program for low income

Canadians. The total cost of this social housing program in Canada is $2 billion per year. This is a net amount incorporating received rents as well as the cost.

I looked at the statistics to find out the number of current housing starts. Because this question came from the Bloc I tried to zero in on why the Bloc would be particularly interested in this question.

I found that in Ontario this year there are some 7,200 starts on the go and in Quebec there are some 900 starts on the go. I imagined, if I were in Quebec I would look at those figures and ask whether somehow that was fair. This probably was the reason the Bloc brought this issue to the House. I will not comment on whether or not those figures are fair. As a member from Alberta I looked down the ledger to see how many housing starts there are in Alberta this year. I came to the conclusion that there are zero housing starts in Alberta this year under this program.

I will not go into great detail on whether the statistics tell me anything, but I asked myself whether this amount was sufficient for social housing in Canada. I am not sure I have the answer to that but I pose that as a question for us all.

I reflect on a comment made to me not many days ago. I met a New Zealand diplomat and said to him: "I am pretty close to Canada's debt situation. I am pretty close to the circumstances in our country. Could you make a comment for me, as someone from outside who should be unbiased about our situation in this country? Could you compare Canada to New Zealand for me?" He did that. As he compared Canada's situation today with that of New Zealand not so very many years ago, he said he did not think he saw the political will in our country to deal with the debt situation we have. I do not think he said that there is the political will among the population of Canada to stop overspending.

I looked him in the eye and asked-he had gone through this in his country-whether he could tell me what is necessary in Canada for us to realize the seriousness of our situation. He replied that he thought the International Monetary Fund would have to come in and shut us down.

I thought about his comments very carefully as I sat on this side of the House, trying to say to the Canadian public that our debt situation is serious. I am trying to say not directly to the Bloc but to every member in this House that our debt situation is extremely serious.

I wish somehow this message could get out before the IMF does have to shut us down because if it has to shut us down we will lose not just social housing, but we will lose every single social program that we value. If that happens this debate to me becomes somewhat inadequate.

I tried to priorize what I think are the social programs that should be highest on the ladder and priorize them so the House could hear what I think is important. Number one is health care. Number two is welfare for those in need. Number three is the old age supplement for the needy. Number four is unemployment insurance for short term unexpected job loss. I would put as number five such things as social housing.

If I put a different priority on those social programs than members opposite I am very willing to listen to their reasons where they would change the priorities. I would ask them to convince the members of the House that we could in fact change those priorities.

If the programs are not distributed fairly I would say that the Bloc has every reason to complain on the basis of fair distribution of the funds. I would support them in doing that very thing.

I would like to draw an analogy which members may think curious, but I have a hobby of racing cars. I have always wanted to go to the most famous endurance race in France, Les 24 heures du Mans. This is 24 hours of racing on a circuit in France. I do not think I will ever have the opportunity to go there to participate in that race but I did have an opportunity three years ago to race in the 24 heures du Daytona. This is the North American equivalent. It is a second equivalent but it is the equivalent of that race.

I found myself at Daytona in international circumstances in a race car that would go about 175 miles an hour. The banking at Daytona is so steep that if you get out of the car you can hardly walk. It is very steep. The car I was in was fast enough to go in the middle lane at Daytona and the really fast cars were on the top lane at Daytona. They would travel over 200 miles an hour.

It was interesting as I sat in the car at the fastest I had ever gone with the landscape blurring around me. The cars going by in the top lane would go by so fast that they would move my car down a couple of feet on the banking. On one lap as I went around the corner I looked ahead and I could see a rain cloud. The track is big enough so that we were a long way from the rain cloud but I was sure that the rain was falling on the track.

As I approached the rain I slowed down. A car went by me so much faster than I who had not seen the rain and he spun out on the track in front of me, smashed into the wall, tore off the front of the car and the motor came down. I slid through and luckily avoided him.

The analogy I am trying to draw is that our country is at 300 miles an hour on the banking heading for disaster in terms of our debt and our deficit.

I heard the minister say that he is seized with the issue of social housing. I say to the minister and to the other members of this House. Do not be seized with a narrow issue that is only your own issue. The other issue for the country that is seizing us

around the throat is the deficit and the debt. I beg members to pay attention to that issue and not be narrow in their processes.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I come from Vancouver East which has some very poor areas. These people cannot afford a racing car. Neither can they afford a house or a place to live.

I understand there are about 8,000 people that do not have proper shelter. Some of these people live in shelters that in fact are like pig sties. I would like to add that we have probably the largest aboriginal population in my area.

We talked about dignity in our red book. There is no dignity without an address. It is true that we are in tough economic times. I understand that very well, but I feel that it is very important that we help those who need help.

We have talked about creativity and some very good programs that have been put in. I am glad about that. I think that creativity is what we have to concentrate on. What is being done by CMHC for instance with the aboriginal groups is in fact trying to get private capital and working together with governments.

We also talked about reallocation of resources. I think we have to concentrate on that. What the Liberal Party is trying to do now is go through a series of consultations, reviewing all of the social programs and I would invite everybody to participate. We are asking the people at large to participate, so parliamentarians in this House should be the first to participate. On that point, we can also establish where the priorities are.

It is very important that we look at the whole scene. I have different statistics than what the hon. member has just given. I have them here with me. If he wants to see them I am prepared to share them with him.