Mr. Speaker, it is with no small pride that I share my time with the member for Chambly. We both have points to bring to this issue, and I will try to make mine well.
I dedicate my speech to our colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is here in the House. I will be referring to a federal-provincial dispute and presenting a few points of analysis, particularly as we both hail from the same political science department, he as a professor and I as a student. I am sure he has wonderful memories of the time I spent in the department. I do not have any bad memories of the days when he was a professor of organizational theory and the public service.
That having been said, we would have liked to support this bill. Why? Because we are all positive people. I think that is known. Examples of an opposition more responsible and constructive than the Bloc Quebecois in recent years could not be found.
But there is a problem. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs knows very well that the throne speech is sacred, because it is a sort of blueprint of what the government intends to do during its term of office. As such, the throne speech contained a commitment, just as sacred, to decentralize a certain number of powers to the provinces. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs cannot fail to recall that housing is one of the sectors the government was going to give back to the provinces.
How can it be that we end up with a bill like this one, when what is needed is recognition of the full jurisdiction of the provincial governments over housing? I would like someone to explain this to me in the course of this debate.
There are two problematical clauses. I do not want to get into technicalities, but there is clause 58(1)—I am sure that the minister is familiar with it—which reads as follows:
58.(1) The Corporation may make loans and contributions for the purpose of assisting in the payment of, or providing allowances for, expenses that, in the opinion of the Corporation, are related to housing accommodation, and may forgive amounts owing on those loans.
This raised questions in my mind, which I put to the staff. My thanks to those who made themselves available to me, particularly Mr. Asselin, who was extremely kind.
I had the feeling that it was possible the federal government might be tempted to use this clause to create a national housing allowance.
So I asked him directly, and his reply was “Yes, that is a possibility”. This is of concern to the Bloc Quebecois, and we would not view such a possibility favourably, since it would of course lead to encroachment on a provincial jurisdiction.
Our second area of concern is that this bill opens the door to the very real possibility that, with respect to housing, the federal government could deal directly with intermediary bodies such as municipalities, co-operatives and others involved in this field.
We do not understand how such a clause can be in a bill. If the government wants the Bloc Quebecois to support the bill, I would ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in the same spirit of positive and open co-operation that has always guided us, to be this voice in cabinet. We ask him to draw on clause 88(2) of the bill and to broaden its scope. This clause, Madam Speaker, I dedicate to you. It reads, and I quote:
(2) Loans or contributions may be made and amounts owing on those loans may be forgiven under this section only with the approval of the government of the province where the corresponding rental housing project is, or will be, located.
In other words, to synthesize, as we learned in political science, we are delighted that this government wants to invest in the housing sector. It is well known that there is a tenuous, almost incestuous, link between the fight against poverty and housing. I will come back to this.
If the government has money for housing, it must go through those whose mission this is primarily: the provinces. The Government of Quebec is the only government in Canada to have a housing corporation, with the expertise, know-how, tradition, planning and management required to meet the housing needs of its citizens.
I ask the government to take note, and we will introduce amendments as we consider this bill, at committee stage or at third reading. It will all be considered to ensure that no direct intervention is possible in the housing sector without the provinces being involved.
I see that Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is nodding. I would ask him to share this idea with his cabinet colleagues.
The second issue of concern to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is the whole matter of the $1.9 billion. The federal government is negotiating with the provinces so they will be the only ones to intervene in matters of social housing. That is good news. We have long awaited that. However, the amounts involved are totally ridiculous. I want to be very clear, because there is no room for generalization.
Canada wide federal spending on social housing is approximately $1.5 billion. In fiscal year 1995-96, $362 million of that amount went to Quebec.
A quick calculation shows that Quebec receives 18.7% of federal spending on housing. I imagine the parliamentary secretary is listening to the interpretation, so I repeat that Quebec is getting 18.7%. This means that 81.3% of federal spending on housing takes place outside Quebec.
But what is Quebec's demographic weight within the Canadian federation? It is 25.3%.
How many households are living in poverty in Quebec? Still with respect to 1995-96, there are 341,000 such households. I appeal to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to note that 29% of Canada's poor households are in Quebec. Yet 18.17% of federal spending on housing is all we get.
All governments have decried this trend. I could tell members about someone who has the respect of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, an intellectual in Quebec society, for that is what he is, by the name of Claude Ryan. Some people will immediately think of the beige paper, others of the 1980 referendum, others still of Robert Bourassa. However, the reason I am mentioning Claude Ryan today is because he was once minister of housing. And in that role, he made the same arguments as I have. All this to say that there is a strong consensus that Quebec has not received its fair share.
Madam Speaker, is there unanimous consent for me to table figures that could be passed out to members, particularly to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs?