Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the proposed amendments. I would first remind those joining us that the subject of the debate is housing. I thank the member for Québec for giving me a hand in difficult circumstances.
It is paradoxical, to say the least, that we have before us a bill such as this one, because it has two major flaws. First, it helps to further privatize the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Let me make myself clear. We do not think privatization should be avoided at all cost. We think there is a room in the mortgage market for private enterprise. However, we do not understand the government making it a priority in the area of housing.
We would have been happier if the government had succeeded in the negotiations it began with the provinces. It made a commitment in the throne speech in 1996 to transfer $1.9 billion to the provinces. This is something extremely important to Quebec.
There are a number of Reform amendments to privatize the corporation. What we would like for Quebec, if we must talk privatization, is to have the federal government not run the show and not be involved in housing, because the Government of Quebec is prepared to assume all responsibilities inherent in this area. This includes public housing, land use and, naturally, management of housing inventories.
It is paradoxical, to say the least, that since 1996, negotiations with the Government of Quebec have not been entirely successful. We have introduced more specific amendments in this regard. However, members should know that federal spending on housing in Quebec for 1996-97 amounted to $362 million. This corresponds to roughly 18% of the CHMC's spending.
However, both the PQ government and the government led by Robert Bourassa have admitted that Quebec was not receiving its fair share of housing dollars. Quebec should receive almost 29% of what the CHMC spends on housing, since 29% of those with urgent housing needs live in Quebec.
We would have liked to see the government tackle this problem rather than launch into what is more of an administrative reform. The public should know that the proposed reform is essentially administrative in nature. In fact, its purpose is to give the CHMC more powers and to amend the legislation such that, in many circumstances, the CHMC will be able to take decisions without going through parliament.
Members of the Reform Party, the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party should know, and the member for Chambly will agree with me, that we will support any amendment giving parliament a greater decision making role. We feel it is important for parliamentarians to play their role of debating issues, taking decisions and, of course, understanding the decisions made by crown corporations.
With the member for Québec, who is the critic for issues related to poverty, early childhood and the family, present, I would like to take this opportunity to say again that we believe that poverty cannot be eliminated without a housing policy. This conviction is shared by all Bloc Quebecois members.
Why? Because very often the main cause of poverty is, of course, the excessive amount that has to be allocated to rent. At the present time—one cannot predict the future—I know that there is a debate going on, to which the hon. member for Québec has referred, which may lead to a redefinition of poverty. Nevertheless, as we speak, although there is no official index for assessing poverty, the low income cutoff level is one indicator which shows us just how much poverty there is in Canada and Quebec.
The Progressive Conservative Party whip, whose sensitivity on this issue is well known, shares my conviction that we must do something about of poverty. I imagine that the hon. member for Chicoutimi shares my analysis that the government we have in Quebec City is working hard every day to do so, but the same does not go for the federal government. The government in Ottawa is not one particularly concerned with these matters.
I would even go so far as to call it rather heartless, rather indifferent, with a few exceptions. Some of the ministers are less so. I would acknowledge, at any rate, that the Minister responsible for Human Resources Development is sensitive to these matters.
I would ask him to put out a little more effort, because his government, it must be admitted, does not have a very good track record in the matter. I think his sensitivity is real, and with his great intellectual capacity he will certainly make a positive contribution to the debate. However, the policies of his government are pitiful.
Let us take, as an example, the UN's evaluation of the government's policies. The UN was concerned, and members will recognize that the UN has no representation within the parties in this House. They are people who work for various commissions set up under this organization, often they are experts not bound by the imperatives of party life.
In fact, I have a major grievance against the government on this score. Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified in 1996. Since 1994, we have been waiting for Canada's report, which was tabled only this year.
On a similar matter, when it comes to poverty, we cannot permit such inaction. If parliamentarians had taken the trouble to read the report, as did I, the member for Québec, the member for Chambly and the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, they would have realized that poverty has increased in Canada in the past ten years.
The United Nations focused on this. It appears there is a link with the dismantling of the public sector.
I do not know where the minister was in 1992. Perhaps he was working very successfully with Minister Ryan, perhaps he was an international affairs consultant. The long and the short of it is that he was not in this parliament. The fact is that, since 1992, the Canadian government has not put one red cent into developing social housing. In fact, the government began pulling out of various areas, particularly social housing, under the Progressive Conservatives. Facts are facts. The government began pulling out of such areas as social housing in 1992.
With a few exceptions for RRAP, the Canadian government has not, to all intents and purposes, put one red cent into developing social housing since 1992. This is not good enough.
Two provinces are developing social housing: British Columbia and Quebec. Quebec has invested $43 million. If Quebec were a sovereign nation, we would be far more likely to have a cogent policy specifically directed at housing.
My time is up, but I will be back, by popular demand, for the second group of amendments.