Debates of Feb. 16th, 1994

Business Of Supply

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am talking to you, but I am looking at the hon. member.

In conclusion, this is a program designed for owner-occupants, but poor owner-occupants in particular. I think this is how we should put it.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, that the RRAP program is for homeowners. If you want to buy a home, you cannot be poor, you have to have some money. The problem today in our major urban centers is that some people cannot get clean, decent accommodation. The problem is very serious. These people will take whatever they can find. Often, they are on welfare and will have to pay steep rent for unhealthy, dirty lodgings. We must realize that the RRAP program is not for those people.

I have been fighting for social housing from the very beginning, because these people need help, not the homeowners. We can give part of the money to homeowners, but there are still a lot of people that we are not helping at all. Often, these people are not able to defend themselves, because they are uneducated, illiterate and unable to face reality and speak for themselves.

These are the people I fight for, these are the people we have to help. We cannot do it with such programs as RRAP.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Your comment is 99 per cent accurate since the RRAP program is of course for homeowners, but that does not mean we cannot care about them. There are a lot of homeowners, and I know they are some in the Montreal area and in the province of Quebec, who are overtaxed like the rest of us and have trouble making ends meet. I understand very well the concerns the hon. member has about new programs, because we must think about new programs.

I decided to go into politics mostly because of social considerations and I can assure the hon. member that I will support any new social program. All I can say for now is that the government has estimated, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that it will be able to save about $120 million which should go, I am told, to new programs. To some extent, new programs similar to those we have for homeowners will have to be set up for new housing.

[Jack Iyerak Anawak, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his comments. I would also like to point out a couple of things before coming to a question.

I would like to apprise members of a report that was done by the committee on aboriginal affairs on aboriginal and northern housing. Members might want to read and reflect upon the poor state of housing for aboriginal people across the country.

As much as my colleagues from the Reform would probably like us to go back into tepees and igloos because of the poor state of housing, I want to comment that home repairs for rural and low income areas are welcome. However this does not adequately address the northern and aboriginal communities.

Some of those houses that are built in the aboriginal and northern communities almost do not meet the basic standards. It is not necessarily the best idea to repair the homes. It is better to replace them.

When the government fell on October 25 and social housing was cut, Northwest Territories was getting something in the neighbourhood of $47 million for social housing. That cut had a devastating effect on aboriginal and northern housing because although $47 million may not seem all that much, when the total population is 55,000 in Northwest Territories and we are already short by 3,800 units, $47 million means an awful lot.

I know the hon. member supports the resumption of the funding for social housing but more from my point of view we need the $47 million for the Northwest Territories social housing program. As I said, if we do not get the housing our alternative is to build igloos in the winter and tents in the summer. I do not think that is acceptable today.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I will simply tell him that I agree with him and that this government is very much aware of the huge housing needs of native people, on and off the reserves.

In 1993-94, the federal government will spend some $5.4 billion on native-oriented programs and we will try to do as much as possible because this is very important.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for leading us during this debate. You have been patient. I am sorry I broke the rules so often, and I promise I will be more disciplined next time I take part in a debate.

I feel the need to recall, for the benefit of listeners who are joining us just now, that on this allotted day the official Opposition insisted on moving:

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

I thank our critic, the hon. member for Laurentides. You will understand that each and every word in this motion is meaningful. We decided to address the issue of social housing because we feel there is a subtle but nevertheless unquestionable correlation between social housing and poverty.

The definition of poverty rests in part on statistics. In our society people are poor if they have to devote more than 56.2 per cent of their income to their essential needs such as clothing, housing and food.

We are having this debate at a time when large parts of Canadian as well as Quebec society have never been so poor.

For our part, we are firmly convinced, and this will be a focus of commitment for the Official Opposition, that there are ways to put an end to that poverty. I must add that the speakers on the government side have addressed social housing somewhat in isolation, as if this were not related to the issue of poverty. Poverty puts on a new face. Being poor in 1994 is not the same as being poor in the 1980s. Deep changes have occurred since then. In 1994, we do not speak of poverty like the Senate did in the 1970s when it was mandated to study poverty in Canada. Poverty strikes the young and people of my age, in their early thirties.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

And not only people of my age, but also women and heads of single-parent families. Fortunately, there are less and less senior citizens living in poverty.

Concerning social housing, it seems appropriate to remind the House of three facts that were a real trauma for parliamentarians. They were largely brought to light by a group to which I would like to pay tribute. It is a pressure group called FRAPRU that is very well known in Montreal and the metropolitan area. It put in a lot of work over the last few years to try and convince us that we should make a firm commitment to social housing.

FRAPRU, which has its head office in the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, committed itself in a document in which it gives a very detailed profile of social housing in Quebec and Canada. FRAPRU, which deserves the admiration and support of parliamentarians, reminds us that there are three types of data in this document. One of them points very strongly to the fact that, in Quebec, never before have so many families had to spend so much on social housing-an alarming situation. About 40 per cent of families in Quebec are in this situation. Never have so many people in Canada, not only in Quebec, had to spend so much of their income in order to have a decent home. We are talking of about 1.2 million people.

It is with these data in mind that we thought it necessary, as the Official Opposition, to urge the government to make substantial efforts to invest in social housing. Indeed, we are worried. I admit that worry is part and parcel of politics, but we are nevertheless seriously concerned about the intentions of this government. And we are not the only ones, for that matter. May I remind you that FRAPRU and other organizations interested in housing met the minister last December and that on the basis of that meeting, they concluded that the minister had not committed himself seriously and strongly enough, to say the least, to championing this cause in Cabinet. What we have in terms of social housing is far from satisfactory and encouraging.

We have little available in terms of social housing. Since in politics the ability to remember is a very precious asset, we should recall that the member from Papineau-Saint-Michel, the present Deputy Prime Minister and other big names of the former Official Opposition had passionately called for the re-establishment, among other things-and I am giving here a very concrete example-of the national co-operative housing program that cost only $6 million to the government. It is very little compared to overall government spending.

Some members in the Official Opposition thundered and talked with deep conviction about social housing, but indeed, they have quieted down since. I suppose that the fact that they have changed sides in the House explains their silence. The only thing that we are left with in terms of social housing is a program which is, to use parliamentary language, modest but you will understand that this is not really the word I would rather use. This program which addresses a very small proportion of the housing problem deals with renovation but not any kind of renovation since it is open only to homeowners. As if the poor, as if people in our community who really need the government's assistance were homeowners!

I believe that the government must maintain the program referred to since the beginning of this debate, but that this is largely insufficient. We are entitled, a few days away from the tabling of the budget-I hope we will not be disappointed-to expect that the government is going to re-establish the budgets approved in the past in the three sectors where one could, as a less fortunate member of society, expect to get some help in the social housing area.

What are the three programs which the federal and provincial governments jointly administered in the past? First, the National Co-operative Housing Program, which was very inexpensive for the government and had tremendous advantages. I will have an opportunity to come back to that. Second, the Income Supplement Program, which was a way to intervene on the rental market and to help people. The resources there were meagre, but they proved effective. Third, a more complex and more expensive low-cost housing program. Housing authorities in each municipality operate according to very specific rules. When one talks about low-cost housing, we all know here-because our television viewers know it-that this formula allows them to spend 25 p. 100 of their income in order to get a decent housing unit in which to live and to belong to a community from whom they are entitled to expect some help. And, as a general rule, support is available.

At the same time as the low-cost housing program, the federal government, with the provinces, had been assisting non-profit organizations that were dealing with a very specific clientele, mostly handicapped people, people losing their autonomy, ex-prisoners or people with AIDS. In the past, there was a program that allowed to help a very specific clientele.

So, at this time, even if we are being enthusiastic-I am not a pessimist by nature-we do not have much indication about the will of the government to act and to play a major role in these areas, still in co-operation with the provinces. You know that, on this side of the House, we will not forget that.

Why did we feel, as the Official Opposition, that we needed to be insistent? This has to do not only with the poverty issue. Indeed, we are concerned with it because we know that more and more people are getting poorer, but also because we believe-and that is the fundamental difference between us and our friends from the Reform Party. There are other differences, and I will not mention them, but this is certainly one of them. We are convinced that when you act in the social housing area, when there are public funds, when you make a budget, when you provide money to act in that area, you are being useful and you

contribute to the revitalization of the economy, because there is a return on your investment.

I could give you some compelling examples that would convince you. They do not come from me or from some partisan groups around the Bloc Quebecois, but from people with expertise who know about the reality in the social housing area.

I will mention, first, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada which conducted studies the findings of which I could hand out to the parliamentarians who are not yet convinced of the merits of government investments in social housing. I know I am not allowed to read in this House and I acknowledge having circumvented the rules on a number of occasions today, but I just want to bring to your attention four lines which clearly reflect the spin-offs of government investments in social housing.

Building 1,000 co-operative housing units, in terms of construction or renovation, would create lots of jobs, especially in the construction and manufacturing sectors. In the construction sector, over 2,000 jobs would be generated this way. Renovation projects generate less jobs, in fact about 800 jobs for every 1,000 housing units.

Therefore, I think it is fair to say that there are very few sectors in our society where you can claim that a government action would create and generate such great economic spin-offs as those identified by the Federation.

In spite of it all, in spite of the fact that we are aware of those figures, in spite of the fact that, since last December, the FRAPRU and other pressure groups have continuously been making representations to the government, in spite of the fact that less than three months after this government came into office, stakeholders in social housing were already active, in spite of the fact that we made representations, we can see that the government, on the social housing issue, is timid, spineless and certainly not too daring.

It is sad. It is sad, because such an attitude fosters prejudices. And as you know, there is a lot of prejudice in our society. Such an attitude fosters preconceived ideas to the effect that the best government is one which governs little, while we know perfectly well that if the government was able to take its responsibilities and to allocate money, not necessarily a lot of it-some years, 35,000 co-op housing units were built in Canada-if only we could have maintained that rate, I think we could have built up a strong housing inventory. We could have succeeded in revitalizing perhaps not all but some urban areas which are deteriorating.

It is for that reason that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are making an urgent appeal to the minister. We do not have many government members with us today; nonetheless, we are making an urgent appeal, and we will not back down; we will keep at it and work on all fronts so that this government understands how necessary it is to invest in social housing, not in the timid renovation program it is offering. It is an interesting beginning, a trial run, but we would be extremely disappointed, together with Quebecers and Canadians, if the government was to limit its action in the field of social housing to such a timid program.

There was talk about the economic spin-offs of social housing investments, but I would like to explain, from a social and human perspective, why we have to invest in social housing. I will start with a reality known to every member, I think, and that is the low-cost housing situation. If there is no change in the status quo in 1994-95-96, not one low-cost housing unit will be built.

This afternoon, we witnessed conflicting styles and genres. I heard the minister say, and he was quoted several times later, that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was going to invest $35 million; every time a government member uttered that number, there was a sense of ecstasy. We must tell people who are listening that this $35 million will not be used to build new units, if I am wrong I will take it back, but we checked and it appears that it will be used to pay the interests on the money borrowed to build the existing housing inventory. The basic truth that should not be forgotten is that not a single low-cost housing unit will be built if the Minister of Finance does not change the status quo.

Why is it that the low-cost housing units are so important? We could very well, you and I, end up in low-cost housing when we get to be 60 or 65. Why are they important? Because it is a form community life. The people who live in such dwellings are not necessarily incapacitated. In any event there is no cafeteria in low-cost housing buildings. They are really only apartment buildings, but there are community rooms where residents get together to play cards or whatever. Any member of Parliament who is close to his constituents knows that there is a real community life in this type of housing. The lack of low-cost housing is sorely felt and we hope the government will be able to put the situation to right.

As far as co-operatives are concerned we know their economic significance but we also know that those who are part of a co-operative are people who invest in society. Each of them has tasks to perform: paint the fence, take the garbage out, take charge of public relations with the neighbouring community. Those people give and receive and this is why that formula has become so popular.

In conclusion, we sincerely believe that if the present government, which in the past has associated liberalism with generosity, is serious and has a social conscience, I believe that the Minister of Public Works-we do not even call him Minister of Housing since housing is so low on the list of priorities-should march to the beat of a different drummer. He should be the social conscience of that government. He should not be afraid to stand

apart from his cabinet colleagues because that is what is expected of him.

Too often we are told that the Minister of Finance will decide. I say no. We must be able to count on the Minister of Public Works to act as an aggressive and uncompromising champion of social housing. Only when the minister, acting as the voice of the less privileged in terms of social housing, puts his foot down will the Minister of Finance act accordingly in his budget.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for his excellent and brilliant presentation.

Given the federal deficit which has now accumulated and exceeds $500 billion, do you agree that this House should substantially increase the funding of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or other related agencies in order to provide more low-income housing?

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

Mr. Speaker, as René Lévesque said, facts are always more stubborn than the interpretation one gives them. I believe so, since the question was put that way; I think it would be good for the government to put more money into low-income housing. Other possibilities exist, which I did not have time to mention because I ran out of time.

In Montreal, there are four purchasing corporations. What are purchasing corporations? Perhaps the minister should come to Montreal and see. These purchasing corporations bring people together in a non-profit organization. They have some money-of course, they have help. They have been helped by the McGill Fund or by the people who probably haunted your childhood, the good Sisters of the Holy Cross. With this initial funding, they can take housing out of the speculative market, renovate it and then make it available to the community.

I believe that this is a promising approach for the future. I understand that the hon. member also wants to be this government's social conscience. Since he is a Montrealer, which pleases me, I think that we should convince the minister to come to Montreal and try out this approach and use it as a way for society to act in the market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment and perhaps ask the member a question.

First I want to make it absolutely clear that the New Democratic Party supports the notion that more rather than less needs to be spent on social housing, not just in Quebec but across the country. It is something we have always supported. In the past we have pressed previous governments to make a greater commitment to social housing and were disturbed by the cuts in social housing made by the previous Conservative government.

I listened earlier to a Reform member of Parliament who asked a question of the Bloc Quebecois member about what they would be prepared to give up and what would they be prepared to not spend money on in return for spending more money on social housing.

I do not want to presume to answer the question for the hon. member, however it seems to me that if we were looking for more money for social housing and for other social priorities one thing we could look at is the tax system.

I am reading an extensive article by Neil Brooks called "The Changing Structure of the Canadian Tax System, Accommodating the Rich". It is a very lengthy article in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal in the spring of 1992 and outlines the way in which the tax system has been changed over the last 10 years to accommodate the rich.

One of the ways we could find that kind of money for social housing and for other things is to look at changing the tax system. One of the things that has been floated around in the last little while is trying to bring down the amount of money that people are able to put away to avoid taxation on through the use of RRSPs. I wonder what the position of the Bloc is on that.

It would seem to me that people who have $13,000 left over to put into RRSPs and therefore avoid paying taxes on it are not the people who need social housing. Obviously a big gap exists between the people who benefit from this particular tax policy and the people who are in need of social housing.

It certainly would seem to me that some amelioration or a reduction of the amount that people are able to hide in this way might help to provide money on the other side for social purposes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. member wishes to answer, he still has about four or five minutes left.

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

Mr. Speaker, you are very generous.

In his question, the hon. member suggested an answer with which I wholeheartedly agree. I think our leader and my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois made it very clear, from the very beginning, that social justice, which is a main goal of ours, flows from tax reform, but not just any tax reform, and not necessarily one which will affect ordinary Canadians and low-income taxpayers. On a corporate level, we know about the tax avoidance devices available in Canada and also all the measures used by richer taxpayers.

I agree with the hon. member, but I cannot tell him that this is the position of my party, since it is the responsibility of our finance critic, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, to do so. However, from what I understand, the hon. member is absolutely right in saying that RRSPs should be taxed according on a progressive scale. We are not talking here about a freelancer who puts $1,000 in a RRSP, but rather about rich people who use this tax instrument. I would have absolutely no hesitation in saying that progressive taxation should apply to these rich people.

Thus, I do agree with most of what my colleague had to say, Mr. Speaker.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have a working as well as a personal interest in the area of housing.

For several years I was chairperson of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority, MTHA as it is commonly known, the largest public housing agency in Canada. We house approximately 125,000 individuals in rent geared to income facilities. The majority of the MTHA stock was built in the 1950s and 1960s and was characterized by large scale projects targeted to low income households.

Through my work in housing and my contact with my constituents, I am aware there is a pressing need for affordable housing especially in the metropolitan Toronto area and in other urban areas. I am also aware of the aboriginal people and the pressing and critical need there is for housing in their areas.

In the early 1970s the Liberal government introduced community based non-profit and co-operative housing programs to better integrate socially assisted housing in all communities. To this end we took a different route from that taken by the United States. These new social housing programs were developed in partnership, with municipal, private, co-operative and non-profit housing corporations and were based on the tenets of self-help and volunteerism.

I believe this progressive housing initiative by the Liberal government of the time greatly contributed to Canada's reputation as a country of relatively safe communities. Unlike the United States, Canada does not have abandoned inner city areas or communities teaming with homeless people. I fear, however, that this may change if the short sighted policies of the previous government are not reviewed.

Poverty in Canada's inner cities is on the rise and hundreds of thousands of people are living below the poverty line. The greatest proportion of their income goes toward rent, making them dependent on food banks and other forms of assistance. Since social housing makes up less than 6 per cent of Canada's total housing stock, these low income households have no other choice but to rent private market housing.

The Conservative government had no interest in investing in social housing. During its time in office it chipped away at all social housing programs. Housing budgets and programs underwent drastic cuts and culminated in the cancellation of a good many programs.

The Conservative government did this despite the knowledge that one in eight households, ranging from the working poor to those with special needs, cannot afford its housing or is in an inadequate or substandard dwelling. The cancellation of social housing programs made the chances for these households getting housing assistance equivalent to winning a lottery.

We have a different scene now. In our red book we said that the Liberal government wanted to support local communities as the source of social stability and economic strength. Canada's social housing programs go a long way in meeting these goals. We realize on this side of the House, as does everyone in the House, that adequate shelter is a fundamental need of society and a prerequisite for community prosperity.

Our government is committed to rebuilding community well-being and restoring individual dignity. We will do this by helping to house Canadians in affordable, suitable and adequate shelter. Our commitment in maintaining a strong role in housing is clear and we have made this clear. We have expressed this in several avenues. We will continue to fund and support the 652,000 households at approximately $2 billion per year.

The need for adequate housing for all Canadians is a very serious issue. The federal government recently in the throne speech reaffirmed the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. A total of $100 million over the next two years will be available to help low income households bring their homes up to health and safety standards.

I know of this concern and this need for government to achieve efficiency and savings in delivering an acceptable level of service to Canadians. We want to do this in the most cost effect manner.

I was made to understand that CMHC has already begun to discuss direct lending to finance and refinance social housing projects as one way of making better use of resources and reducing expenditures. We expect to save some $120 million in subsidy costs over the next four years, providing scope for new housing initiatives.

We need to develop additional ideas, invigorating, inspiring and creative ideas. Those ideas can come from all sides of the House.

The need to combine cost effectiveness as has been mentioned over and over goes along with creativity in our funding approaches. We must combine creativity and funding approaches

to meet the theme which is needed and echoed on this side of the House.

The provinces and the federal government had a meeting. They came away with a sense of co-operation and a resolution that together they must provide the hard working taxpayer a return for the dollar. This is why we must work together to achieve efficiencies and savings and to address overlap and duplication.

The federal and provincial ministers of housing will be meeting at a summer conference. It is hoped the co-operation we have started in working with our provincial counterparts will be exemplified there. They will be working not only on strategies as to the cost effectiveness and efficiency of administering the existing social housing portfolio but also will be discussing the partnership required to meet the needs.

Efficiencies can be realized in the operating costs. A few examples are: improved energy efficiencies; streamlining the professional fees such as audit and legal fees, et cetera, that are done in the social housing field; reducing property and liability insurance costs; and bulk purchasing of goods and services. All those avenues offer excellent opportunities and potential for savings.

We need to build in a spirit of co-operation and partnership. We need to renew our thinking for the nineties, to find new and creative ways to meet the need before us as a country, a need facing all Canadians but especially those for whom social housing is the only answer. We need to consider innovative ways. We need to look outside our existing structures.

As Canadians we offer much to the world. I have participated in international conferences where as Canadians we stood up and participated on a level way above what a number of other countries presently involved were doing.

Partnerships among levels of government in Canada have historically worked well. They will continue to work well as long as there is co-operation within the federation. With our current fiscal reality we need to continue to do this and do it even better. Existing partnerships must be reviewed to determine how we can put them together to benefit not only the housing market but also for the jobs that could be provided in that area.

Creative new funding opportunities must include the third sector contribution, charitable organizations and all those involved in the area of meeting the housing needs of Canadians.

Housing policy can no longer be considered as something by itself isolated in a vacuum, the responsibility of a government agency, body or ministry. It cannot simply be measured in terms of public expenditures. It must be linked to other public policies and co-ordinated with them to get the most from available resources.

It is very important on this side of the House that as we speak about the ideals of what the 21st century offers to us, as we begin to review the needs of Canadians, as we begin to look at our entire social security system, that we see social housing as a very important part of that discussion.

Today's topic is timely. The input from members today will go into the discussion that will and must occur as we move forward. This type of thinking reflects what is already occurring in a number of provinces.

Demonstration projects are now under way in New Brunswick, British Columbia and other provinces. They are looking at income supplements to enable welfare recipients to enter the workforce and become self-sufficient. The emphasis is on training and education and finding jobs for those able to work.

These programs stress enabling individuals to overcome barriers to personal development and employment. It enhances their dignity and self-reliance to compete in the job market. We need to involve others to focus their energies, resources and creativity in developing solutions to housing problems.

I worked quite closely with individuals in my last occupation as chair of metro housing in the empowerment of individuals. Residents had a say on the issues that dealt with their quality of life in the places in which they lived.

I look forward to building on this spirit of co-operation as we extend the provision of housing to all Canadians in need, as we look at the innovative and cost effective ways in which we can provide housing for all Canadians.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize my colleague shares many of our concerns about social housing. I praise her for that. It reminds me of a debate during the election campaign with, among others, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, a Montreal riding, when we both held the same views and criticized the Conservative government policies cutting all subsidies for co-operative housing.

We had met the same groups between 1990 and 1993 and signed the same petitions to support all those who are involved in, promote and manage co-operative housing. My question to the hon. member is this: Did the government confirm in the throne speech, without my knowledge, its promise to reinstate the co-operative housing program? I may be wrong, but it was in the red book. The throne speech is silent on this matter, although both Liberals and Bloc members criticized Conservative poli-

cies. Liberals promised time and again that when they came into office they would reinstate the co-operative housing program.

Maybe I missed something, but I am sure they will be true to their promise and a decision has already been made. I did not see it, but I would like my hon. colleague to tell me when that decision was made and where it is to be found in the throne speech. Maybe it will be announced in the Minister of Finance's budget speech next Tuesday. I would really like to be better informed.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what was in next Tuesday's budget, but in fairness and in response to the member's question I just want to confirm what was said earlier.

We are committed to job creation. We recognize that housing and everything relating to housing is a stimulus to job creation. We are committed to ensuring that Canadian society functions. We are committed to helping people in needy situations. We are committed to responding to the needs of people who find themselves in difficult situations especially in our urban areas where there are waiting lists of thousands of people who require housing. There is a commitment to respond to those needs.

We have committed timelines and deadlines to some of the programs. We have committed to CMHC. We mentioned what we will do in the area of the aboriginal and the dollars we will spend in that area. We talked about our commitment and support to the national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. It is there. It is within our commitment to ensure our support. We will ensure that Canadian society and those who require assistance will be so afforded.

We have talked about how many dollars, where we are going with all of this. We spoke about partnerships. We talked about working together. The whole business of the co-operative movement is a partnership. There is support for this and I know that the minister is committed to ensuring that together with the finance minister he can come up with some alternatives.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that when the state gets heavily involved in housing there is less incentive for private landlords to build housing units. This means less housing overall and higher rents, which only hurts low income Canadians.

Does the government consider these secondary but very real effects in considering how to approach this problem?

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is full knowledge on the part of everyone involved in the housing industry as well as everyone on this side of the House. We recognize that we have a responsibility and it is a partnership.

We are also fully aware of what happens in the market. We have seen over the last while with the increase in prices what has happened to those that are neediest and those for whom the state has to provide some assistance. We have seen the homeless in our midst growing. That reality is there in terms of the push and the pull in the market and the support that is given.

We have again campaigned on job creation. We recognize that housing starts and the housing market have to go hand in hand with the promise of job creation.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding, Bourassa, in Montreal North, the housing situation is tragic: 42 per cent of tenants spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing; 73 per cent of the 90,000 residents of Montreal North are tenants. Of these 90,000 residents, 22 per cent are women who spend more than half of their income on housing. This is the highest percentage in all of Quebec. The situation is alarming.

Yesterday, the Organisation populaire des droits sociaux de Montréal-Nord and the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain gave a press conference. During the election campaign, I visited many co-operatives. The people were very worried following the subsidy cuts in funding made when the Conservative government was in power. There are also many minorities in my riding.

I would like to ask my hon. friend if special measures are planned to protect the right to housing of minorities, particularly of visible minorities.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question of protection for minority individuals is important. I will say that there is, and I am speaking on a personal note, as far as I can see. The co-ops and co-op programs through which individuals can put together through their community a request and build and house themselves as a result of their own activity are parts of the continuing program. There are special avenues. I can talk about several communities in which efforts are made to empower individuals to participate in the communities in which they live and to be very much an integrated part of their communities.

In this country we do not have areas in which minorities or various groups take residential patterns because this is the only place in which they can live. Therefore all programs are open equally to everyone regardless of race, colour, nationality, creed, length of stay of Canada, et cetera. The programs for those individuals are really empowering programs to help them to be partners in programs of co-operation where individuals have a sense of belonging, a quality of life, and are able to participate freely in society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments of the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I understood, from her remarks, that she really cares about social housing, all the more so since she was director of the largest social housing complex in Toronto for a while. She even said, and I quote: "Adequate shelter is a fundamental right". It is a concern that we share, of course.

However, there is a lot of confusion on the government's part because, even with all the nice principles being laid out, the good intentions and the rhetoric, it seems that we cannot find out what the government really thinks about this issue. A while ago, someone asked if the government was willing to implement a social housing construction program, and we got no answer. Also, when I put a question to the Minister of Public Works, he could not tell me if he is opposed to rent increases for social housing units.

I would ask the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore if she would agree to rent increases for social housing units in order to pay for the construction of more units.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very legitimate question and one that is usually asked. There are several ways, especially in the area of public housing, where 20 per cent or 30 per cent is used as a ratio and is referred to as meeting the needs of individuals who are caught in that socioeconomic situation.

The increase in rent in the province of Ontario is an example. We know there is some control in that specific area. Are we talking about people who are in deep core need? Are we talking about people who are paying market rent? Are we talking about the present situation of the market as it is today? Are we talking about the needs of individuals to get into housing as a result of the size of their families?

When we ask a question about rent and speak about people in social housing there are a number of things it is important to take into consideration.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to make my comments in two minutes and leave one minute for a response.

I have listened to much of this debate today. I want to make it absolutely clear that there are many people in the Reform Party who believe strongly in the need for social housing. We understand that decent housing is the cornerstone of many families. It is the first real step many families take to work themselves out of poverty. We have to be thinking in terms of the children, not of the adults, in terms of the potential of the children to have firm, consistent roots from which they can grow into adults.

We still have to pay the bills. We as a Parliament have to set priorities. We have to decide where we can spend money, where we can get money and where we can allocate it. In my view there are probably very few areas of spending that we could define that should have a higher priority than housing, particularly for the poor and also for single parents who are primarily female.

The problem is that somehow we have to make these projects self-liquidating. We have to ensure that the social housing projects do not all gravitate to one geographical area. They need to be spread out through the community so that we do not get blocks of high income and low income. We should be able to spread them out through the community.

The co-op programs we have work very well-

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(19) proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion.