House of Commons Hansard #47 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was housing.

Topics

HousingPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

There are eight minutes remaining in the debate. The last five minutes of the debate go to the sponsor of the motion, so there are three minutes remaining for any member who wishes to rise. Seeing no members on their feet, I invite the hon. member for Vancouver East to sum up in the last five minutes of debate.

HousingPrivate Members' Business

2:20 p.m.

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate of the various party representatives. I thank the members present who participated in the debate on this important motion which certainly has a lot of support. It was interesting to hear the perspective of the different parties.

From what I heard, the Reform Party member basically said there was not too much wrong with the motion. He talked about the problem with leaky condos, with which I would concur. It is interesting that the Reform Party, which I do not think historically has been an advocate of social housing, seems to think that housing is a human right.

The member said that there is a need to have a national housing policy. I do not care whether we call it a policy or a strategy as long as we get the housing built. The member believed that was important. When this matter comes up in future debates I urge the Reform Party to be true to its word, to show its commitment and support, particularly when it comes time for the budget, and to be committed to an allocation that will result in housing being built.

I say to the member from the Bloc Quebecois that only two provinces are still constructing social housing in Canada. Those are British Columbia and Quebec. Both provinces are doing a good job of trying to keep up with the demand, but as the member outlined so well it is often the poor or single women or lone female heads of households who suffer the most. I know from my own experience in Vancouver East that unless those federal dollars are present the provinces simply cannot do it alone. That is the reason we need a national housing strategy.

I also appreciate the comments of the member from the Tory party, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.

Concern was expressed about the 1% for housing. I would like to explain that the 1% for housing emanates from the fact that right now governments spend about 1% on housing. The member from the government side told us that CMHC spends about $1.9 billion currently on housing. This motion calls for an expenditure of about $2 billion. That is what is committed now. We are saying that an additional 1% is required in order to meet this very basic need in Canada.

The Tory member also talked about her party's task force on poverty. For the record it was the Tory government that began the demise of Canada's social housing programs. It was continued by the Liberal government and we are at this crisis today. Nevertheless I was happy to see support for the motion.

In terms of the government position, after hearing the long list of all it is doing, it begs the question, why do we have a crisis in this country? Why do we have a crisis in homelessness and housing despite the RRAP programs which the member spoke about, despite the research, despite the mortgages that exist? It is because we are not constructing new units.

I am very glad that those 660,000 units exist. I know families who live in that housing and their lives have changed as a result. However unless we can build new social housing with a federal commitment for dollars, then we will still see people on the streets.

It is unfortunate that the government rests on what has been done in the past and does not recognize the reality before us today. I think we would all agree that homelessness is caused in part by poverty. It is a lack of housing and it is also growing poverty.

We have to look at the social policies that have been decided on by the Liberal government. The cuts to EI have forced many women into poverty. Child poverty has increased 50% since the resolution was first brought forward in 1989. These realities are a result of social policy that has come from the Liberal government.

I did hear that there is support for this motion. If there is a commitment, if there is a will, then we can address this issue and we can decide that we want a real national housing program with the federal government present in co-operation with the provinces.

I call on members of this House and seek unanimous consent to have this motion made votable.

HousingPrivate Members' Business

2:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The hon. member for Vancouver East has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to have her motion made votable. Does the hon. member for Vancouver East have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

HousingPrivate Members' Business

2:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Agreed.

HousingPrivate Members' Business

2:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

HousingPrivate Members' Business

2:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2.28 p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday, February 14 at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.28 p.m.)