Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in the prebudget debate. My colleague from Regina--Qu'Appelle spoke eloquently a few days ago in debate and laid out the general approach on behalf of the New Democratic Party. However, I too want to add my concerns about the state of the economy and what is facing low income Canadians in particular as we now move into the prebudget and into what will unfold in a budget that will be before us very quickly.
I heard the member across the way talk about the need for security. There is no question that the events of September 11 have heightened everybody's awareness about issues of security. I remember reading the headline in the Globe and Mail , “One billion dollars for security”. I guess that is just the early estimate of what these measures will cost us.
In speaking in this debate today, I also want to put forward, as many people are doing, the idea and the importance that security is more than border crossings, more than police enforcement and more than protection of our borders or airports. They are important security measures about which Canadians are very concerned, however, security can also mean other things, particularly in the lives of Canadians who are at the bottom of the economic system. We can talk about food security, housing security, income security and services or program security.
I feel very saddened when I look at previous budgets in the House and see that there has been very little emphasis and very little debate around that part of security and what it means to Canadians. As we approach the budget and give our responses and concerns to the finance minister and the government, it is very important that there be a full debate, with diversity in the debate, so that it does not just focus on almost a panic that sets in and a mindset that all money has to be funnelled into national security.
I think there is a very great concern out in the public among various organizations, whether it is the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the National Anti-Poverty Organization or the National Housing and Homelessness Network, all of which have done an immense amount of work. They are contributing to this debate by pointing out that after four years of massive surpluses, which were actually created in large part by cutting back on our social programs, created on the backs of poor people, we have to be very careful that we do not move now into an era when low income poor people and disadvantaged people will again suffer a disproportionate burden as we move into a budget that will possibly have a huge emphasis on national security.
In my mail yesterday I received a very interesting report, and maybe other members received it too, “The Third Annual Report on the Status of Inequality in Canada”, produced by the CSJ Foundation for Research and Education. The report is titled “When Markets Fail People, Exploring the widening gap between rich and poor in Canada”.
I will begin my remarks today by quoting from this report because to me it really sets out one of the fundamental issues we are facing and yet I believe the government has miserably failed to deal with it. The report states:
This report, When Markets Fail People, asserts that growing inequality is fundamentally tied to our market system and that, both in periods of recession and recovery, inequality between rich and poor has continued to grow. This is why income inequality is at its largest spread than at any point in the last generation...Years of neo-liberal policies have promised that the private market is the best solution to inequality and that (somehow) we can simply grow our way out of poverty.
The report continues:
The study reveals that market income improvements during economic booms are very sticky. They accumulate at the top, flow somewhat to the top half of income earners, dribble down to the poorer half of the population and completely dry up before they reach the poorest 10% among us.
This is a stark conclusion and a sharp judgment on the economic policies of the Liberal government for the last decade. We have seen the Liberal government pushed from the right by the Reform Party, then the Alliance, to deal with the deficit and sink money into tax cuts that have not benefited the people in society who are most at risk.
Those tax cuts lined the pockets of people who were already affluent and wealthy. They meant a few dollars for working people but they were dollars that were sucked out of essential services. They were dollars that were sucked out of programs that could have established, for example, real accessible national child care programs or a national housing program.
We are at a critical juncture in terms of making a decision and correctly analyzing what the impact has been of the market ideology as it is played out in the federal budget on all Canadians, but particularly Canadians who have suffered in the last decade.
I quote further from the report because it is such an excellent one. An analysis was done by looking at other countries where different choices were made in terms of budgetary priorities and government spending. It points out:
Societies with a narrow gap between rich and poor are characterized by increased quality of life, improved health and higher education levels. We must eliminate the undue bias that all our systems afford the wealthy--education, health, criminal and civil justice, immigration and politics.
I respect the work that is embodied in the report because it gives us a message about what have been the failures in the last decade.
A few days ago there was an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. It was signed by about 100 prominent and progressive economists in the country. I will not read the list of people who signed the letter, but it was co-ordinated by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an organization involved annually in developing the alternative federal budget. They applaud the Bank of Canada's recent interest rate cuts, but they also point out:
We also strongly believe that these cuts are not, by themselves, sufficient. We therefore call on the government to enact a mix of appropriate spending and tax measures, with the emphasis on spending, that will produce the greatest fiscal stimulus to employment creation.
The whole idea of job creation and stimulating the economy is something that is critically important because the number of people who have been unemployed has actually risen by about 60,000. There is no question that more people will be facing economic insecurity in the coming months and years.
There is no question that one possible policy instrument that people see emerging, if the federal government chooses to make a progressive decision, is public investment in a national housing program.
There was an op-ed piece in the November 2 Toronto Star by Marcel Lauzière and Andrew Jackson who are with the Canadian Council on Social Development. They highlight and zero in on the incredible inequalities in society in terms of the growing gap between wealthy and poor. They state:
What we need in December is a budget that does something to maintain and create jobs, and improve the lives of the marginalized. How do we achieve this? There is no better candidate than investment in affordable housing.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I spent a few weeks travelling across the country before and during the resumption of parliament. I visited various urban centres: Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. I will be in Montreal tomorrow. I even went as far as Iqaluit and Nunavut. I spoke with people who were experiencing housing affordability problems.
The number one priority of every place I went to and every group I met with was that we should try to convince the provincial or territorial government, but most important the federal government, to make an investment in social housing.
There is an urgent plea from both the labour movement and the Canadian Council on Social Development that a significant federal investment in a national housing strategy would not only produce economic security and create tens of thousands of jobs but would deal with what is now characterized as a housing crisis. We are looking at more than two million Canadians who are facing severe housing problems. This flows from either absolute homelessness and lack of shelter on the street, in effect destitution, or people who are literally one paycheque away from being homeless, whose rents are so high that they do not have enough money to pay for food.
I urge the government not turn a blind eye to the idea that a major investment in social housing is something that would be good for our economy. It would create jobs and meet a real social need. Research that we have done shows that if there were a one time $2 billion investment in social housing we would be able to produce 46,000 new jobs next year. That would increase to 94,000 jobs in five years. The National Housing and Homelessness Network stated that $2 billion could build between 30,000 and 40,000 social housing units.
The government's own agency, CMHC, said that in terms of the demand and the needs that exist we need to produce about 30,000 to 40,000 units of affordable housing every year just to keep pace with demand. That kind of investment would create good union jobs.
Yesterday we were debating softwood lumber crisis. I am from British Columbia. I know full well the impact on small communities and even on urban centres has been devastating as a result of the outrageous duties placed on softwood lumber. If the Government of Canada made a decision to invest in housing, we could use our own resource to build affordable housing for Canadians. There is yet another benefit in terms of the softwood lumber crisis.
According to CMHC each new housing unit creates between three and six full time jobs in total over a five year period. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities argued and put forward some excellent documentation that over the next 10 years we need 20,000 new houses to be built yearly and 10,000 units to be rehabilitated annually. A program such as this would have a very positive effect on our economy.
I will be introducing in the House of Commons a housing bill of rights. I believe it is a basic fundamental right that people have security of shelter.
The government's performance to date in this area has been very disappointing. In the last Liberal red book a promise was made for about $680 million over four years. There is concern that even that commitment will now drop off the table.
Provincial and territorial housing ministers will be meeting at the end of November. There will be a lot of interest and examination of whether or not the federal government will at minimum be committed to that program, or whether it will heed the advice of organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the National Housing and Homelessness Network and look at the provision of an affordable housing strategy as something that can help people and stimulate our economy.
I endorse that idea 100% and urge all Liberal members to look at that kind of plan, which would have a very positive effect both provincially and municipally.
I will also talk about other aspects of the budget the NDP view as very critical. One of those areas is infrastructure. We have a Liberal task force currently working its way across the country and looking at the need for urban infrastructure.
I am from the city of Vancouver where infrastructure is at risk from years of lack of funding. It is critical to have a program of sound public investment in infrastructure, whether it be water filtration upgrading or public transit. There is strong support from Canadians for these critical things.
Canadians have been asked repeatedly in many polls whether they would prefer to have tax cuts or an investment in basic social infrastructure. Time and again they choose social investment because they understand that the quality of local communities and the quality of life actually improve for all people.
It is another significant area which should be a key priority for the government, not just in terms of dealing with major problems in our urban environment but also as a way of meeting our international commitments at Kyoto by financing and supporting public transit.
We do not even think about the subsidization of private vehicle use and highways. It is not part of the balancing of or equating how we direct public funds. There is massive subsidization of our highway system and private automobile. When it comes to public transit, though, we do not see it on the same footing. Yet the benefit of financing and supporting public transit is something that is far greater.
I represent a riding that is made up of a very diverse population. It is a working class riding. People put in a lot of time working at part time jobs. There is a great fear that with the new government in British Columbia there will be a program of attacks on poor and working people and an assault on various social programs. People will be looking to the federal government for leadership, relief and support.
One thing on the agenda in British Columbia is a two tier minimum wage system, something that is completely outrageous. It is a program which would take money away from people working in minimum wage jobs. It would make their lives more difficult and make it difficult for them to make ends meet every month. Gordon Campbell, the new premier, is considering a two tier minimum wage whereby some people would be making $6 an hour and some would get $8 an hour. I find this incredibly offensive.
I bring that to the attention of the House because it is an example of where leadership is required by the federal government for strong investment in a program that would narrow the inequality gap in Canada. If we focus our sights on that and say that it is the true measure of security in our country, we will produce a society that is healthier and more productive. I urge the government to consider the words of these organizations and look at the priorities they have put forward.
