Debates of Oct. 31st, 2006

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have just realized that one principle can trump another. The Conservatives appointed a minister from one of Canada's largest cities. There is currently an election going on in Repentigny. All we are asking is that he run in this election.

The people of Montreal will decide whether they want him as representative. It is not up to the Prime Minister to decide that. It is up to democracy to do so through a vote. Let the people vote and we will see whether they want him for minister.

We are lucky. The first principle of the Conservatives was that senators should be elected. The Conservatives should drop that principle because if senators were elected, they would not have been able to appoint their minister to the Senate. They should be happy.

What is the point in having a principle of an elected Senate if the Conservative government appoints someone just because it feels like it? It appoints someone and then says this is not a partisan appointment.

If I am not mistaken, Mr. Fortier was an organizer for the Conservatives. This is therefore partisanship. Look who was appointed. Is this not partisanship? In my opinion, this is—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I could listen to my hon. colleague all evening but, unfortunately, he only had a minute and I only have a minute to respond to him.

Once again let me reiterate that the public works minister will be stepping down and running in the next general election. He made that commitment when he was appointed to cabinet and the Prime Minister made that commitment when he made the appointment. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that they are not following through on their commitments in terms of re-election.

Mr. Fortier will face the electorate in the next general election. The will of those voters will actually be something that both Mr. Fortier and the Prime Minister will respect. I think the member continues to harp on this issue when in fact he really does not have a constitutional leg to stand on.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on October 25, I asked the minister responsible for housing for her funding plans for SCPI for the 2007-09 fiscal years. The minister stated that these programs were still under review. It was also indicated by the President of the Treasury Board that the government did not intend to cut SCPI.

I would like clarification on several things. First, does the government intend to let the SCPI program die by not refunding the line item? The Liberal government only renewed this program to March 31, 2007 and it is set to die at that time.

Second, I read the financial tables from the Treasury Board. If there is no intended cut, could the government explain where the money is for either SCPI or another federal homelessness program? I could not find any indication in the budget or the estimates distributed where this money has been allocated. In a recent release from the minister she announced four new projects, which is great for those communities, but what about the remainder of Canada? Where is the core funding?

Third, the minister has also claimed to have met with homelessness advocates and groups. I would like the minister to tell me the groups with which she has consulted. I too held a round table with housing groups and not one of them mentioned a meeting with the minister. These were groups that work on the ground helping the homeless and those at risk every day.

Fourth and finally, the minister has repeated over and over that the money has been fully allocated for this year. However, there are still four organizations in my riding that have not received their funding for this fiscal year.

There are only five months left to spend this money. This is ridiculous. Will the minister please answer my question and tell me when all the money will be allocated for this fiscal year? I am particularly interested in the following programs: Youth Opportunities Unlimited, Street Connection, Nokee Kwe Occupational Skill Development Inc., N'Amerind (London) Friendship Centre and At^lohsa Native Family Healing Services Inc. I would appreciate a response.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development]

Mr. Speaker, no cuts have been made to the supporting communities partnership initiative.

The government is now reviewing current policies, approaches, partnerships and delivery models to ensure that federal investments provide concrete, meaningful and lasting results for Canadians. There is no question that homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed and Canada's new government is taking action.

Through budget 2006, the government made $1.4 billion available to the provinces and territories over the next three years to support affordable housing. This is on top of the approximately $2 billion that the government will spend this year, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, primarily in support of some 633,000 lower income households.

Canada's new government recognizes the value of the national homelessness initiative. When the program was set to end in 2006, the government provided nearly $135 million to extend it for another year.

In addition, in August we announced that another $37 million in unspent funds from the previous fiscal year would be available for projects this year. We did this because we wanted to make a difference and help our nation's most vulnerable citizens.

The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development recently announced four new projects in British Columbia, Yukon, Quebec and Nova Scotia, for which we have approved over $1 million in funding under the national homeless initiative. These are just a few recent examples of what the government is doing for homelessness.

Looking forward, I can assure everyone that the government will continue to demonstrate a strong commitment to alleviating homelessness. We are now looking at options on how best to address homelessness in the long term.

Recognizing the value of the national homelessness initiative does not mean there may not be a different approach, perhaps even a better approach. We are not ruling that out, but we have a responsibility to review a system that has been in place for almost seven years without any changes or improvements. How can members of the opposition be against the opportunity to consider alternative potential improvements?

Those truly interested in addressing homelessness should be offering constructive feedback, inputs and suggestions. The government has been very clear that it wants to develop long term sustainable solutions to prevent and reduce homelessness and wants to work together to do it.

We need people who have the hands-on experience and first-hand expertise to guide us in the process. That is why Human Resources and Social Development hosted a round table on homelessness in September. That is why Human Resources and Social Development has met with groups across the country and attended various other conferences and discussion fora on this issue. Ultimately, we want to ensure that the federal government's investments provide concrete, meaningful and lasting results for Canadians.

The problem of homelessness demands action from all levels of government in partnership with communities themselves. The Government of Canada plays an important role in addressing homelessness and will continue to do so. I want to reaffirm that commitment.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to need a late show for the late show. Action is something we can see and I still have not heard anything about the unfunded projects in London, Ontario.

We need to address the root problems of homelessness and one key step is affordable housing. What we really need is a national housing program to ensure that safe, affordable housing is available to all Canadians.

The minister and the parliamentary secretary talk of reviews and options and accountability, while leaving people out in the cold and on the streets because the government cannot be bothered to put up the funding for basic programs. That is not only morally shameful, but it is fiscally irresponsible.

People living on the streets will be forced into hospitals and jails. Despite the Minister of Finance, who was a former minister in Ontario, suggesting that the jails were the best places for homeless people, it is a much more expensive alternative to affordable housing and shelters.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is so unfortunate that the NDP have decided to approach the issues of homelessness rather simplistically, as demonstrated through their call for a blanket four year renewal of the national homelessness initiative or NHI.

Rational thinking would suggest that if one is going to renew a nearly $.5 billion program addressing homelessness, one should at the very best review its effectiveness for both the sake of Canada's homelessness and Canadian taxpayers.

I am proud to report that Canada's new government is committed to ensuring that federal investments to reduce homelessness provide concrete, meaningful and lasting results for Canadians. Our response to homelessness beyond March 2007 will be guided by such principles.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:37 p.m.)