Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I congratulate my NDP colleague for introducing this motion in the House.
The subject at issue is no longer a secret to anyone. Recent years spent fighting the government's budget deficit have hit society's disadvantaged the hardest. It is therefore appropriate, when the first fruits of this new budgetary era are gathered, to think right off of those who have suffered most at the hands of this government's policies.
The problem of social housing is one specific and eloquent example of this government's approach in recent years.
Barely a few months after it took office, during its first mandate, the Liberal Party decided unilaterally to get out of social housing as of January 1, 1994.
This is when the government began negotiating with each of the provinces and territories to move away from this responsibility, knowing full well that these agreements did not meet the provinces' real needs.
For Quebec, this arrangement comprises essentially a transfer of management to the Société d'habitation du Québec for all social housing funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. To fulfil that mandate, it gets nothing more than the funds required to meet the CMHC's existing commitments regarding existing housing units, which in no way meets the current needs of the poorest households.
The provinces that have already signed on are getting a share of CMHC's budget that is equal to or in excess of their demographic weight or needs. As for Quebec, based on CMHC's budget expenditures for 1995-96, it only receives an 18% share, while its demographic weight is 24.5% and its needs amount to 27.4%.
Why is it so important to invest in social housing?
Between 1990 and 1995, the number of Canadian households spending more than 50% of their income on housing went from 583,710 to 833,555, a 43% increase. We know that single-parent families, persons living alone, young people under 25 and older couples are very affected by the lack of affordable housing.
It is urgent that the federal government realize the scope of the needs and give new moneys to the provinces, so that they can set up an investment plan for social housing that will reflect the realities of the neighbourhoods, cities and regions.
The federal government's withdrawal has had a negative impact, particularly on women. Indeed, in the area of health, employment insurance and other areas, women were hit particularly hard by the cuts made by this Liberal government. Social housing is no exception.
Being a woman and a tenant often means being unable to find good quality housing at an affordable price. A recent document prepared by FRAPRU shows the housing situation as lived by women. The Liberals would do well to read that document.
Let me give two examples. I was stunned to learn that in Drummondville, which is in the centre of Quebec and which is the largest municipality in my riding, there are 2,370 households with an average income of $20,640—with women being the primary source of income in 44.7% of the cases, that are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Moreover, 1,105 households, or 20.9%, are spending more than half of their income on housing.
Let us not forget that, according to the government's criteria, a household spending more than 30% of its income on housing is paying too much for housing. Imagine when this figure climbs to 50% and higher.
Yet the economy of the city I represent is in good shape, proof that housing is not just a problem in certain less fortunate regions. It is a problem throughout Quebec, throughout Canada. But there is worse—and I will give two examples—because, in the Prime Minister's own riding, the situation is catastrophic.
Instead of favouring certain rich promoters in his region in order to buy votes, the Prime Minister should look after the poor, the least fortunate in his riding.
In Shawinigan, the main city in the Prime Minister's riding, the average income of households where women are the primary earners is $16,072. The figures show that 1,635 of them, or 55.5%, spend over 30% of their income on housing and that 870 households, or 29.5%, spend over half.
I think that the Prime Minister cannot honestly be proud of the situation of poor women who rent housing in the municipality of Shawinigan, which he represents in the House. Their average income of $16,072 is the lowest of the 59 cities studied by the Front populaire pour le réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU.
On October 27, 1999, the Bloc Quebecois asked the minister responsible for the homeless the following question:
—the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the homeless, is the first to admit that the federal government has made cuts that hurt the most disadvantaged.
Could the Minister tell us, of the cuts the government has made, which ones most hurt those most disadvantaged in our society: cuts to employment insurance, cuts to social housing or cuts to the Canada social transfer, which forced the provinces to cut services?
And here is her answer:
—in travelling across Canada, what we notice most with respect to the homeless is that the provinces have closed psychiatric hospitals. Former residents of psychiatric hospitals are turning up at food banks.
This is unbelievable. It is really hard to understand that, in her visits to food banks and self help groups, the minister did not realize that a large majority of people who go there do not necessarily have psychiatric problems, but are simply poor. It is unfortunate that the minister should make political hay on the backs of those most in need and the homeless instead of giving them back immediately the money her government has taken away from them.
As if this contempt for the homeless were not enough, the government has more than once used the Prime Minister's ways to repel protesters who want to show how desperate they are and to ask for assistance. On the hill, the RCMP pepper sprayed protesters, and, a couple weeks ago, force was used against several people who were trying to deliver their message directly to the Prime Minister's office. Some compassion.
Action is urgently required. Ten years ago, the federal government promised to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. The year 2000 is here.
To make up for its broken promise, the government has to understand that child poverty means there are also women and men living in poverty. Some families have to cut back on basic necessities and food to pay the rent.
Social housing is a crucial weapon in the fight against poverty.